LINCOLN DAY SPEECH

Last night I had the pleasure of speaking before the Strafford County (New Hampshire) Republican's Lincoln Day Dinner. It was a pleasant evening at The Oaks in Somersworth, NH. Senator John Sununu was the Keynote Speaker. Some folks requested that I post the text of my speech to my blog, so here it is.

First, I’d like to thank Bob Kroepel for inviting me to speak before you this evening. I got to know Bob when he ran for governor a few years back. It’s people like Bob, ordinary Americans who love their country and their community, who are the backbone of this country, and the backbone of the Republican Party.

Tonight we are enjoying the Lincoln Day dinner, so Bob asked me if I couldn’t weave in a bit about our first Republican president in my remarks tonight. Having just recently read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, an excellent book on the subject of Lincoln and the men who formed his Civil War cabinet, I think it would be very helpful in these troubled times to look back upon the life and political career of Lincoln, to see if we might not learn a thing or two to help guide us in our own journey.

When Lincoln came of political age the country was dominated by two parties, the Democrats and the Whigs. The Whigs had formed as a result of the smashing of the old National Republican Party by Andrew Jackson in 1832. That same year Lincoln, at the age of 23, ran for the Illinois state legislature. He lost. Not for the first time, Lincoln would rebound from that defeat and continue to persevere toward his goal of serving his country.

Lincoln was first drawn to the Whig Party because of its platform concerning internal improvements, something near and dear to many folks in what was then the developing frontier of America. The political dynamic of the time, as it is during most periods of American life, was dominated by the mundane issues of politics. Most surrounded the right and proper scope of government intervention into the economic life of the nation, things like tariffs, taxes, public works spending and the like. We are all familiar with these arguments, as we have been engaged in them all of our lives, as well.

Reading about Lincoln, what struck me was how this ordinary American, in fact, this ordinary American politician, was transformed into the epic figure we honor today. How is it that this man, who ran and lost as many times as he won elections, who was without a formal education, who was physically ungainly, even ugly, how is it that he became a great man?

The simple answer is that he was a man of his times. And his times were among the most turbulent, violent and consequential of all of American history. For Abraham Lincoln was part of a transformation, at least temporarily, of American politics from the art of deal-making over taxes, tariffs, and government spending, to a politics about the morality of keeping one group of human beings, because of their race, in bondage.

This is the difference between the times of ordinary politics, and extraordinary politics. During times of ordinary politics, elections are held, one party wins seats, another loses them. The next time around things change and the other party gains the upper hand. In between bills are passed and scandals erupt. But, all-in-all, life goes on in the ordinary way.

During times of extraordinary politics, the people of the nation are forced to grapple with existential questions, or questions of profound moral significance. During these times new political parties can be born, and others can fade away. During these times, men are unwilling to simply compromise and hope their side regains the upper hand at the next election. During these times, extraordinary things happen.

Abraham Lincoln lived through such times, and was killed by them. He participated in the formation of a new party, the Republican Party, when he organized the first Republican convention in Illinois in 1856 and became that state’s acknowledged Republican leader, and one of the leading Republicans in the nation.

The reason he did so was simple. Slavery. Here was an issue of profound moral significance. It couldn’t be wished away, or compromised away, although that was tried again and again throughout the early to mid nineteenth century. In fact, the Republican Party was formed as part of the reaction to what was then known as the "Nebraska bill", which is known to history as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and allowed the expansion of slavery into northern territories if the white men of those territories allowed it through the popular vote. This led to an outbreak of guerrilla war in Kansas, so violent that it became known as ‘Bloody Kansas’. Rival groups fought to gain the upper hand, not through ordinary politics, but through murderous violence.

Men like Lincoln could not abide the spread of something they found so morally objectionable as slavery, and the men of the south who favored slavery could not abide its containment fearing the likelihood that the ‘peculiar institution’ would die if it could not expand, and their cherished way of life would die with it.

Here was the collision of one group of people who saw a profound moral wrong, versus those who saw an existential threat. The compromises of ordinary politics could not handle the passions that were aroused by this collision, though men like Lincoln’s some-time friend and long-time rival Stephen A. Douglas tried mightily to do so.

Thus, the Republican Party was formed on the basis of the identification of a basic immorality in American life, and the effort to contain that immorality until it could pass away, which was the belief of Lincoln and many who made up that first group of Republicans.

Of course, you know the rest. Lincoln won the GOP nomination in 1860. The Democrats were split asunder by the slavery issue, with the compromiser Douglas winning their nomination, leading to the walkout of the southern delegates and the creation of a third party. That led to Lincoln’s victory in November, then the secession of the southern states, and the Civil War.

What can we learn from this that might help us in understanding the times we live in now? First, we must ask ourselves this question...are we living during times of ordinary politics, or extraordinary politics?

Again, to answer that, let’s look at history. Three events prior to the Civil War should have given people a clue that, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act, no more compromises were possible.
First, was the murderous violence that beset Kansas in the wake of the act. When people are living in ordinary political times, they don’t resort to violence to achieve their political goals. They scream, they shout, they call their opponents vile names, but they don’t resort to violence (except, of course, for the always present small groups of extremists or criminals).

Second, was the quick disintegration of the Whig Party and the birth and tremendous growth of the Republican Party. People don’t rally to third parties in this country in big numbers during ordinary times. Usually during ordinary times, third party movements are based on compelling individual personalities, like Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party in 1912 or Ross Perot’s Reform Party in 1992, but quickly fade when that personality leaves the scene. This did not happen in 1856. The Republican Party sprang up all over the North, with leading men in all the northern states dropping their prior affiliations to join the GOP.

Third, was that day in 1856 when young South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks came onto the floor of the U.S. Senate, strode up to the desk where Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was sitting writing a speech, and bludgeoned him nearly to death with a heavy cane. Sumner would live, though, according to Goodwin’s book, he suffered brain and spinal cord injuries that would keep him out of the Senate for three years. Brooks had objected to some vituperative language in an anti-slavery speech of Sumner’s directed at some southern colleagues, including Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina, who happened to be Brooks’ cousin.

What is really revealing about this episode is the differing reactions to the incident, North and South. In the North there was mass condemnation, in the South celebration and approval. The Governor of South Carolina awarded Brooks with a silver goblet and a new walking stick as a reward for his efforts.

When people are so polarized by their differences that not only do they look the other way when violence is perpetrated on behalf of their side, but they even reward the violence, then you know we’re living in extraordinary political times.

So, where does that leave us today? Clearly, we are polarized in many respects by our differences. Especially in the last ten years or so, we’ve been treated to harsh language, vitriolic condemnations, and what we now call ‘the politics of personal destruction’. But have we seen guerrilla war in any of our states? Is there a non-personality driven third party rising up in any of our states? Can we expect anytime soon to seen an American congressman bludgeon a U.S. senator, and be lauded for it in his home state and elsewhere?

Clearly, the answer is no. Internally, at least, while we are genuinely divided on a host of important issues, none are of such a profoundly moral or existential nature to the majority of Americans that they are willing to fight and, especially, kill over it.

This, of course, is the perception held by the majority. There are minorities of Americans who believe we are dealing with profoundly moral issues, like abortion, or gay marriage, or animal rights, or global warming. There are plenty involved in each of those issues who believe no compromise is possible. But none carries the kind of national gravity that slavery did. Very few people see their way of life threatened, even if they feel strongly about one or more of those issues. Even fewer are willing to take up arms and kill their political opponents over these issues, if any.

But, it is wise to remember that this can change at any time. The attacks of 9/11 demonstrated that fact as clearly as anything can. In fact, the current struggle with the Islamists is still being fought within the boundaries of political normalcy. Americans go about their daily lives with very little disruption caused by the war. I haven’t had my taxes raised, as I would expect to in an existential struggle. I haven’t seen my friends drafted and gone off to the war, as I would expect in an existential struggle, I haven’t seen shortages, or really feared for the safety of my wife and children. I haven’t seen old political grudges and tactics submerged to help meet the threat, as I would expect to see in an existential struggle.

Mark my words, we are in an existential struggle. In the 1850s Americans watched as the evidence piled up that the politics of normalcy had ended, yet many, perhaps most, could not see it. Even after the rise of the GOP, the guerrilla war in Kansas, the beating of Charles Sumner on the floor of the senate, John Brown’s raid on the Federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry to provide arms for a slave revolt, and Brown’s subsequent hanging. Even after the walkout of the southern delegates from the Democratic convention over the nomination of Douglas, many Americans could not believe that the old rules no longer applied. It was only after the southern states seceded and the guns began bombarding Fort Sumter that Americans realized that they were in a war. Even then, many resisted the thought that it was a fight to the finish until confronted by the growing casualty lists from places like Shiloh, Antietam and Gettysburg.

I think we are living in similar times. While we play our old political games and pretend everything is normal the fight is growing larger and more deadly all across the world. Our enemies suffered setbacks when they lost their bases in Afghanistan. The jury is still out whether or not the battle for Iraq will go in our favor or our enemies. While some on the left talk incessantly about impeaching the president and some on the right talk about overturning Roe v. Wade, and the mainstream media obsesses about whether the Vice-President should have told them sooner he accidentally shot a hunting partner on a Texas ranch, our enemies are still planning and working to ensure our defeat.

Will we wake up? If we are really facing an existential threat, as I believe we are, then inevitably the evidence will make itself known. What form that evidence will take no one can know. It could be the revolutionary overthrow of a friendly Middle Eastern government by the Islamists. More likely, it could be the disruption of oil supplies from the Gulf, sparking an economic crisis. Of course, it could also take the form of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack here at home.

However it happens, whenever it happens, Americans will demand that our political leaders set aside ordinary politics and engage in the extraordinary politics required to meet the threat. Let us hope that when that happens, an ordinary American will rise up, like Abraham Lincoln did, and prove to his contemporaries and his posterity that he is an extraordinary politician, and an extraordinary man.

Thanks again to the folks in the Strafford County GOP for inviting me.