"OBAMA STUMBLES IN LINCOLN'S FOOTSTEPS"

From Eric Foner at the Guardian:

President Obama's tax deal with congressional Republicans may well turn out to be a defining moment in his presidency. This is less because of its content than what it tells us about Obama himself and his politics.

During the 2008 campaign, many observers compared Obama with Abraham Lincoln. Obama encouraged this, announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Lincoln's home, and taking the oath of office on the bible Lincoln used in 1861. (He trumped his predecessor, however, by having two preachers speak at his inauguration. Lincoln managed to be sworn in twice without hearing from a single minister.)

The comparison of Obama to Lincoln always seemed a stretch to me, except in the sense that Obama set the people of the US free from the Bush maladministration and its dreadful actions and policies. I keep in mind that the American people chose to elect Bush twice as their president. Oh wait! The US Supreme Court gave us the first Bush presidency, but with full knowledge of what kind of president he was, we reelected him.

Obama's rather petulant response to liberal critics of his tax deal, however, reveals a fundamental difference between the two men. Obama accuses liberals of being sanctimonious purists, more interested in staking out a principled position than getting things accomplished. Lincoln, too, faced critics on the left of his own party. Abolitionists, who agitated outside the political system, and Radical Republicans, who represented the abolitionist sensibility in politics, frequently criticised Lincoln for what they saw as his slowness in attacking slavery during the civil war. In 1864, one group of Radicals even sought to replace Lincoln with their own candidate, John C Frémont.

Lincoln, however, was openminded, intellectually curious and willing to listen to critics in his own party – qualities Obama appears to lack. Lincoln met frequently in the White House with abolitionists and Radicals, and befriended Radicals like Charles Sumner and Owen Lovejoy. Obama has surrounded himself with "yes men". Alternative views – on the economy, the nation's wars, etc – fail to penetrate his inner sanctum. Lincoln saw himself as part of a broad antislavery movement of which the Radicals were also a part. Obama has no personal or political connection to the labour movement, or even, although it seems counterintuitive, the civil rights movement – the seedbeds of modern Democratic party liberalism.

Foner is right. Obama surrounded himself with the like-minded when he appointed his advisors and Cabinet members. And then when certain of the people who elected him and Democratic members of Congress dared to criticize his policies, Obama resorted to name-calling - surely a low point in his presidency, following his previous low point of giving in to Republicans on the tax deal. Obama may believe that he has the votes of Democrats in his pocket, no matter what he does or says, but he should remember that although Democrats probably won't vote Republican, they may stay away from the polls on election day or vote for a third party candidate. We may be on the cusp of the fracture of the two-party system here in the US. Most certainly, neither party represents my views.