5 ms·

Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change

Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution. [1] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html [2] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
samolang 13y ago
I think there are plenty of quality leaders that exist. The problem is that there are too many cunning politicians that beat them in elections.
- Nursie 13y ago
  And too many people that vote for the tall guy with the good hair, the sharp suit and a suite of meaningless platitudes. Unfortunately we do get the politicians we deserve, though it's true they conspire to make us think our choices are limited.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Actually go through and look at where the money comes from for campaigns and you will note that very often the names in common of the Republican and Democratic donors near the top of the list are quite striking. Calling Obama the Goldman-Sachs candidate and McCain the Morgan-Stanley candidate would be incorrect because these two donated to both candidates... When you bet on both sides (and get to pick the frontrunners), you can't lose.
antoko 13y ago
Actually Lincoln was a pragmatist and had to deal with prioritizing things accordingly. On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves: I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery
- scott_karana 13y ago
  That's a very open statement, and I wish modern politicians were as accomodating to questions like that.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
leephillips 13y ago
There are very few people in the history of people who will look presentable standing next to Lincoln. His combination of moral strength and intellectual fortitude is unsurpassed, and probably unsurpassable. I was gullible enough to vote for Obama, who seems to enjoy making a sport out of seeing how many people he can disappoint as deeply as possible.
- mchusma 13y ago
  Interesting. I've always thought Lincoln (and this quote supports the idea) that he was so obsessed with keeping the union together that he was willing to actively go against morality. For example, keepin the union together is of dubious intent by the people of that time. States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. If I join a club I expect I can leave. Ok the other hand, he did things I would find of dubious morals: -suspend habeaus corpus -wait to free the slaves, and then only do it in the states that were not a part of the union -engage in a bloody war of attrition that killed tons of Americans So on the whole where do you stand on not allowing people to leave your club vs keeping slavery intact (in areas under his control), trampling on the bill of rights, and sending 625,000 people to their death? This is a simplification of things overall, but I would argue less simplistic than "Lincoln is this perfect American hero."
  - jeffdavis 13y ago
    Morality is of little use without a plan to implement it. True moral conviction will search for a way to achieve moral progress. Lincoln was vastly more effective than others, and I attribute that to his strong morality.
    - JamisonM 13y ago
      I agree. He likely understood that a separate south was likely to support slavery for much longer than a south that was part of a union that tolerated slavery in the south for a time, even if the civil war had not occurred. In which case preservation of the union was important to achieving some form of moral progress.
mturmon 13y ago
Lincoln personally abhorred slavery, but he was willing (and did) make accommodations to slavery in the name of saving the Union, acting as a politician in a purely political fashion. The most well-known is his replacing of an Army general, at the start of the Civil War, when he issued an order freeing the slaves in the border state of Missouri. It is well-known that he personally abhorred slavery; I'm speaking of what he felt was his duty to do as President given conditions as they were. He stated it like this (1862): "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. [...] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
VikingCoder 13y ago
That resulted in Civil War, unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus, and then the assassination of the President. I can't imagine why we don't see bold words like that anymore.
arcadeparade 13y ago
Obama isn't a leader, he's a product, advertised in a way no different from toothpaste. Chomsky speaks: >Political managers are well aware that on issues the public often disagrees sharply with the architects of policy. Accordingly, electoral campaigns avoid issues in favor of slogans, oratorical flourishes, personalities, and gossip. Every year, the advertising industry gives an award for the best marketing campaign of the year. In 2008, it was won by Obama, who beat out Apple computers. Executives were euphoric. They exulted openly that this was their greatest success since they began marketing candidates as they do toothpaste and life-style drugs, a technique that took off during the neoliberal period, first with Reagan. http://www.zcommunications.org/the-unipolar-moment-and-the-obama-era-by-noam-chomsky http://www.zcommunications.org/the-unipolar-moment-and-the-o...
- jshen 13y ago
  He could be a leader, and have a marketing campaign. They are not mutually exclusive.
  - montecarl 13y ago
    You're right, but the question to ask is "are current leaders more than a product?".
    - jshen 13y ago
      I'd ask a different question. When we vote for our leaders the way we do, are we creating a system that requires a marketing campaign to win against an opponent with a marketing campaign? Or another question, why did the person I replied to earlier imply that marketing is inherently bad? Is it?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - bladurga 13y ago
    He could also be a woman and a product with a marketing campaign, they are not mutually exclusive.
TamDenholm 13y ago
Yeah i'd like politicians to say less and mean more, but unfortunately you cant get elected unless you pander to every interest group, make sure you're liked enough to be able to "have a beer" with the common man and be connected enough in corporate America to get donations and endorsements from interest groups.
rayiner 13y ago
Are you kidding? Lincoln was the harbinger of consolidation of federal power in the office of the President. He has been described by more than one academic as a borderline dictator. See: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0005.103/--lincoln-administration-and-arbitrary-arrests?rgn=main;view=fulltext http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0005.103/--lincoln-...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

samolang 13y ago

I think there are plenty of quality leaders that exist. The problem is that there are too many cunning politicians that beat them in elections.

Nursie 13y ago
And too many people that vote for the tall guy with the good hair, the sharp suit and a suite of meaningless platitudes. Unfortunately we do get the politicians we deserve, though it's true they conspire to make us think our choices are limited.
einhverfr 13y ago
Actually go through and look at where the money comes from for campaigns and you will note that very often the names in common of the Republican and Democratic donors near the top of the list are quite striking. Calling Obama the Goldman-Sachs candidate and McCain the Morgan-Stanley candidate would be incorrect because these two donated to both candidates... When you bet on both sides (and get to pick the frontrunners), you can't lose.

antoko 13y ago

Actually Lincoln was a pragmatist and had to deal with prioritizing things accordingly. On August 22, 1862, just a few weeks before signing the Proclamation and after he had already discussed a draft of it with his cabinet in July, he wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition. Lincoln differentiates between "my view of official duty"—that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President—and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves: I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

scott_karana 13y ago
That's a very open statement, and I wish modern politicians were as accomodating to questions like that.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

leephillips 13y ago

There are very few people in the history of people who will look presentable standing next to Lincoln. His combination of moral strength and intellectual fortitude is unsurpassed, and probably unsurpassable. I was gullible enough to vote for Obama, who seems to enjoy making a sport out of seeing how many people he can disappoint as deeply as possible.

mchusma 13y ago
Interesting. I've always thought Lincoln (and this quote supports the idea) that he was so obsessed with keeping the union together that he was willing to actively go against morality. For example, keepin the union together is of dubious intent by the people of that time. States petitioned to join, why shouldn't they get out? Seems reasonable to me. If I join a club I expect I can leave. Ok the other hand, he did things I would find of dubious morals: -suspend habeaus corpus -wait to free the slaves, and then only do it in the states that were not a part of the union -engage in a bloody war of attrition that killed tons of Americans So on the whole where do you stand on not allowing people to leave your club vs keeping slavery intact (in areas under his control), trampling on the bill of rights, and sending 625,000 people to their death? This is a simplification of things overall, but I would argue less simplistic than "Lincoln is this perfect American hero."
- jeffdavis 13y ago
  Morality is of little use without a plan to implement it. True moral conviction will search for a way to achieve moral progress. Lincoln was vastly more effective than others, and I attribute that to his strong morality.
  - JamisonM 13y ago
    I agree. He likely understood that a separate south was likely to support slavery for much longer than a south that was part of a union that tolerated slavery in the south for a time, even if the civil war had not occurred. In which case preservation of the union was important to achieving some form of moral progress.

mturmon 13y ago

Lincoln personally abhorred slavery, but he was willing (and did) make accommodations to slavery in the name of saving the Union, acting as a politician in a purely political fashion. The most well-known is his replacing of an Army general, at the start of the Civil War, when he issued an order freeing the slaves in the border state of Missouri. It is well-known that he personally abhorred slavery; I'm speaking of what he felt was his duty to do as President given conditions as they were. He stated it like this (1862): "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. [...] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

VikingCoder 13y ago

That resulted in Civil War, unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus, and then the assassination of the President. I can't imagine why we don't see bold words like that anymore.

arcadeparade 13y ago

Obama isn't a leader, he's a product, advertised in a way no different from toothpaste. Chomsky speaks: >Political managers are well aware that on issues the public often disagrees sharply with the architects of policy. Accordingly, electoral campaigns avoid issues in favor of slogans, oratorical flourishes, personalities, and gossip. Every year, the advertising industry gives an award for the best marketing campaign of the year. In 2008, it was won by Obama, who beat out Apple computers. Executives were euphoric. They exulted openly that this was their greatest success since they began marketing candidates as they do toothpaste and life-style drugs, a technique that took off during the neoliberal period, first with Reagan. http://www.zcommunications.org/the-unipolar-moment-and-the-obama-era-by-noam-chomsky http://www.zcommunications.org/the-unipolar-moment-and-the-o...

jshen 13y ago
He could be a leader, and have a marketing campaign. They are not mutually exclusive.
- montecarl 13y ago
  You're right, but the question to ask is "are current leaders more than a product?".
  - jshen 13y ago
    I'd ask a different question. When we vote for our leaders the way we do, are we creating a system that requires a marketing campaign to win against an opponent with a marketing campaign? Or another question, why did the person I replied to earlier imply that marketing is inherently bad? Is it?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- bladurga 13y ago
  He could also be a woman and a product with a marketing campaign, they are not mutually exclusive.

TamDenholm 13y ago

Yeah i'd like politicians to say less and mean more, but unfortunately you cant get elected unless you pander to every interest group, make sure you're liked enough to be able to "have a beer" with the common man and be connected enough in corporate America to get donations and endorsements from interest groups.

rayiner 13y ago

Are you kidding? Lincoln was the harbinger of consolidation of federal power in the office of the President. He has been described by more than one academic as a borderline dictator. See: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0005.103/--lincoln-administration-and-arbitrary-arrests?rgn=main;view=fulltext http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0005.103/--lincoln-...