Kyle-Ann,
Thank you for a thought full piece. I agree with you that the presidencies of Lincoln and Bush 43 were similar in some broad areas, and surprisingly in a great many narrower ways as well. The first similarity that struck me way back in 2001/2002 was the calls for negating the constitutionality of the votes that made them president. The paralysis that was caused in government due to the reaction of the Democrat party, which both bordered on and crossed the line of treason, was more easily seen in President Lincoln’s day. As family and friends had to choose sides in Mr. Lincolns time, on September 12th there was no doubt where anyone who was an American citizen stood. But determining who the culprits were and finding ways appropriate to respond as a nation and as individuals is more difficult today than during the time of Lincoln. Lincoln did have many of the same challenges with the press and traitorous leaders of the “loyal opposition” as have plagued President Bush. It is not by accident that democrats looked to history for examples of how to be so ill mannered or for guides to treachery and intrigue. However the south which united in defiance of President Lincoln and Federalism has been mainly stalwart in support of the President and the GWOT. Like Lincoln it is in the Northeast (today please add the west coast) population mecca’s that so much trouble is suckled, where opposition has spurred on frivolous and dangerous litigation and spawned so many lies and so much vitriolic hate for the president.
IMO America today is still grappling with the last vestiges of slaveries’ scourge. Here there is can too be found parallels between the Presidency of George W Bush and what should have been the second Lincoln term of office. A healing process set in motion by President Lincoln was undermined in short order by Carpetbaggers, who rose to power on the backs of freedmen. Having denied the southern population the protections of Federal Troops and protections of Due Process, political forces opposed to the reconstruction plans of Lincoln as implemented by President Andrew Johnson, set in motion a Trial of Impeachment. President Lincoln had the political prowess to avoid such a trial and such and outcome. And I strongly disagree with your assertion that there was no plan for the reconstruction of the south or the binding of wounds caused by years of war. The early efforts in LA and in Northern controlled portions of the south were a model for just such efforts. Efforts which were brought to a ugly and untimely end by the advancement of racism and acts of terror by groups like the KKK.
By sticking to principal and stalling off the efforts of the Democrat Party to derail the efforts of our troops and the political process in Iraq, President Bush compelled the Iraqis to grow beyond the point where assassination or alien intrigue can easily cause an abandonment of democracy’s course.
That Federalism that was forced on Lincoln is one area of contention. Just as the growth of the federal government required by a necessary response to terror, under President Bush, the emergency measures installed in creating the DHS, or the creation of a War Department, is an economy of administration. The trouble is in downsizing to utility in times of peace, without loosing the desired sharp edges required for war as a means of honest deterrence. There is little to recommend a return to how things were in 1787. there is less to suggest a return to the complacency of either December 6th, or September 10th.
I do not think Mr. Moran has given you the look of and idiot. In attempting to paint your article in poor light, Mr. Moran has not only made a case that is out of focus but also out of spite. His is not worth the effort of a response (although I did blow off a bit of steam in comments under his leavings).
To sum up, As men there are great differences between Lincoln and Bush. As Presidents in my opinion, there are remarkable and inspiring similarities.
Thank you again for your thoughtful composition.
