The results are coming in on the Toledo primaries, and none of them (including the embarrassingly small number of voters who cast ballots) is much of a surprise. Equally unsurprising was that just a day before voting day, the Sixth District Court of Appeals finally released a decision telling the the Lucas County Board of Elections that they couldn't hold a hearing on whether to remove incumbent Democratic Councilwoman Lindsay Webb from the ballot.
This belated decision merely adds to a seemingly endless chain of overdue actions connected with this situation that I outline in an early effort this week for the Toledo Free Press website. Come to think of it, writing "Too Little, Too Late" seems an action ripe tardiness itself.
If you want to catch up on the latest results of the Toledo primary and not find yourself late to the party, you'll do what all the other really smart people do. You'll catch up on everything that goes on in the Glass City by reading not only the mid-week Star edition, but Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.
There has been so much anger and furor in these final days of campaigning that I thought that it would be nice to calm down just a bit and take a little break. So I would like to take just a moment to paint a little verbal canvas in your head in the final days leading up to the coming election. Something to help you focus on the prize just ahead.
Relax, breathe, close your eyes (No wait, if you do that you can't read this ... OK, leave them open.), and try to see if you can picture this in your mind.
Imagine a tax and spend president who believes in massive national infrastructure projects, and who believes that making huge investments in things such as railroads and highways is in this country's best interests.
Imagine a president who believes strongly in higher tariffs and taxes, and especially the desirability of the federal income tax.
Imagine a president who believes that the federal government has a right and obligation to strongly control the banking system in this country.
Have you got a picture in your head yet?
Imagine a president who believes in tax-funded subsidies for favored businesses.
Imagine a president who constantly demonizes his enemies and uses every power of the federal government to make their lives difficult at best, miserable and impossible at worst.
Imagine a president who seeks to control the press and in fact brings the power of his office to bear on them to see that his message, and only his message, is heard.
Can you see his face clearly?
Imagine a president who believes that he can pick out the parts of the Constitution that he likes and ignore or reinterpret the rest of this document to suit his needs.
Imagine a president that pushes laws through a willing Congress to enforce his will and control over the voters of the United States, regardless of whether they believe in his vision or not.
Can you see him? How do you feel about this president? What do you think about his leadership skills? What do you imagine his place in history might be?
Now imagine that he is taking away the right of the states as guaranteed in the Constitution. Imagine that he is using the full force of the federal government (even troops) to bring those states into line with the federal government's dictates and mandates.
Can you see him clearly in your mind? Now picture him not as you think you see him, but as he actually is ... Abraham Lincoln.
The message here is a cautionary one, aimed at a Republican Party who often glowingly refers to itself as "the party of Lincoln". Be careful my friends!
Just because it appears that your star is rising once again in the Halls of Congress doesn't mean that you get to write your own rules. Nor does it mean that the voters who raised you up expect you to become part of the same tired process that they rejected when you get there.
Remember carefully that if in fact you are elected, you are being sent to Washington DC to do the will of the people, not that of your party. Remember the pretty speeches you gave about listening to those people, and about returning to the concept of government envisioned by those who wrote the document that limits the government you are about to become a part of. Remember that in but two years you can be swept from office with the same alacrity that you were swept into it.
"So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view. Luke, you will that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." - Obi Wan Kenobi (from Episode VI, "Return of the Jedi)
Something about this simple pronouncement in a movie script has caught my attention recently as I watch instances of the political debate in this country. Both sides believe that they have the facts on their side, both seem convinced that they have the backing of history, and both are equally passionate in defending their beliefs (and attacking the opposition). It is however, the facts that we choose and how we interpret them that defines us however.
Take for example, the recent proclamation made by the Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia, declaring April as Confederate History Month. Given that he was a Republican governor swept in on the Conservative momentum change he was already a target, and with this he was immediately attacked by the media and the left as racist for attempting to lionize the Confederate history of his state and for not specifically mentioning the evils of slavery in this proclamation. (He later amended his proclamation to do so, though he continued to be vilified.)
Forget that Civil War tourism is a large source of revenue for his state, at a time when all are struggling with revenue shortfalls. Forget as well that many of Virgina's most famous and laudable citizens deserve to be remembered regardless of which side of this war that they fought on. Apparently all we are to remember is that slavery is evil and that the Civil War was fought about the cause of slavery alone.
Now while there is no doubt that slavery is evil and little that it had something to do with this tragic period in American history, anyone who looks closely at the times can see that there was far more to it.
If slavery were the cause of the war, then why is it that slavery was not ended before the war began (see definition 1 of cause)? In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until January 1, 1863, two years after the war had begun, and slavery was not officially abolished in the United States until 1865, with the passing of the 13th Amendment.
If the belief instead is that the war was fought not because of, but over slavery; how do we reconcile this with the fact Lincoln initially felt that he had no Constitutional right to abolish the institution? In fact, Lincoln stated after the war had begun: "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it."
Perhaps instead we should look more closely at this first Republican president, someone who was committed to strong central government and to a tax and spend philosophy. Lincoln believed in high tariffs that were putting a strangle hold on Southern exports when he was still a Whig Party member in the mold of Henry Clay, and signed the bills that created the IRS and the first US income tax when president. He also favored spending federal money to sponsor massive infrastructure projects (outlawed in most state constitutions of the time), which greatly expanded the miles of railroad track in this country (mostly in the North) through the use of federal subsidies.
In addition to saving and strengthening the Union, Lincoln was unafraid to use the power of that stronger central government he desired to enforce his will. He suspended (illegally) the rights of habeus corpus in this country, arrested Maryland legislators who were considering joining the Confederacy in legitimate legislative session, shut down newspapers and arrested publishers who spoke out against his abuses, and deported to the Confederacy a former Ohio Democratic state legislator (Clement Laird Vallandigham) who criticized him.
Perhaps in fact, the Civil War was (until very recently) the last stand of the states who adopted the US Constitution in 1787 to assert the states rights that they thought were guaranteed under that document. It might be said they feared the federal government with Lincoln at its head was overreaching the limits placed on it by that document, and that they simply sought the same relief that the Founding Fathers outlined in the Declaration of Independence and pursued some 111 years earlier.
While some might argue the extremity of the method used, it is difficult (especially in these times) not to sympathize with the fears that these men had. It is also difficult to understand why Virginia cannot use a state proclamation (often an instrument of spectacular absurdity) to create a discussion to explore the subject and more closely scrutinize some of the facts and interpretations of the history of this period. Instead of castigating the man and attacking the idea, perhaps this could be used as one of those "teachable moments" that the liberal intelligentsia is so fond of.
Of course all of this is simply my take on the issue, given from a certain point of view ...
Soon after the election of Barack Obama, there were many in the media and elsewhere making comparisons between our latest president and the 16th holder of that office, Abraham Lincoln.
Having been born and raised in Illinois (which is of course, the land of Lincoln) and having little to judge with but the history courses that I took in a youth so far in the past that like Abe, we often read our books by candlelight, I have to admit that I was initially skeptical of any such similarity.
Recently however, I have slowly been grinding my way through "The Real Lincoln", by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. This tome has been rather an eye opener for me both in its portrayal of Lincoln in the years leading up to and during the Civil War, and of the economic policies that shaped those years.
Lincoln it seems, was someone who followed in the footsteps of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton; and of Henry Clay, who was Lincoln's hero in politics (Lincoln in fact delivered a eulogy for Clay in Springfield in July of 1862).
Like Hamilton, these were politicians who believed in a strong federal government and a strong federal banking system. They were opposed by those following the principles laid down by Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence) and James Madison (considered the father of the Constitution), who believed in the independence and primacy of the States, with only enough federal government to hold the union together.
Lincoln likewise believed in an economic policy known as "mercantilism", which is characterized by protectionist tariffs (you know, like promising to renegotiate NAFTA), tax funded subsidies for favored businesses (you know, like GM, Chrysler, and the banking industry), and internal improvement subsidies to build railroads, canals, dams, and roads (you know, like the infrastructure projects that were part of the stimulus package).
The fact that the tariffs drove consumer prices up, that corporate welfare did likewise and were only good for the businesses that received them, and that the internal improvement projects were inevitably hotbeds of waste, graft, and huge cost overruns which did little more than run up government debt was mostly ignored by politicians at the time. (It should be noted that at the time that Lincoln became president, every State Constitution except that of Mass. specifically prohibited legislation for such projects.)
It seemed however that while these practices were detrimental to the governed, they never the less did extremely well in maintaining the ruling elite in their seats of power.
Interesting in the historical debate over such policies is that DiLorenzo points out that Madison, in his last day in office, vetoed one of these improvement subsidies proposed by Lincoln's mentor Henry Clay saying in part that,
Congress has enumerated powers under section eight of the first article of the Constitution, "and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised in the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it fall by any just interpretation with the power to make the laws necessary and proper" for carrying out other constitutional powers into execution.
Madison in fact warned Congress that the general welfare clause of the Constitution was never intended to become a Pandora's box for special interest legislation.
Having now lived through some eight months of President Obama's economic policies, one cannot help but note the striking similarities between the two presidents' philosophies where such policy is concerned. I am therefore forced to re-evaluate my position and admit that I have been wrong and that there may at least be some similarity between the two Presidents
I must also further note that during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln:
- The principle of habeus corpus was suspended and legislators, newspaper editors & publishers, and civilians who disagreed with Lincoln's policies were thrown into prison without charges or trial.
- All telegraph communications in the US were censored and newspapers critical of Lincoln's policies were denied distribution by mail (the predominant method at the time) at the president's orders to his postmaster general.
- Federal troops were posted outside of polling places during an election in 1861 in both Maryland and New York at Lincoln's direction in order to insure that pro government candidates were assured of election.
- States like Maryland and Delaware who attempted to consider secession from the Union were prevented from such consideration when Lincoln sent troops into those states, declaring martial law.
- Lincoln unconstitutionally created the state of West Virginia by orchestrating the secession of western Virginia from the rest of the state, setting up a pro-Union government in it, and then accepting this state into the Union.
- A bloody and costly civil war was fought over the right of any states to secede from the Union, a right outlined in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Constitution.
Wow, if such similarities continue to hold true, we may have good deal more excitement to look forward to in the coming three years!
