Dubbya's Abe (again)
President Bush recently defended his comments in front of a conservative audience that America was in the midst of a "Third Great Awakening" by referencing "a book on Lincoln" that he had recently read.
I wonder which book he is referring to, exactly? I've heard that he was reading two books on Abe: Goodwin's Team of Rivals, and Carwardine's Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power. I'm guessing it was probably the latter. Goodwin doesn't dwell much on religion, caring more about the interaction of personalities within the Lincoln cabinet. Carwardine, on the other hand, had a lot to say about the ways in which Lincoln used the language of nineteenth-century Protestant revivalism to influence Americans and advance his political agenda.
If this is what Bush is talkng about, however, then I'd say he's mixing apples and oranges. Carwardine's point is that Lincoln was sensitive to the political uses of a religious language that in his day was nearly universal. When Lincoln referenced the Bible, he was attaching his ideas to words everybody had read and understood.
I'm not quite sure the same environment exists in 21st century America. There are so many different religions, and even Christian denominations, in a nation with many more people and much greater diversity than was true in Lincoln's time. Lincoln could use a Protestant set of metaphors and symbols without fear that he was acting in a divisive fashion: there were darned few Catholics, for example, listening to his speeches, let alone Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.
Moreover, Lincoln was not an evangelical. In fact, his relationship with organized religion was problematic, especially before the war. Bush, on the other hand, is a self-described born again Christian. I doubt he has Lincoln's sense of distance, of unemotional attachment, to the words he speaks about God's will. Lincoln never presumed to be certain of God's will, or much of anything else divine. Bush, I think, is pretty sure of himself in that department, for better or worse.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying that Bush probably needs to think these things through more clearly. He's not Lincoln, and this is not Lincoln's America. There are limits to how directly any of us can apply the lessons of the past to the present.
I wonder which book he is referring to, exactly? I've heard that he was reading two books on Abe: Goodwin's Team of Rivals, and Carwardine's Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power. I'm guessing it was probably the latter. Goodwin doesn't dwell much on religion, caring more about the interaction of personalities within the Lincoln cabinet. Carwardine, on the other hand, had a lot to say about the ways in which Lincoln used the language of nineteenth-century Protestant revivalism to influence Americans and advance his political agenda.
If this is what Bush is talkng about, however, then I'd say he's mixing apples and oranges. Carwardine's point is that Lincoln was sensitive to the political uses of a religious language that in his day was nearly universal. When Lincoln referenced the Bible, he was attaching his ideas to words everybody had read and understood.
I'm not quite sure the same environment exists in 21st century America. There are so many different religions, and even Christian denominations, in a nation with many more people and much greater diversity than was true in Lincoln's time. Lincoln could use a Protestant set of metaphors and symbols without fear that he was acting in a divisive fashion: there were darned few Catholics, for example, listening to his speeches, let alone Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.
Moreover, Lincoln was not an evangelical. In fact, his relationship with organized religion was problematic, especially before the war. Bush, on the other hand, is a self-described born again Christian. I doubt he has Lincoln's sense of distance, of unemotional attachment, to the words he speaks about God's will. Lincoln never presumed to be certain of God's will, or much of anything else divine. Bush, I think, is pretty sure of himself in that department, for better or worse.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying that Bush probably needs to think these things through more clearly. He's not Lincoln, and this is not Lincoln's America. There are limits to how directly any of us can apply the lessons of the past to the present.
posted by brdirck at 3:04 AM
2 Comments:
Brian,
Sadly, you're asking something of Bush that he is incapable of doing. Calling him stupid is an insult to stupid people. This country deserves so much better. 2008 cannot come soon enough.
Eric
I think Catholics did matter (being unpopular is not the same thing as being non-existant) and indeed Lincoln had suffered a great deal politically from his willingess to defend them- it simply was not the case everyone was a believing christan (as your point about lincoln's ambiguity shows)
If you look at Bush's language it is really "ceremonial deism" the language of using god to affirm americnaism true of just about all presidents since at least Lincoln./ He makes very few christna referneces (as opposed to theist) and those he does are very seldom controversial ones (ie thier affirmations of the fact his a chrisina rather than openly applying them to politics)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home