As we edge ever closer to that perilous “fiscal cliff,” with Republicans and Democrats accusing one another of intransigence, some observers have pointed to a way out of our national dilemma: Just take a page from Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln.’’
The film tells the story of how the president managed to steer the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery through a House of Representatives that was not particularly hospitable to it. On the one side were Democrats who opposed outlawing slavery on the grounds that this would confer an equality that blacks did not and should not have. On the other side were conservative Republicans who felt that its passage would outrage the Confederacy and prompt it to prolong the war, with continued death and destruction. Neither side was inclined to compromise. So what was Lincoln to do?
Comments
It is sad that a thoughtful column would include a sniPe at the GOP. There are indeed manylessons to be learned from Lincoln, especially that he would have never built this cliff, as Obama did. Raising tax rates is not the same moral question that slavery was, yet Gabler sees parallels.
I believe raising taxes IS a moral question. When raising revenue, a question exists concerning where the action causes the most pain in the social group that is the US. Should those who have the least be called upon to pay the most?
Get your fact straight. Obama did not build the fiscal cliff. Neither was he responsible for Hurricane Sandy or the Red Sox debacle of 2012. Congress built the cliff to force themselves to do SOMETHING. It was designed to force legislation in the face of disaster.
I would agree with "Richmond12" a thoughtful column but I wouldn't agree that there was a snipe at the GOP. What the author was saying is that Lincoln could approach his opposition as individuals and in today's ideological GOP that is not possible. In that sense he is not picking on the GOP but stating a fact. Which House Republican can one peal off, can one talk to who can stake out his own position without being tossed out of the caucus. I won't go so far as to say it is ideological purity but it certainly has reached a point of Party purity. One votes the Party or leaves. It is not a situation that leads to functioning govt. nor is it the purpose of either party to force its members to march in lockstep.
When one reads the comment section one sees the same mentality that one sees in the Congress. Obama built the cliff? Odd. The legislature built the cliff both Dems. and Repubs., they voted for it. Raising taxes for both Dems. and Repubs. is a moral issue in their minds.
No, Gabler has it right. Lincoln was able to accomplish the greater good through his ability to access that part of him that allowed him to manipulate the actions of others. Today many would call that "manipulation" unsavory. I call it human interaction and something we could use more of. A little wheeling and dealing.
I don't see politics today being more ideological. Witness the recent attachment of earmarks to legislation funding relief for Sandy victims. Legislators in Lincoln's day had more brains and moral fiber. They would not have signed a pledge dictating they would decide matters only one way. They would not fear a thing called the tea party. Not even Boehner can work with the House. In a sense, voters have happily hog-tied the government, costing everyone much more expense in the long run.
This comment has been removed.
So the way to lead a country is to lie and bribe. Got it.
That seems an odd comment by you. After all would it not be a "libertarian" position that human beings are "faulty", lack perfection and therefore on one hand should be limited in the expression of those faults, but given freedom to exploit them in the marketplace on the other. Thereby allowing the full expression of their humanity. I'm not criticizing here just questioning the overall viewpoint regarding human nature in the positical and economic sphere.
This seems like a complletely ricidulout comment by you. Lying is the root of all evil. Human beings can't solve problems without accurate information, those who deliberately distort reality make acting as a human being more difficult. No one should feel free to be a liar without being called out, and those who validate lying because it serves their ends are part of the human problem. Also, the end does not justify the means.
What is the message those sneaky folks in Hollywood are trying to send? Cooperate or stand on principles? How about just recognizing right and wrong?