the funny thing is that many of the comments on the guardian site are from people who obviously can't extract themselves from the american superiority complex.

i have to say, as someone who has lived in a country with national health care (australia), the single biggest factor against returning to america was the health care situation here (well, and the four weeks of holiday a year i was going to lose).

i really think every american who goes to college should spend at least one year living in another industrialized nation with universal health care.

it certainly changed me; i was a libertarian before i went to australia. being there taught me that only in america does government not work (i'm talking first-world industrialized nations here). and that's because there's a large group of conservative ideologues that refuse to allow it to work -- and in fact make supreme efforts to prevent it from working, if only to prove their theory.

it seems that american conservatives want to sabotage government purely out of spite.

Felix Rohatyn, who co-chaired a commission on rebuilding American infrastructure, added: "Whether it's their high-speed trains, whether it's their airports, whether it's their roads or the way they run their cities, European infrastructure, which is financed by the European investment bank by selling long-term bonds to the public, is a perfectly wonderful system." But, no, the American right thinks it's our way or the highway.

In general, I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis of the destructive influence of conservatism, particularly in the areas of foreign policy and healthcare.  However, I don't think the state of American infrastructure can be laid wholly at the feet of an arrogant movement conservatism.

First of all, American infrastructure is in worse shape than that of Europe or Japan (I'm taking this as a given, although I'd be interested to know what evidence exists that this is actually true) because much of it is older.  Many bridges, tunnels and roads were built in the 1920s and 30s.  Much of European and Japanese infrastructure was destroyed in WWII and not rebuilt until the 50s and 60s (not to mention the fact that in general Japanese infrastructure is also underinvested and in poorer shape than American infrastructure).

Second, federal funding for infrastructure is heavily skewed towards new projects rather than maintaining existing assets.  The system of Congressmen bringing home the bacon and using those bragging rights to help their re-election heavily favors splashy new things, like a new bridge or highway, rather than shoring up existing ones.

At best, you can say that Americans' hostility to taxes in general, which the right of course encourages, means that getting funding for basic bread-and-butter things like maintaining bridges and roads is very hard.  Until that changes, and there are signs it will, we will never be able to invest what we need.

If Democrats are smart, they will turn the Minneapolis bridge collapse to their advantage.  Go on the offensive and push for more investment (and more taxes) for infrastructure.  When the GOP inevitably balks at higher taxes, say that they are the party of collapsing bridges.  The commercials almost write themselves.

Don't Forget the Umbili-cytes.
If you start with a President with no knowledge of foreign affairs or even other cultural human perspectives outside his cloistered existence who will only appoint toadies and umbilicytes to high offices, the result is arrogance squared.

You didn't even get round to mentioning elections... Not only do the Euros have high turn-outs (France this year was ~80% I think), they manually count all their votes, and there's no variance between exit polls and actual results.

I have to be honest, I thought your article was fine, and not exactly earth-shattering in terms of its observations or analysis. All important stuff, but also fairly obvious. However its troll magnetism was something else to behold.

This makes sense only if European contracts are fixed-price, and repair costs have to be eaten by the contractor.  I highly doubt this is the case.  If anything, if the repair contract is locked in, there is an incentive to leave things shoddy so as to keep the repair contracts flowing.

But that's also far-fetched.  In any case, I also highly doubt that shoddy construction is more common in the US than it is in Europe.  When I lived in the UK, I remember many stories about shoddy construction.

European infrastructure is older than American infrastructure? Funny, I'm pretty sure that there were a few folks who waved goodbye to the Santa Maria and the Mayflower from...wait for it...bridges. :^)

But overall I see your point--and the connection that the Republicans are the party of collapsing bridges is a very good way to make the issue clear.

The shadow government of transnationals, global corporatists, et al do not move in the quaint dimensions of normative human emotions such as arrogance. They live in a rarified realm which, in normative human terms, would be considered sociopathic, but is merely, to them, expedient. There is no human cost which would dissuade them from wars, invasions, "collateral damage," or the mass enslavement of the vast majority of the globe's labor to subsistence existence.

It's only business, you see. Profit, only profit, is king. There is no ideology apart from this. That is what they pay all the right wing thinktanks millions, even billions, to spin words for them. Of course they own the broadcast and much of the print media so it is no surprise they were able to steal two elections and start a war based on lies.

Nothing impeachable there. Perjury and semen stains, yes. But mass murder, illegal wars of agression, the shredding of the constitution : well, that's just left wing hysterical BUSH HATING. Bill O Wrongly has called YearlyKos nothing but nazi KKK hate. Wow. Talk about projection.

The ingnorant and easily led public assumes the truth is somewhere in the middle. That is why the right keeps pushing everything so far right that Goldwater and Nixon would be laughed to scorn today as naive liberals and godless commies by Kristol and gang.

Is there hope? Probably not.

Well, spite AND profit.

Outsourcing government jobs, for example = fewer evil civil servants and more money in the crony's pockets.

And it's in the true spirit of Saint Raygun and Uncle Grover with "government isn't the solution, it's the problem, just elect me and I'll prove it'" and "drown it in the bathtub" statements.

I agree, there is a nexus between arrogance and ignorance. It is equally true to say that while arrogance encourages ignorance, ignorance allows for arrogance. The US has a combination of both and while this is an undeveloped thought, I would speculate that each needs the other.
I had what I thought (at the time) was a unique experience when, in reply to an American assertion that it was the greatest country in the world I asked why? After giving a couple quips on 'freedom' (et al) and my reply that other countries have similar freedoms; frustration seemed to set in. Ultimately the answer was (a direct quote) "if it wasn't why does everyone want to live here!?!" I was at a loss for words.

Of course not all the US citizenry is ignorant or arrogant(TPM demonstrates that clearly) but what I thought was a rather unique turned out no to be so unique. There is a strong need to believe, and a strong directive from this administration to believe.

Yes, and the Romans built roads and bridges as well.

Countries that were heavily bombed in the war, like Germany, Japan, Poland etc. had to rebuild.  More importantly, the US was one of the first industrialized countries, which is also why much of its infrastructure is older.  Modern highways didn't get started in Europe until the 1960s, many years after the US had started building.

It is typical of imperialist governments to have a superiority complex.

Tom

mj,

When I see some people babbling "this is the greatest country in the world" I sometimes get the feeling that this particular babbler was never outside of Broken Wheel, Arkansas.

I agree with you completely. I have lived in half a dozen other countries and visited many more, and the idea that America is best in everything is not only wrong but is mocked by foreigners who know better. America does have its strengths, but we can learn from others too.

One American writer who knows this is true is Rick Steves, the Europe travel guy. He writes:

"Travel has sharpened both my love of what America stands for and my connection with our world. And lessons I've learned far from home combined with passion for America have heightened my drive to challenge my countrymen to higher ideals. Crass materialism and a global perspective don't mix. We can enjoy the fruits of our hard work and still be a loved and respected nation. While I've found no easy answers, I spend more time than ever searching. The world needs America the beautiful. But lately, the world sees America as more aggressive and materialistic than beautiful. . . Europeans don't have the opportunities to get rich that Americans do. And those with lots of money are highly taxed. But Europeans consume about a third of what Americans do and they claim they live better. Most Europeans like their system and believe they spend less time working, have less stress, enjoy longer life spans, take longer vacations, and savor more leisurely (and tastier) meals. They experience less violence and enjoy a stronger sense of community."[Rick's correct.]

http://www.ricksteves.biz/about/pressroom/activism/innocents.htm

Every month or so I am privileged to get together for two weeks with an ever-changing group of individuals from overseas coming here for training.

These people are very polite and humble guests when they first arrive. Their first disappointment is when their cellphones don't work in this country (even though they work in the rest of the world). They can't get prepaid sim cards to put in their phones, and most end up having to buy prepaid phone cards to call home and their offices.

Their second disappointment is with the news infrastructure. What little passes for "world news" is so soft that they have to end up going online to read about any significant development in their own countries (unless a story is "all-terror/24-7", then it's played for everything it's worth).

Over the course of the two weeks, these well-traveled, well versed people gain a stark lesson in what America has become under this "conservative" streak in American politics. At dinner just two weeks ago, after a meal and several glasses of wine and knowing of my distaste for the Bush Regime, they just couldn't contain themselves.

"What has happened to Americans?", they asked me in disbelief. "This is not the country we had grown to love, and see as something to be aspiring to." That particular group at the table consisted of 8 men that between them had traveled to over thirty countries on four continents. To a person, they were appalled at the lack of anger in the population of this country at the state of governmental affairs and the passivity with which Bush and politicians were dealt. A Bangladeshi spoke up and told me of a protest against the government in his country that was led by women! "WOMEN!!", he exclaimed. He said American women were always thought of as aggressive until he saw their lack of participation in the affairs of the country.

At a briefing by the Department of Transportation, an official was asked how much money it would take to rehabilitate the infrastructure in this country. He responded by saying probably just a few cents per gallon increase in the fuel tax would do it, but that an increase was not the current administration's policy. Privatization was the direction that the government was going. They brought that up at dinner, too.

"Why when gasoline goes up a quarter dollar a month here do you think anyone would care about a few cents!!" They had a great laugh around the table at that one!

I prize these times when I can get some unvarnished opinion from people that are able to recognize bullshit when they see it. There is much about their countries that they wish to change, but when they come here to learn and see with their own eyes that there isn't much worth modeling anymore, I almost feel worse for them than for me.

The image of this country was still riding high just a few short years ago before this nasty Bushite element of our political life surfaced and took control. It's much easier (and cheaper) to maintain a good global image than it is to try to repair a bad one from the bottom up.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

Re: Can one of our Canadian friends (assuming you're not ALL pissed at us!) verify if the individual or the government health care pays for this.

I think the Canadian government must have a hand in paying for some Canadian healthcare in the US, at least for their snowbirds who live in Florida part of the year. In St Petersburg there's a Canadian Medical Clinic (so labeled on the building and signs) flying the Maple Leaf flag in front, apparently for the benefit of the rather significant winter population of Canadians. By the way, I read some years back that Medicare has to pick up the healthcare tab of any American traveling through Canada en route to or from Alaska.

Not to mention decades of run away military spending in general. Other factors mentioned by others obviously also play a role, but the whole Canadian health care system (which is, from someone who has lived within it for 35 years, is excellent)is covered by what we do not spend on our military.

Immediately many Americans will argue that Canada is 'protected by US power' to which I would say: from whom? There is no earthly way any nation on earth could or would invade either Canada or the United States (unless the United States invaded Canada for the oil and there is little prospect we could do anything about that no matter how much we spent).

Yes, there are terrorists, but what use is any army beyond an effective (and undeployed to Iraq) national guard against that sort of attack? Yes there are other nations with missles and bombs, but what is the point of using them and risking retaliation? And, I would prefer to risk the possibility that North Korea or Iran, or for that matter Russia or China, could hit Canada with a missile to giving up health care on the chance that they might try and actually succeed.

global citizen

This, by the way, is an excellent post. I appreciate it very much. I am still American enough after 30 plus years outside the country to remember the positive aspects -- the generosity, the lack of personal arrogance in most people. Most people in the workld cannot see that, it is being drowned in a sea of stupidity and arrogance. Giuliani's remarks are so Bush-like it is frightening. Is there no Conservative left with a shred of decency? Where the hell did they all go. They were still there when I left.

global citizen

America really is a brutish intolerant nation and if we were all completely honest about our own history we'd realize that we've basically always been so. I do still hold out some hope that we can alter our course but it's very small hope indeed.

I think from the moment our forefathers set foot on the ground of this continent we assumed we were superior and entitled. This position made our conquest of the continent a more civilized exercise. I mean after all we were bringing civilization and God to the heathens, the least they could do in return was give us all of the land and it's resources (and then go extinct living in what amounted to concentration camps). Not such a glorious beginning.

Then we have the waves of immigrants that have hit our shores throughout our history. Now we love the idea of the Statue of Liberty and the whole warm & fuzzy "huddled masses" storyline but it hardly reflects our real feelings or treatment of immigrants. They've never been well received when coming to our country. Quite the opposite in fact. They've been despised, shunned, exploited and oppressed. Only after many generations were groups of immigrants able to shake off the prejudices and become generally accepted as mythical "real Americans" (although there will always be a certain amount of bigotry).

Then we can look at how we've treated our neighbors. Mexico, Central and South America have more than enough reason to despise our country. We've waged a multitude of wars against them throughout our history. And when we weren't attacking them directly we were propping up dictators or fostering coup attempts for new dictators we'd groomed for "America-friendly" roles. Even now we are fighting the amorphous and dubious "War on Drugs" with little oversight and no clear account to the amount of money we're spending, the number of troops we're using nor the number of casualties we're responsible for. We here in this country just can not comprehend living life with tanks, helicopters and machineguns as prevalent in our daily lives as traffic jams, billboards and fast food restaurants. This country needed an invasion or three accompanied by an few occupations to perhaps plant some seeds of compassion and understanding in our collective consciences. Curse you Atlantic and Pacific oceans...

And then there's the Jane and John Doe working-class American. Now you'd think that with all of our hubris and the contempt we have for the rest of the world that the only feelings we'd have left for our own general population would be somewhat more compassionate right? Wrong. Looking at our history you'll find the average working man and woman have been brutally treated and exploited. Not even children escaped the clutches of institutionalized greed. Our citizens are treated terrible but kept somewhat content with "stuff" made available with credit because we certainly can't afford it. Our air, land, food and water is polluted without regard to our citizens health in large part because caring about it cuts too deeply into profitability. We force our workers to work longer hours for less money. And we do not provide adequate health care, education or pensions for our citizens and once their usefulness has expired they are tossed aside. If America were a giant family it would be an extremely dysfunctional one and likely be required to receive counseling along with weekly visits from child services.

In the end I think that we here in America view every single thing on the planet as a sponge and we try to squeeze every last drop of whatever we can get out of things for our own personal benefit. And when I say "our own" I do not mean the collective "we Americans" I mean the individual "me Americans". And while there is certainly a divide between American conservatives and American liberals, it's not an enormously deep or wide divide because the vast majority on both sides in this country can be considered "me Americans". Our nation lives under the fantastical notion that we are and always have been a noble and just country and that's simply not true. This is not to say that there aren't plenty of decent, humble, hard-working people across this vast nation, there certainly are. But if it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the barrel what do millions of them do?

Blair was perhaps controversial, but by no means considered a failed PM. Iraq was widely perceived as Blair's big mistake, but quite a few Brits thought his 10 years in Downing Street were successful. Sure, some people were real glad to see Blair go. Others thought Blair was one of the more successful British PMs in history.

Besides, Blair didn't leave entirely voluntarily. He was given a choice to leave on his own terms or be ousted, and chose the former.

America really is a brutish intolerant nation and if we were all completely honest about our own history we'd realize that we've basically always been so. I do still hold out some hope that we can alter our course but it's very small hope indeed.

********************************************

Such a horrible place. Can't imagine why anyone would want to immigrate here

I guess my answer to that would be Yin & Yang. There's no such thing as 100% good or evil so there is something appealing to someone in everything (or everyplace). America certainly offers opportunities to all sorts of people. I guess my point is that we're probably guilty of several counts of false advertising!

I know that was intended to be snark, but nevertheless: People want to come here to share in the wealth they see us all having. They can get jobs here, perhaps poor paying jobs, but better jobs than are available where they live. It is economic, in other words.

Notice that the Mexican people who work so hard to get here, legally or otherwise, don't generally bring in their families. They come to get money to send to their families, to save, and then to go back home. Of course, in discussing people by the millions, there are exceptions to everything that can be said.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Foreigners still like Americans, I believe. A Greek told me: We like Americans, but we don't like your government. I imagine that's not unusual.

Foreigners have had repressive governments in their past (or present) and they knew that while their government was bad, they themselves weren't, and they extend the same recognition to us. Also, they have better news media than we do in many cases, and they know what we're going through politically.

So be proud, and don't be afraid of being hated in another country (except Iraq and Afghanistan).

Well if I were truly cynical I'd say that to those kinds of folks a library might be considered a place where they keep their kindling. After all the only book ya need is the "good book"!

Of course. The right wingers aren't against government, they're against GOOD government. They're all for more government involvement if it means letting the police break down your door without a warrant, or when the NSA is tapping your phone, or when the Pentagon sends your brother or sister off to fight and die for no reason. They're only against government when it actually tries to do people some good, like providing a job, a meal, or a doctor's visit.

Hey, Captain Obvious, of course our infrastructure is in worse shape than Europe's because it's older. What OTHER reason could there be?

But I guarantee you we're not initiating more NEW projects than the Europeans, either.

And of course the state of American infrastructure can be laid at the feet of conservative arrogance. The trillion or two that the Iraq War is gonna cost is clearly pauperizing domestic programs, of which infrastructure rehabilitation should be a #1 priority, and would have been in a Democratic administration.

The neocon goal is and has always been the remilitarization of the American society. Part of a militaristic society is a low level of physical well-being, which feeds into individual anger and contempt for the "enemy", who can be blamed for the people's unsatisfactory physical lives. A crummy, crumbling infrastructure is not just a byproduct of right wing arrogance, it's a goal.

In one sense it's not very important whether the US is an arrogant imperialist power or only smells a little like one. The important question is whether we are trying to be jerks, or something better, and what better consists of.

Yet another no post to delete...damned browser...

SeeDee"Modern highways didn't get started in Europe until the 1960's, many years after the US had started building"...per BradtheDad.

You must have forgotten that the autobahn system built by the Nazis in Germany (starting in the 1930's) preceded our own Interstate system by twenty years..

Of course, the system was limited to inside Germany, but some of the engineeribng was used by U.S. highway designers in the late 40's and 50's.

Your Father was a part of me, I jumped into Normandy with the 82nd.

Yes but many bridges and roads had to be rebuilt after the war.  That was my only point.  The US was the only major power to emerge from the war without major damage to infrastructure.

Europeans aren't lining up to immigrate here any longer. Now, it's people from countries that have endemic poverty worse then we do.
*******************************************
The numbers don't support this:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls

The number of Europeans receiving permanent resident status per year is up 38% from 1997 to 2006. Over the same period Australia is up 99% and Canada 57%. The UK alone is up 61%

mcboo : in your long list of peoples this nation has discriminated against, you somehow forgot to mention african american slaves and jim crow after slavery was, at least officially, abolished. This was and still is the greatest American sin. Most of the platitudes and lofty talk about this nation being the greatest needs only to look at how blacks have been treated for 400 years. Despite ricidulously false assertions in the declaration of independence that "all men are created equal," slavery was legal and blacks were only counted as 2/3rds for the census. Most mainstreat "christian" churches supported slavery. Only the Quakers were abolitionists. Purple mountains, amber waves of grain my ass. Bullshit jive talk, dog and pony chain jerking time all the time, all day, every day.

What used to be the aristocracy of white land owning men has morphed into big business elites acting in largely the same fashion. "And the rockets red flare and bombs bursting in air" - yeah, we love that shiite. Bomb Iraq to hell and then pretend to rebuild it charging the host nation several trillion while actually rebuilding nothing. O yeah, we might need to murder a few million brown people. It's how it's always been done by this great nation, the bestest most greatest nation in the whole wide world. Isn't that right Virginia?

pgbach said:

The last hope for this country is the 2008 election: it will either relegate the GOP to the garbage dump of history from which it arose in the 1950s or the USA is doomed. Of course, conservatives desire a doomed America... they have been working for that for over 225 years.

Two or 3 years ago I commented that Bush is destroying the Republican party for at least a generation.

I think after 6 years of right wing rule; White House, House, Senate, and all that has brought us, people have had enough of the right wing. I think they will exist in ever decreasing pockets until they bottom out at under 20%.

As to conservative Republicans, look at New Hampshire, a Republican bastion, its no longer a red state.

Could we be reverting to a country similar to that which existed during the Civil War?

Absolutely on this.  The first Americans to specifically denounce slavery were John Woolman and Anthony Benezet(Quakers) and Roger Williams (Baptist).  Rhode Island was the first state to abolish slaveholding, though it must be admitted that there were some significant Rhode Island fortunes (the Brown family's, among them) made by transporting slaves for sale in the south. The Society of Friends (Quakers) was the first American denomination to expel slaveholders from membership. The American Anti-Slavery Society, umbrella organization for anti-slavery groups all over the north was founded largely by ministers and laymen in the north, and also some in the south who later fled north because their lives were in jeopardy staying where they were.   Before the time of the Civil War, every national denomination had split over the slavery issue, except the two which maintained a national hierarchy, the Roman Catholics and the Episcopalians. 

I'd have to side with Abraham Lincoln on the issue of who paid for this, however:

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

I wonder if any American paragraph ever written is as eloquent as this one?

aMike

amike : eloquent indeed, but in a con man sorta way. At first it seems Abe is committing that greatest of modern day journalistic sin, wherein, in the vaunted name of the god of objectivity, both sides of any argument are given equal legitimacy and standing, even when the one side is cleary wrong.

He is supremely political in that he seems to suggest that neither side is wholly right and that we shouldn't judge, but then through clever language proceeds to judge with both an axe and a surgeon's scalpel, rendering even the extreme extraction of blood and treasure in the south for slavery as just punishment from a just God.

A bit too convoluted for today's audience, I would expect, but nonetheless he get's the point across.

I admit that I sroked with a broad brush when I spoke of mainstream protestantism's support of slavery. I grew up in the south and have observed the rank stench of racism persist to this day. There is, in particular, the widespread continued popularity of the Southern Baptists who were formed for the very cause of denying African American slaves as members.

I live in a small cluter of towns in Texas near Ft Worth. There is not one black in the entire county, at least that I have seen. I did happen to see four blacks in my town driving an upscale SUV the other day. I noticed them because, of course, they were pulled over and surrounded by several police cars with lights flashing. Who knows if they were guilty of anything or just guilty of driving a nice car while black.

One comment I made which was read to indicate that white male land owners morphed into big business eliltes was somehow taken to mean slave owning southern white male land owners. Not at all; I was refering to our cherished sainted founding fathers from the north.

What was once the aristocratic privelige of the landed gentry, at least in terms of ownership of the means of production and access to capital, still holds largely true for certain sectors whose advantages and opportunities, such as those given George Jr, result in a similar leverage within the US brand of corporate predatory fascist monopolistic capitalism.

I think it depends partly on how you interpret this phrase, and how you look at Lincoln's writings as a whole.

He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came,

I read this to mean that the offense came by both North (the north by complicity and refusing to stop the expansion of slavery into the territories) and South and therefore payment was due by North and South.  Lincoln was very aware of the human cost of this war to North and South alike.  The war cost more American lives than any other, and Lincoln was very aware of his own responsibility.

Deaths During the Civil War

 Union               Confederacy

• Total forces          1,556,678        1,082,119
• Deaths from Wounds                  110,070             94,000
• Deaths from Disease                   249,458           164,000
• Death Rate          23 percent        24 percent
• Wounded              275,175           100,000

He changed his interpretation of the war throughout the course of the war.  In the beginning, it was a war to save the union, and he said he would save it by freeing no slaves or by freeing every slave.  The Emancipation Proclamation freed only the slaves in the states in rebellion.  A year later he morphed (we might say elevated, but at his own time, we have to remember there were riots over this in New York City and elsewhere) into a war to abolish the blot of slavery.  This was probably not the popular thing to do:  abolitionists were a minority, according to most interpretations.

Lincoln was a lawyer, and he tended to parse situations as lawyers do.  Maybe sometimes lawyers sound like con men, and maybe sometimes they are con men.  I am a little more charitable about Lincoln.  More and more I think he understood human nature as well as anyone can.  How current this passage sounds:

The whole can be explained on a more charitable, and, as I think, a more rational hypothesis. We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main question; but in this case that question is a perplexing compound---Union and Slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at least four sides, even among those who are for the Union, saying nothing of those who are against it. Thus, those who are for the Union with, but not without slavery---those for it without, but not with---those for it with or without, but prefer it with---and those for it with or without, but prefer it without. Among these again, is a subdivision of those who are for gradual but not for immediate, and those who are for immediate, but not for gradual extinction of slavery. It is easy to conceive that all these shades of opinion, and even more, may be sincerely entertained by honest and truthful men. Yet, all being for the Union, by reason of these differences, each will prefer a different way of sustaining the Union. At once sincerity is questioned, and motives are assailed. Actual war coming, blood grows hot, and blood is spilled. Thought is forced from old channels into confusion. Deception breeds and thrives. Confidence dies, and universal suspicion reigns. Each man feels an impulse to kill his neighbor, lest he be first killed by him. Revenge and retaliation follow. And all this, as before said, may be among honest men only. But this is not all. Every foul bird comes abroad, and every dirty reptile rises up. These add crime to confusion. Strong measures, deemed indispensable but harsh at best, such men make worse by mal-administration. Murders for old grudges, and murders for pelf, proceed under any cloak that will best cover for the occasion.

The quote comes from a letter to Charles Drake in volume 6 of the Collected works, pp. 500-501. Sorry I can't give a direct link.  The search engine doesn't save results.  The collected works themselves are at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/ 

Sounds very contemporary for something written over 140 years ago.  But I can't imagine George Bush writing it.  :-)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  Much appreciated. 

aMike

Indeed, in some circles, the holder of such a position is likely to be accused of undermining 'personal responsibility' and must be a commie. Or a moron, like Greg.

Sorry Tom.  I misspoke myself.  Rhode Island passed the first law abolishing slavery as a colony not a state:  May 18, 1652

aMike

Civil War Scholar would be too strong a claim.  I've taught U.S. History at a small college (now university) for 34 years, going on 35, and have found my way around to a few things, that's all. 

You're right about Lincoln...he was not modern in his racial views as we understand "modern".  He didn't believe blacks would ever be the social equals of whites, and supported "repatriation" as "protection" for blacks.  He supported the American Colonization Society and recognized Liberia in 1862.  I don't know if he was officially a member or not.

But on the question of slavery he was unambiguous, I think.  The best of the Lincoln/Douglas Debates, MHO was the one in Peoria, Illinois.  There he put it this way...referring to his "Ancient Faith," the Declaration of Independence.

The doctrine of self government is right—absolutely and eternally right—but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government—that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal;" and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.

I confess to a certain love of Lincoln, for his complexity, his ambiguities, his bouts of depression, and especially his language.  He was fond of dirty jokes, used farmyard analogies, and could cut to the heart of the matter better than any I know.  And did he know his history!!  When I'm cooking, I'm about 1% as good.

I don't know if anyone else is enjoying this exchange, but I am.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to play with this with you.

aMike

foot is in the face wrong greg, my apologies was being reactionary, one legged stool stupid me, falling over in a dead faint.

M.D

Go sit on stool in corner, face wall, don Dunce Cap. :-)

Look at it this way...you didn't call him a moron and when you realized your mistake you apologized, which may be a first for Greg.

As a new denizen in the Cafe, you should note that until a post has received a reply, the text is editable. Full deletion of text is supported, although an empty post will still show up in the thread. Look at the bottom of the post for edit | reply | link. |

The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon