The Day After

Random post-election thoughts:

• By an odd coincidence, I happened to be reading an account of Lincoln's movements on the day he was elected president. He spent the day in Springfield, naturally enough. And while he certainly did not have access to the minute-by-minute election coverage we now enjoy, he kept as well-informed and up-to-date as the technology of his time would allow, keeping a close eye on the election returns via the telegraph.

• Long lines weren't just a problem in our day, either. New Yorker George Templeton Strong complained about the lines he had to endure to vote--so much so that he waited around a while, returned to his Wall Street office, then came back again before finally being able to cast his vote.

• The schools really made an effort to get kids involved in this election, which was great, but maybe they carried their political history lessons a bit too far. I spent a fair amount of time last night trying to explain to my 11 year old the "Barnburners" and the "Know-Nothings."

• Obama channeled Lincoln several times during his victory speech last night (I'm not the only one who noticed this, by the way). He referenced the Gettysburg Address by quoting the language "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." He also directly quoted Lincoln's first inaugural address, saying "we are not enemies, we must be friends" (though he stopped short of quoting the famous "better angels of our nature" passage). Earlier in the day, I read that he pointed out Lincoln was the last Illinois lawyer who made it to the White House.

• Will Obama now assemble a "Team of Rivals,' shades of Lincoln (or at least, Doris Kearns Goodwin's version of Lincoln)? Some interesting quotes from Obama here are suggestive. I suppose it depends upon how he reads the political situation he now faces. Is he the point man for a new political coalition, a decisive re-alignment in American politics? You could make such a case. If so, he would face pressures similar to those that compelled Lincoln to reach out to his disappointed rivals--i.e., a felt need to cement his political base by pulling together disparate elements of a new and potentially fragile coalition. If so, who are those "rivals" most in need of placating? Hillary Clinton? Will she become Obama's version of Salmon Chase--"keep your friends close, and keep your enemies closer"--that sort of thing? Or maybe Obama will think more in terms of decisively peeling away what might be called "Obama Republicans," and offering, say, Colin Powell another cabinet-level post.

• Carrying the analogy a bit further, does Obama face a 21st century version of the "fire-eaters"? There's no impending secession crisis, of course, and certainly no imminent danger of the nation coming unglued (I saw a really funny interview with Bill Maher yesterday, by the way, in which he joked, "Man, if Obama wins, I sure hope all the white people don't riot!"). But you have to wonder; just how angry and disaffected are Obama's detractors? I thought John McCain gave a very gracious concession speech last night, but I also thought his audience behaved badly, and seemed downright sullen. Once all the celebrations die down, and all the high rhetoric about this historic moment has subsided--well, then what? Are there significant numbers of people who don't just disagree with Obama, but actually think he's dangerous, or un-American, or un-Godly?

Whatever the case may be; we live in interesting times, don't we?.