No Offense, Abe

Someone sent me an email with a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln. The sentiments were right-wing, conservative to the core. This particular person has sent me these kinds of emails for 21 months now, and I have never responded, out of respect for the sender. Today, for some reason, this broke the camel's back. I think it was because the email quoted Lincoln, a great hero and someone who would have been very proud of Barack Obama's candidacy, I think. I'm not sure it's a real quote, and I'm sure the context in which he spoke was relevant to his words and is now unknowable. Anyway, I responded.

During this political season let's spend some time discussing the wise words attributed to President Lincoln.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot help the poor by allowing the rich to make record salaries, record bonuses, record profits, all on the backs of everyday Americans at the gas station, grocery store, military housing (because let’s not pretend that soldiers make enough money for what they do), and on tax day. You can argue about who exactly is rich, but it’s pretty obvious who exactly is poor.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

The chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If our kids aren’t learning enough, if our adults are job-trained enough, if people who fought in our wars live in cardboard boxes on the streets, if kids can’t afford to go to the dentist and senior citizens can’t afford their prescriptions, then this country’s alleged strength is a house of cards.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

Thrift is defined as “careful management, especially of money.” Was it the average cop, Wal-Mart worker, teacher, or even lawyer, doctor or accountant who mismanaged their money to the point of collapsing the entire economy and now bringing the world economy to the brink of disaster? Or was it the “prosperous” -- those who spent their days dreaming up new Rube Goldberg machines of finance to make themselves richer with sums of money that to them were for playing Monopoly, but to the average family in western Pennsylvania would mean a few years’ worth of income? The encouragement of “thrift” has been code language since the time of the robber barons, used to disdainfully argue that the poor deserve to be so by some failure of character.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

This statement is only true if the wage payer is paying fair wages to its workers, not just reaping astronomical profits and paying them in giant sums to the highest executives, even after those executives get fired or drag the company down into the depths of bankruptcy or worthlessness, destroying pensions and jobs for thousands of people along the way. If the wage payer acts in this way, being brought down a peg is exactly what it needs.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by creating and endorsing a doctrine of preemptive war (even against despots and dictators), by ignoring the advice and counsel of allies, and by playing up fears and encouraging jingoistic and meaningless expressions of patriotism. Instead, as a nation, we must be proud of our roots in freedom and tolerance, and back up our mighty military power, grit and steely determination with the courage of moral conviction as well and by doing more than paying lip service to those who serve bravely in uniform and their families.

Furthermore, the specter of “class hatred” is only raised when the have-nots start speaking up about that fact. When those who mindlessly acquire, those to whom creating wealth is a game and a pastime, treat others as not worthy of regard, when they fritter away pensions, raise the price of heating oil, spend more money running ads for medications we don’t need than either developing new ones or helping people afford those pills they really do need, no one calls that class hatred. They don’t even call it what it is -- appalling dehumanization of fellow countrymen.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people' s initiative and independence.

“Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story, of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to. It is that promise that's always set this country apart, that through hard work and sacrifice each of us can pursue our individual dreams, but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams, as well. That's why I (Barack Obama) stand here tonight (at the convention). Because for 232 years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women -- students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.”

You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

If Abraham Lincoln in fact spoke these words, we know some things about the context in which they were spoken. We know that he didn’t believe that people could free themselves from slavery. We know that he didn’t believe that the northern states could fight the southern all by themselves. We know that as President he ignored warmongers in his government and defused a potential war with Britain, that he did what we would now call “reaching across the aisle” to invite his former adversaries into his Cabinet, and that he supported moderation in the Reconstruction effort, carefully and diplomatically seeking a generous reconciliation among the factions of Americans. As a legislator, he spoke out against the Mexican-American war and offered “Spot Resolutions,” demanding to know the exact spot on U.S. soil where blood was first spilled in war. Speaking out against the general pro-war sentiment at the time, Lincoln said: “God in heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent . . . .” With respect to civil liberties, Lincoln was instrumental in forming the Republican party, which was once based on the principles of republicanism, at its base respecting the liberty of citizens by settling on laws that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by those in power and changed or shaped at the whim of the Executive. As John Adams put it, “they define a republic as a government of laws, not of men.”

So, without offending Mr. Lincoln, I hope, I would offer the following:

A nation cannot be strong without helping the weakest within.
America cannot be leader of the free world, and cannot bring others to freedom, without educating ourselves about, and experiencing compassion for, the nations, and one cannot do those things without a free exchange of ideas and perspectives with other peoples.
The strong need not fear the weak, but should fear their own basest instincts.
One cannot absolve oneself of making one’s fair contribution to the common good by complaining that others aren’t.
Finally, we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper. We cannot continue to call ourselves a Christian nation if we ignore the call to care for the least of these, the weak, the mourning, the poor, the sick, the imprisoned and, yes, even our enemies. Our values, not our bombs nor our money, have always made us the most admired nation on earth and led us to a greatness unsurpassed in human history.

p.s. You might think that I am really getting a kick out of all this, being the political junkie I am. Actually, the opposite is true. I am so sick of it, my stomach hurts. I can't stand the discord. I can't wait until tomorrow is over.