Criticism Of Our President(s)?
“Our President has lied to us.” “He has falsely led us into this war.” “He has abused our civil rights.” “He has exceeded his Presidential powers.” “Americans are dying because of this war that should have never been fought.”
You might have thought that I was talking about our current president, but actually, I was referring to criticism about the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Now considered one of our greatest presidents, Lincoln was bombarded with criticism from the press, from the Democrats, and even from within his own Republican party. Because the presidential criticism is very similar today, it is valuable to examine how the public opinion of President Lincoln has changed.
One of the main complaints against Lincoln was that he had dishonestly led the United States into the Civil War. In fact, a Democratic rhymester wrote:
“Honest old Abe, when the war first began,
Denied abolition was part of his plan;
Honest old Abe has since made a decree,
The war must go on till the slaves are all free.
As both can’t be honest, will some one tell how,
If honest Abe then, he is honest Abe now?”
At first, Lincoln rebuffed all claims that the war was against slavery and maintained that the Civil War was solely to save the Union. He stated in 1862, “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 do it by freeing some and leaving the others alone, I would also do that.” Then, after his Emancipation Proclamation, which declared all Confederate slaves free, many slavery-supporting Northerners began rejecting Lincoln.
Similarly, Bush has been the object of criticism saying that he lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been re-elected by Democratic constituents since 1962, called the decision to invade “dishonest” and stated, “The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought.” Soon to be Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid stated, “We all know the vice president’s office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it.” (Hardball with Chris Matthews’ for November 3) Some today go as far as to say that Bush is seeking revenge for his father, George H. W. Bush. Others say that it is a war for oil or a means to get the company Haliburton rich. Also, like Lincoln, Bush has been accused of changing his reasons for invading Iraq. Critics state that the initial reason was Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and now, it is liberating the Iraqi people. They fail to see that by overthrowing Saddam, the Iraqi people are freed, just like Lincoln’s critics failed to see that in order to reunite the Union, slavery must be abolished.
The second complaint against Lincoln was that he was overstepping his role as President and violating our civil rights. During the Civil War, Lincoln often took matters into his own hands, such as when he proclaimed a blockade against the South, arbitrarily increased the size of the Federal army, and advanced $2 million to three private citizens for military purposes, all without the approval of Congress. Moreover, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, defying a ruling by the chief justice of the Supreme Court (Merryman, ex parte). The criticism was so strong that “His enemies termed him a dictator and a tyrant.” (Encyclopedia Americana).
Likewise, critics of Bush claim that he has violated our rights through the warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects. For example, political magazine CounterPunch refers to our nation as being in “the national security state that kills people abroad while destroying our rights here at home.”
Generally, Lincoln was criticized greatly during the Civil War. “He was beset not only by the difficulties of the war, but by opposition from men on his own side. His cabinet was rent by internal jealousies and hatred; radical abolitionists condemned him as too mild; conservatives were gloomy over the prospects of success in the war.” (The Columbia Encyclopedia) “Throughout the war Lincoln was the subject of frequent, and often vitriolic, attacks, both from the Democrats who thought he was proceeding too drastically against slavery and from the Radicals in his own party—men like Charles Sumner, Benjamin F. Wade, and Zachariah Chandler—who considered him slow and ineffective. Partisan newspapers abused the President as “a slangwhanging stump speaker,” a “half-witted usurper,” a “mole-eyed” monster with “soul … of leather,”"the present turtle at the head of the government.” Men of his own party openly charged that he was “unfit,” a “political coward,” a “dictator,”"timid and ignorant,”"shattered, dazed, utterly foolish.”” (Encyclopedia Americana). In fact, even Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was branded as “ludicrous” by the London Times and by Democratic editors as “dishwatery” and “silly”. The now famous speech attracted little attention at the time.
Similarly, Bush has been labeled as stupid and tyrannical, and his historical speeches, such as the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, have to my knowledge only been ridiculed by the mainstream press.
However, the tide began to turn in Lincoln’s favor in his 1864 campaign for reelection. In order to take power away from the anti-war Democrats, the Republican Party banded with the Democrats that supported the war to form the Union Party. In fact, Lincoln’s own running mate was a War Democrat. Also, soon before the election, the North had a series of victories. With that and the votes of the Union soldiers, Lincoln won the presidency for a second time. Almost a year later, Lee surrendered and the Civil War was over, to the great relief of the people. Lincoln died at the very pinnacle of his fame, only five days after the end of the bloodiest war in American history.
Thus, the criticism against Lincoln is very similar to that against President George W. Bush. The allegations against him, like Lincoln, include lying about the purpose of the war, being incompetent, overstepping presidential powers, and violating civil rights. However, somehow Lincoln was able to regain his popularity and more. The reason, of course, was because he managed to win the Civil War. Likewise, I believe that Bush, too, will be seen as one of our greatest presidents if he can only establish a peaceful Iraq in the Middle East. This is not to compare Iraq to the Civil War, but only to compare the similar criticism. Therefore, Republicans and the rest of Americans should not give up on Bush. Now, some might try to argue that Bush will never achieve greatness like Lincoln because he is too stupid, too wrong, too whatever. Nevertheless, they forget that these were exactly what were said about Lincoln too. Thus, if history does indeed repeat itself, then the critics will be wrong once more.
1Andy Nevis
wrote on 3 January 2007 at 21:31
Very good analysis. There are many similarities.
Along the same lines, the Civil War was much tougher for the Union than they expected, in some ways like the War on Terror and Iraq. As the famous story goes, in 1861 Washingtonians with picnic baskets followed the Union army out to Manassas to watch what they thought would be a complete rout of the Confederates. It turned out to be anything but. The Union army was almost put in grave danger when these civilians clogged the roads back to the city.
The same thing is happening with Iraq. We thought it would be easy to go in, dethrone Saddam, and then get out again. It turned out not to be so. The dethroning Saddam part was easy, but winning the peace has not been.
But just like the civil war, so long as Americans remain loyal to their commander in cheif and support the mission, we will prevail, just like the Civil War.
If anything is going to prevent President Bush from being remembered as a great president, it will be that he has not been strong enough in rallying the American people. He has been slow to respond to Democratic attacks and, in my opinion, has not been clear enough in communicating to Americans why success in Iraq is so cruicial. But he will not be remembered in a negative light because he tried too hard to defend America from terrorism.
Going along with your post, here are some more quotes about presidents that we now consider great, spoken by their political enemies of the day. The president will be listed first, followed by the quote and who said it in parenthesis:
Lincoln: “A low-bred obscene clown.” (Atlanta Intelligencer)
Franklin Roosevelt: “He thinks the government is ‘a milk cow with 125 million teats’.” (H.L. Mencken)
George Washington: “The man who is the source of all the misfortunes of our country.” (Philadelphia Aurora)
Thomas Jefferson: “‘A complete hypocrite,’ with ‘pretensions to character’.” (Alexander Hamilton)
Theodore Roosevelt: “As sweet a gentleman as ever scuttled a ship or cut a throat.” (Henry Watterson)
Woodrow Wilson: “He talked like Jesus Christ, but acted like Lloyd George.” (French Premier Georges Clemenceau)
John Kennedy: “He impersonates ‘a prematurley elder statesman who wants to grow up to be Lyndon Johnson’.” (New York Post)
Ronald Reagan: “An amiable dunce.” (Clark Clifford)
All this goes to show that you can’t judge a president by what his ciritcs say at the time. It will be many years before we know George W. Bush’s place in history, but we shouldn’t try to assume it will be bad based on current popular opinion.
BTW, Katelyn, as a way to prevent spam, I see you have added an addition test to the comment form. Unfortunatly, I think you have also eliminated the possibility of any liberals being able to post. (Just kidding!)
2LAXPAT
wrote on 4 January 2007 at 9:31
Nice essay and a very good point.
3Mo
wrote on 5 January 2007 at 5:19
Your comparison is totally invalid, and your point is one-dimensional. The way you compare two presidents who lived in completely different eras doesn’t make since, and the “similarities” that you found are like finding some similar words in two long sentences.
Killing people will never be like freeing slaves, and let me tell you, the tide will never turn into the killer’s favour.
If you think that getting rid of Saddam has freed the Iraqi people, then I am afraid you need to read a bit more in the present news rather than digging in a history that matches nothing of our world, but the place.
It’s nobody’s business to free any people. They simply don’t deserve it unless they achieve it themselves. Go and ask the Iraqi if they are free now, ask the real Iraqi, they will tell you. As a starting point, more than a million are not there anymore to tell you and many millions will not be, physically, able to tell you! Since the sanctions were hold on Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction, the region has been instable more than ever. After the sanctions, Mr. Bush decided that he better goes and finds them himself, and I wish he did really himself, but he sent the young men instead.
There is a fact that you can not comprehend: there was no weapons of mass destruction, there was no links to al Qaida, there was no links to 9/11, and there was no link with any terrorist activities. Mr Bush forgot all that and carried on his war with the silly reason of freeing people. If Mr Bush wanted to free countries, he would have gone many places before reaching Iraq. All the countries in the region are not free, it’s far worse in almost in all countries than how it was in Iraq, have a look at a map and see how many countries are being run as “family businesses” in the region, was Iraq the worse? And again, it’s nobody’s business!
Your analysis is too shallow to be taken word by word, and the way you picture Mr. Bush as the one who is protecting the Americans is preposterous.
Saddam has left with all his crimes, with all his secrets that they didn’t want the world to hear. Saddam was a criminal who paid, but the question is, when will all the guilty pay?
4Katelyn Sills
wrote on 5 January 2007 at 15:15
Thank you for posting, Mo. I see it as healthy to have opposing views on my blog.
It is certainly true that Lincoln and Bush lived in different eras. However, this does not impede comparison. The Presidency is still the Presidency, and the American people are still the American people. In fact, it is important that the presidency of Lincoln occurred so long ago, because we would not be able to examine how he is viewed in history otherwise.
Secondly, the similarities that I mentioned were not simply similar quotes about the two presidents, but were similar situations, making it impossible for the examples to be taken out of context, if that is what you meant.
I find your comment that “Killing people will never be like freeing slaves” to be incredibly ironic, because the slaves were freed through the Civil War, America’s bloodiest war.
Yes, I do believe that the overthrow of Saddam has freed the Iraqi people. Being free does not necessarily mean having peace. For example, after the slaves were freed, there was plenty of unrest between the freedmen and the white southerners, such as the activities of the KKK. So while Iraq is currently full of unrest and is unstable, it is still free.
Your comment that “It’s nobody’s business to free any people” is both morally despicable and contrary to history. If we followed your advice, the Jews would still be in the Holocaust, the Iraqis would still be murdered by Saddam (see evidence here), and the African Americans would still be slaves.
You stated, “There is a fact that you can not comprehend: there was no weapons of mass destruction, there was no links to al Qaida, there was no links to 9/11, and there was no link with any terrorist activities.” Actually, there are. Weapons of mass destruction have been found (see here), although not to the level expected. Saddam did in fact violate the UN weapons restrictions, as President Bush declared. According to David Kay, “We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.” Saddam, besides being a terrorist himself, supported terrorists such as Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. Clinton’s administration, like that of Bush, has found links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime (see here). As can be seen, Saddam was undoubtedly a threat to the US by refusing to obey the UN’s sanctions, by manufacturing weapons, and by supporting terrorism.
Although you find my analysis “shallow”, it seems that your real objection to my factual essay is that it does not agree with your political viewpoint.
5Andy Nevis
wrote on 5 January 2007 at 16:09
Mo, it is your comments that are shallow, for the reasons Katelyn explained very well. The entire point of history is to try to find similarities between various situations. Otherwise, why bother studying it if it has no use to us today? Also, you might be interested to know that we did in fact kill people to free the slaves. Many, many people.
Iraqis enjoy much greater liberties under their current government than they did under Saddam. To the extent they are not free, it is because insurgant militias terrorise the people. Those are the very same militias the colilition forces are trying to control. If the US gives up and comes home, we can be assured that those militias will come to rule the country and make Saddam look like a pretty nice guy in comparison. There will certainly be no freedom in Iraq if that occurs.
BTW, I found your last comment very interesting: “When will all the guilty pay?” I take it you are calling for the hanging of Bush? Reveals a lot about how seriously most Americans should take you…
6Mo
wrote on 7 January 2007 at 5:05
Thanks Katelyn and Andy for your responses.
Well, I believe that there is no one on earth has the right to end anyone’s life, and if someone was a criminal and murdered a human being, then we should not be as ghastly as him, there are more ways to make him regretting what he did more than hanging him, however, we are not into the discussion of the death penalty here, but that’s to express that I am not like Mr Bush so “addicted” to hanging people as we all know that he hanged more people in Texas than any other governor, but I do want, as thousands of American people do, that Mr Bush to be accounted for his continuous anti-humanity crimes against people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and God knows where other places and which one is next!
I have to say it that it’s shocking to see how some people are supporting the immoral, unethical, and illegal occupation of Iraq. We all know that Saddam was a dictator and a tyrant, but only a mad person would say that the Iraqi people are having a better life, or will have in the next hundred years. Keep watching the .gov websites talking about the “mass graves” of Saddam is preposterous when ignoring all mass graves that are being done now, that’s other than all criminal actions being executed by the American troops there.
The Iraqi disaster that Mr Bush launched in Iraq will continue and will, unfortunately, produce many (September 11) death tolls as it has just done.
I couldn’t get “Reveals a lot about how seriously most Americans should take you…”.
Regards, Mo
7Katelyn Sills
wrote on 10 January 2007 at 22:31
First, President Bush has not hanged anyone. The last hanging in Texas was in 1923. Secondly, during Bush’s governorship, 114 people were executed. During the time of Texas’ current Governor Perry, 180 people have been executed. (see executions by year here) Thus, your statement is simply incorrect.
Next, President Bush has not committed any anti-humanity crimes, and I would be very curious to know what you think these crimes exactly are.
You state that “only a mad person would say that the Iraqi people are having a better life, or will have in the next hundred years.” Then many people, myself and Iraqis included, must be mad, because the Iraqis have great hope, as they demonstrated to the world during the Iraqi elections. Statistics show that 80% of the violence in Iraq in concentrated around Baghdad, meaning that the rest of Iraq is relatively peaceful.
The mass graves now are still being caused by supporters of Saddam’s regime. Who exactly do you think is fighting? The American army and those of other nations and Iraq are basically police forces. Their only actions are reactions to attacks.
8Mo
wrote on 11 January 2007 at 11:36
Katelyn,
Although it’s not our main point, but as a fact, where did you get the 115 from ???!?!?!??!
According to your table , Mr Bush executed 152 while Governor Perry executed 139 so far ( Governor Perry has almost been a governor as long as Mr Bush). Check
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Texas
- http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm
I hope you are not underestimating my math skills or something?
9Katelyn Sills
wrote on 11 January 2007 at 17:06
As I said, I got it from this page on the Texas website, showing the executions by year. I too also used the wikipedia dates of governorship. However, I did mistakenly group the forty executions in 2000 (the year that the governor changed) with Governor Perry, instead of President Bush.
Regardless, it can be seen that the trend of executions continues today, meaning that the reason for the number of executions lies with the state of Texas. Therefore, your conjecture that Bush is “addicted to killing” is false.
10Andy Nevis
wrote on 14 January 2007 at 18:14
And regardless, neither Bush nor Perry has made the decision to kill anyone with the death penalty. Jurors do that. The governor just has the authority to stop the sentance from being carried out if he sees some compelling reason.
So if anyone is addicted to death, it is the people of Texas.
11MED
wrote on 16 January 2007 at 17:00
There can be no simple solution for the war in Iraq. If Bush does eventually succeed to set up a successful democracy in Iraq, that will lead to problems with other countries.
Iraq has two major groups of people: The Sunnis and the Shittes. Like Iran, the majority of the people in Iraq are Shittes. If a successful Democracy is set up, than the Shittes will be in control, unlike the previous government which was dominated by Sunnis.
The rest of the Middle East understood what Saddam was doing in Iraq, but turned blind to it because he was a Sunni, and so were they. They do not like the idea of a Shitte dominated Iraq.
If a democracy was set up in Iraq, this would lead to our having problems with the rest of the middle east, especially with countries like Saudi Arabia.
So just solving Iraq’s problems cannot stop the problems that the middle east was already having. There cannot be just a political change, but there would also have to be a social revolution that solves all the problems between the two major demoninations of Islam, which have been going on for centuries.
12DZ
wrote on 16 January 2007 at 20:59
Watch this: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/11/daily-show-is-bush-the-new-lincoln/
13Katelyn Sills
wrote on 21 January 2007 at 15:24
MED, it is true that the solution for Iraq is not simple.
However, I do not think that the fighting between the Sunnis and the Shiites impairs them from ever improving. In history, the Catholics and the Protestants have been just as violent. Yet, today, for the most part, we live in peace.
In my opinion, it is much better to have a chance at peace than do nothing.
DZ: Thanks for the video. While it was funny at times, it bothers me that they dismiss any analysis so quickly, since I know people who get their news from the Daily Show. Scary.
14MED
wrote on 5 February 2007 at 20:25
Katelyn,
I think that trying to interfere in matters that are beyond our contril is pointless. There were religious wars, there are religious wars, and there will always continue to be wars over religion. In a world like ours, there can be no absolute peace. One person will be unhappy, convince others that they are unhappy. and something will start. Or one group thinks they are right and another group says that they are wrong, something will happen. Humans are tragically flawed that way. They always want something, but they are not willing to give up their own rights to obtain it, or work to obtain it. They want peace, but only if they have power at the same time. Everyone is equal, except for those lower han them. We want to help third world countries, only if our priorities do not get in the way. I mean those examples probably do not stand for the whole human race, but in general it is kind of true.
So if you want to try for peace in a country where war has been existing for years go ahead be my guest. But peace is a nonexistant thing. (which is why communism failed, but socialist countries do have it rather good)
15Katelyn Sills
wrote on 10 February 2007 at 20:54
I think that we do have some control over what occurs in Iraq. Although there will always be strife in the world, we can always limit the amount. For instance, we stopped apartheid in South Africa. We stopped the Central Powers and Axis Powers in WWI and WWII. We stopped slavery in our own country. So yes, although we can never have perfect peace because of the flawed world we live in, we can work towards it.
Can you provide an example of a socialist country that “has it good”?
If we follow your logic, we should have never attempted to end slavery because it has been going on for centuries and because we can never really stop it entirely (illegal slave trade still exists today). In other words, what you seem to be saying is that we should never try to fix anything because it is “useless”.
16Shaun R. Connell
wrote on 14 February 2007 at 15:38
Ah, I agree. Simply because something exists does not mean we should not struggle with it. Honor is found in the struggle against evil. Considering this, we should struggle with evil in whatever form we find it, wherever we may find it. =)
17MED
wrote on 2 March 2007 at 20:38
Katelyn,
I do in fact can provide an example of a socialist country that has it good.
A little place that we today call Sweden.
Oh and Katelyn,
Comparing slavery and religious differences is like comparing a bullet to the heart and a superficial head wound. HTey seem to be alike, btu when you get to the root of it they are not.
18Katelyn Sills
wrote on 4 March 2007 at 17:53
Hi MED, glad to hear from you again.
Well, what aspects would you define to be “good” about Sweden?
Also, I’m not sure how exactly struggles over slavery and religion are incomparable. The fight over slavery has been just as bloody as any fight over religion, and yet, we were able to agree as a world (for the most part) to end slavery. Thus, I believe we can also end religious violence, for the most part.
But, if slavery doesn’t work as an example for you, what about the slaughter in Darfur? Do you believe we should do nothing, because “trying to interfere in matters that are beyond our contril is pointless”?
19MED
wrote on 7 March 2007 at 20:33
Sweden and Norway both are socialist.
They both have free health care, free schooling, lower infant mortality rate, mare doctors per person, more hospital beds per person, higher life expectancy, a relatively low social gap, lower HIV/AIDS deaths,Norway has a higher GDP per capita, all compared to teh United States. And the list goes on.
In exchange they have high taxes, but it seems like a pretty fair exchange to me.
Ah you got me on that last point though. I am sorry to say that I have nothing on that. But, it should be noted that I have never established what our control is. I mean if we can stop it that’s great, but if we can’t then that’s okay too.
And if we can help the Iraquis and help them build a successful gov’t then that would be great. I just don’t see that happening.
I just hope that in 50 years from now history teachers won’t be saying “In 2007 the beginnings of WWIII were formed.
20Katelyn Sills
wrote on 25 March 2007 at 15:20
Hi MED, sorry I am so late in replying.
It is true that Sweden and Norway are both socialist and have “free” healthcare, schooling, etc. However, all of these come at a price. Someone is paying for it involuntarily. The government is basically stealing from those who work hard, to give to those who do not. Because of this, Sweden has had a lack of entrepreneurs in the past, because “getting ahead” is discouraged. (According to this article, Swedes are the Europeans least likely to start their own business). Truly,the only people who would like socialism more than capitalism are the ones who want others to pay for them.
Also, I don’t think it can be said that Norway and Sweden have lower HIV/AIDS deaths and higher life expectancies because of socialism. There is not necessarily a causal link.
21ChrysD
wrote on 2 May 2007 at 15:15
Go ahead and correct me if I am wrong and someone back me up if I am right. Isn’t Scandinavia a region that condones homosexual marriage, giving marriage rights to shacked up couples, performing euthanasia on newborn babies and other undesirables, even above the wishes of the parents, and jailing preachers who preach against sexual sins inside their own churches? And like most of Europe, aren’t they aborting and not having children themselves to death? Aren’t they another country who is going down the path that they own your kid and you have no right to teach them hateful stuff like Christian values?
I would not hold up any country in this region as what we should aspire to. Most policies start there, spread to the rest of Europe, are imported to the U.S., and then forced onto other countries by the interfering, but benevolent U.N.