Obama's political tactics are often compared to Lincoln's: his fanboys in the mainstream media claim that he appeals to the "better angels of our nature," as Lincoln sought to do. However reality indicates otherwise. Obama's handling of the Gates-Crowley affair smacks of his trademark cheap political maneuvering.
Lets just take a quick look at the different constituencies Obama has pandered to in an incident which appears as insignificant as can possibly be. First, he appealed to the pragmatic instinct by using the word "stupid," then to the aggrieved minority psychology by linking the minor incident to the story of race-relations in America. Next, he placated the "everyman" by his invitation to "have a beer." Finally he appealed to the dreamer in all of us by personally inviting a lowly police officer to the White House. Rather than appealing to the "better angels" of our nature.. he sought to pacify the basest instincts in each constituency. This is not a solitary occurrence, but rather the continuation of a rather disturbing trend.
A couple months ago, while facing a rather hostile audience during the depths of the current recession, Obama (after making his standard excuse of blaming the Bush administration for his own impotence) quickly turned the opinion of the crowd by personally offering a job to a specific young man in the audience. Any sensible person would quickly realize that one job is insignificant in the larger economy, but Obama was sending a message: just ask loudly enough, and the messiah would answer your prayers. The emotions he sought were, once again, not our "better angels", but instead our "wishful thinking" and the "false hopes" of those currently facing financial distress.
Of course, all the news media quickly picked up on the spontaneous offer, and it became the story of the day. This was despite the fact that Obama's response to the automobile industry collapse was failing financially, ethically and most importantly for him, popularly. Obama is a highly skilled politician, perhaps even a genius, but to the few of us left with brains he is perhaps a little too good at pacifying the "passions" of the masses. Lets compare these actions of Obama to those of another political genius, and his sentimental forebear, Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln often faced hostile, racist audiences during his campaigns for office. The country was far more divided then than it is now, but Lincoln never wavered in response to various self-interested constituencies. Instead, he sought to use his political abilities to truly change people's minds. During one famous debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln made the following statement:
Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color—perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.
Now to some that seems a racist statement, but if you read carefully it is nothing of the sort. First he states the obvious.. the skin colors of different ethnic groups are certainly not "equal", without claiming that one was superior to another. Then he makes a clearly moral argument; that EVEN if one believes that certain people are inferior to others it does not give them the right to take what they have. He was asking those in the audience to CHANGE their views about natural equality of all people. He was truly appealing to the "better angels" of people whose view any modern person would find deeply offensive. Obama is a masterful politician on the level of Lincoln, and many times in fact does display the ethical standards that Lincoln employed, but he regularly he prefers cheap political stunts to honest argumentation. He appeals far too often, and far too successfully, to our basest instincts. Say what you will about the story of Barack Obama, and there is a lot to be said, but he is certainly no Abraham Lincoln.
