Team of Rivals

I just finished reading “Team of Rivals,” subtitled, “The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,” written by Doris Kearns Goodwin. I highly recommend it. While reading it I kept thinking of our present politics.

The title refers to the fact that Lincoln appointed to his cabinet a number of the men who opposed him, and each other, in the race for the Republican nomination. Many people at the time considered it an act of folly. Lincoln’s political genius had not publicly manifested itself at the beginning and most observers though he would be overshadowed. Also, these were men who had schemed against him in the backroom politics of the day. Lincoln held no grudges. He recognized both the talents of his rivals and his need for the support of their constituencies. His political shrewdness in this was multifaceted. He had the services of the most intelligent and hardworking men that the political system could offer. He could satisfy the factions in his party by letting them spout off without committing himself. His cabinet members got blamed by opposing factions for Lincoln’s policies. They were all ambitious and suspicious of each other, so they each tended to ally with him against the others. In the end, he gained their respect and loyalty.

Contrast this to the monolithic gang of yes-men (and women) that surround modern presidents.

The Republican party of the 1850’s sprang mostly from the disintegrating Whig party. There were radical abolitionist Whigs, moderate “Free Soil” Whigs, and conservative anti-immigrant Whigs. Some present-day commentators have noted that a political party is in trouble when people have to ask, “Ok, but what kind of (insert name of party) are you?” This fragmentation and lack of definition afflicts both parties.

Both the Free Soil and anti-immigrant movements of the mid-19th century remind me of the immigration debate today. The Free Soilers looked at the economy of the south and realized that a free man could not earn a living in a state where others could be forced to do the same work for inadequate food and shelter, plus beatings. They opposed the extension of slavery to the new western territories. The so-called “Know Nothing” nativists were motivated by a mixture of xenophobia, religious intolerance, and an aversion to the competition from an immigrant labor force. The wealthy southern Democrats relied on slave labor and used the myth of racial superiority to enlist poor southern whites in supporting the slavery that kept them poor. Sound familiar? Today we have wealthy corporate interests enlisting blue-collar conservatives in opposing “amnesty” for undocumented Mexican workers. This amnesty would place the Mexicans under the protection of minimum wage and workplace safety laws, thus improving conditions for American blue-collar workers.

The globalization debate covers the same issues, with Americans buried under a hail of propaganda. Apparently, competing with 30-cent-an-hour workers in China is somehow inescapable, necessary and beneficial to our economy. Note to the historically impaired: The abolitionists and Free Soil movement eventually won.

Another striking thing that Goodwin points out about the years preceding the Civil War is the deterioration of public regard for the institutions of government and the commonalties that bound the nation, as well as the growing violence and incivility of the debate. The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision in 1857 denied the possibility of citizenship to blacks and extended the possibility of slave ownership to the new western territories. It was widely regarded as a partisan political decision favoring the southern Democrats. People in northern states were enraged and debated whether they should obey the ruling. The reputation of the court didn’t recover for a generation. It brings to mind Bush v. Gore in 2000. Then as now, a highly partisan, conflicted Supreme Court abandoned its traditions and its adherence to precedent to deliver a desired political result.

The electoral process was widely seen as corrupt, with plenty of backroom deals and unelected power brokers throwing cash around. The extreme ends of the political spectrum utterly distrusted the government.

The attack bloggers and shock jocks spraying spittle across the electronic media are disappointingly reminiscent of the ultra-partisan slander sheets of that era. The goal of objective journalism was not in wide circulation in the mid-19th century, and vilifying one’s political opposites as lunatics, mental defectives, traitors, perverts, and criminals was ordinary press coverage. Congress was no more civil. The conflict occasionally spilled over into physical violence. At least our vice-president limited himself to an isolated obscenity.

Slavery was the wedge issue of the day, in the same way that abortion, gun control, or the Iraq war would be today. Just as today, many politicians sacrificed principle in favor of party unity, and watched their party fracture anyway. The country eventually split along this seam. As with many emotionally charged issues today, the opposing sides could find no common ground on which to debate, merely exchanging ritualized insults. Will there be a new fault line?

After reading Team of Rivals I wonder what kind of earthquake we will experience in 21st century American politics. The Republicans are fragmented between neocons, religious fundamentalists, old-line fiscal conservatives, and moderates, with splits on abortion, immigration, and the Iraq war. The Democrats are lined up for a split between economic populists and the big money DLC wing. Much of our press coverage has devolved into either stenography or character assassination. We have what is essentially a mixed slave/free economy in the U.S., the slaves being a combination of undocumented immigrant labor, overseas sweat labor (actual slave labor in some places), and fossil fuel energy. This last element may be a surprising thought to many people, but consider that most human energy inputs into our economy have been replaced by this uncomplaining, never tiring, underpaid black servant. (Every kilowatt-hour you buy for a few pennies is equivalent to a day of hard human labor.) As with the exploited human labor, there are serious moral issues bound up with the use of oil, coal and natural gas, as well as uranium.

We could use a Lincoln.