Google
 
Web Osi Speaks!

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Lincolnism vs. Reaganism: Sobering truths or comforting flattery?

George Will in this column presents a great discussion distinguishing Lincolnism from Reaganism and helping explain (and blame Reaganism -- remember REAGANOMICS -- for) the advent of big government conservatism. Here are excerpts: "An unmentionable irony is that big-government conservatism is an inevitable result of Reaganism," writes Will, quoting author John Patrick Diggins' new book, Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History. "Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism['s] unique, and perhaps oxymoronic, doctrine -- conservatism without anxieties [--] cannot [and I add: SHOULD NOT] define conservatism", advises Will. Diggins, a historian at the City University of New York, points out that Reagan's religion, Unitarianism, is the culprit. Reagan's religion "enables us to forget religion" because it banishes the idea of "a God of judgment and punishment." This logic allows us no reason to discipline our desires, but invites us to instead blame government for any shortcomings. Contrast that with Lincoln's religion and "... belief (see his Second Inaugural) that the failings of the people on both sides of the Civil War were the reasons why 'the war came'" and you get the picture. On the question of which of the two men has the correct theory of government, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, it is apparent that Reagan's "theory of government has little reference to the principles of the American founding", according to Diggins. The Founders, especially the wise James Madison, saw government's primary function as "resist[ing], modulat[ing] and even frustrat[ing] the public's unruly passions, which arise from desires". The Founders, the true Conservatives, constructed a government of admirable checks and balances "to check [and balance] the demands of the people." Madison's Constitution, which Lincoln was martyred fighting to uphold, is an attempt to solve the big problem of unruly human nature. "Reagan let human nature off the hook", observes Diggins, as Will rightly concludes that "Reaganism tells people comforting and flattering things that they want to hear [while] the Madisonian [and Lincolnian] persuasion tells them sobering truths that they need to know."
To me, this dichotomy explains why some may prefer Reagan to Lincoln: One tells them "comforting words" that they want to hear, such as that they are not responsible for their desires and actions, which are inherently good; the other tells them "sobering truths" about man's evil nature and sets up government -- with checks and balances -- to curtail, and even frustrate, their unruly passions and desires. No comforting flattery for this guy. ABRAHAM LINCOLN's sobering truths are what I need to know.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Johnathan Gay said...

Osi:

I always enjoy Will but I'm not sure we can blame Reagan's sunny demeanor on the failings of modern conservatism anymore than we can credit Lincoln's pessimism with its greatness.

First, Reagan lived in an era where we needed a cheerful warrior. We had just survived the mailaise of Dark Nixon and Hapless Carter. (Not to mention Vietnam, LBJ and RFK, and JFK and Lee Oswald.) It was time we smiled again.

Conversely, Lincoln faced the very real possibility that our country would be dissolved. Add to that the stress he faced at home and it's a wonder he survived to be shot by Booth.

But while I disagree as to the source of Lincoln's greatness, I do agree that he was the greatest of all our Presidents.

For me, the great thing about Lincoln was that he was a nationalist. He recognized that America could be great but that it needed selfless leaders and efficient, not necessarily small, and certainly not libertarian, government. He was, along with Henry Clay, G. Washington and A. Hamilton, one of the first national greatness conservatives.

Yet all the above were pardoxically conservative. They wanted to protect private property, ensure domestic tranquility and peace, build a great nation based on commerce, and ensure against radical and evil doctrines such as those propounded by French Revolutionaries and Jefferson Davis alike.

At the same time all these leaders sought to build a powerful national government, to move rapidly into uncharted economic terrain, to encourage the development of vast tracts of wild lands, and, most radically of all, free the slaves even if it meant fighting a war to do so.

What we need today is a renewed focus on the economic well being of all Americans. Not protectionism, mind you, but providinism... provide our poor with skills and education rather than handouts. Teach them to fish rather than giving them fish.

We also need a great mission. One has the potential to open up new lands, new mineral wealth, new energy deposits. Think out of this world... literally.

For me, both Reagan and Bush are heirs to Lincoln in some ways. But McCain's the most logical heir.

Finally, I spent some time tonight looking at Lincolnomics. If you get a chance, pls provide your insight.

Keep up the good work.

11:00 PM  
Blogger KYJurisDoctor said...

Johnathan, I AGREE with EVERYTHING you said here. I also agree that Reagan, Bush and McCain are "heirs" to Lincoln -- but only to the extent that they belong to the same party. Bush is a Reaganite, not a Lincolnite, and McCain? Well, it depends on WHICH McCain you refer to -- the Maverick or the candidate? I will write about Lincolnomics, as you suggest when I have time. But I think you have you have done a marvelous job on it already, by tracing Lincoln's Whig party roots and Whig's American School/System's 5 economic principles or cardinal points of: 1) Support for industry, especially "infant industry"; 2) Creation of physical infrastructure, such as railroads; 3) Creation of financial infrastructure, like national banks; 4) Government support for the development of science and public education -- common schools; and, 5) A rejection of class struggle, in favor of the "Harmony of Interests" between various competing interest groups.
Thanks for your kind words, and you keep up the good work too.

11:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home