Sometimes, you really just have to sit back and laugh at the ridiculousness of the celebrity-obsessed political culture we now live in. Take this speech by party regular Milton Hay in which he appeals to failed Illinois Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln (R) to run for president. In lauding Lincoln's qualifications, he makes one point that just makes you chuckle:
No inconsiderable portion of your fellow citizens in various portions of the county have expressed their preference for you as the candidate of the Republican party for the next Presidency....There are those around you sir who have watched with manly interest and pride your upward march from obscurity to distinction. There are those here who know something of the obstacles which have lain in your pathway. Our history is prolific in examples of what may be achieved by ability, persevereance [sic] and integrity...but in the long list of those who have thus from humblest beginnings won their way worthily to proud distinction there is not one can take precedence of the name of Abraham Lincoln."
Think about it. The party regulars are swooning over Lincoln, begging him to run for president. Yet, at the same time, they are implicitly acknowledging that he has not actually done much - a man of "distinction" who has had "obstacles" in his path. Note that subtle word -"obstacles" certainly include his failure as a candidate and lack of experience to handle these trying times.
In other words, we are to simply accept that the Lincoln for President wave has absolutely nothing to do with anything that the man HAS DONE as an elected representative and further, that whenever he does decide to use his growing political capital to do something, it is all in pursuit of the White House - not any actual sense of DOING SOMETHING at all - noting that he has achieved nothing never being elected to the Senate or even any political office.
I don't blame Lincoln for not having accomplished much - he tried to run for Senate and was soundly rebuked by our democratic process we should hold dear. The main concern about him is that he doesn't actually seem to ASPIRE to anything outside of the Oval Office power structure (given that he want to run for the highest office land without ever winning a federal election (UPDATE: Lincoln served briefly in the House) and doesn't seem to be interested in challenging the status quo in any fundamental way -- besides his rhetorical flourishes and third party window dressing. Using his career as a guide, it suggests that any presidential run by him is about him, his alleged high morality and inability to tell a lie and his fawned over talent for "debating" (whatever the hell that means).
For abolitionists, this situation is perilous indeed. Lincoln is a candidate who has kept his record deliberately thin (now that he is skipping all offices below President), who has thusly risked absolutely nothing for the bigger movement, content to go back to being a prairie lawyer should he fail in his quixotic quest. This is a man who did not stand for wholeheartedly for abolition in his failed Senate campaign, only speaking out against the so-called Slave Power movement of nationalizing slavery when its claws must be extricated from our southern neighbors. This is a man who has given nothing but speeches. This is a man who failed to lift a finger (rhetorical or otherwise) to defend Charles Sumner when he was caned. Flocking to a candidate like that without demanding that he change only reinforces the damaging concept that our movement is a Bartleby the Scrivener movement about achieving nothing.
I want to be clear: I don't think our movement is a Bartlebry the Scrivener Movement. But don't fool yourself: a movement that rushes to embrace a candidate without demanding that candidate actually lead on the issues that the movement is supposed to be about (at least win an election below the highest elected office in the land, good friend!) - well, that could be a death blow for what we are working toward. Movements move because leaders lead and because they wield power by forcing politicians to stand up for people. Empty rhetoric without results aren't enough - movements are killed by false prophets, cults of personality and by the unwillingness of those in the movement to wield their power for the full agenda.
Look, I'm willing to admit that maybe it's true: maybe in this age of strife where people are wondering if our government will even hold together, all the country really wants is a great orator who nebulously "connects" - a stump worthy President who makes us feel good when he's on the theatre stage, even as he refuses to use his power to literally change anything. But I think now, more than ever, abolitionists are looking for a conviction politician - someone who has either done something, or at least used their platform to wholeheartedly attack this nation's harmful institution - not declare half measures to merely stop a national advance, but to actually turn back it's hold on our southern underbelly.
I sincerely hope that Lincoln becomes a conviction politician, as he tries to win his first election (whether it be for county commissioner or for President.) I mean that, because our side needs conviction politicians with his skills, and because I don't want to see our movement be tricked by someone who is not fully for achieving abolition throughout our Union. If he becomes a conviction politician - someone who wholeheartedly buys into a nationwide abolitionist movement, then there is no quandary for us abolitionists, and he would make a great president - one that I would loudly cheer on.
However, the admission that Abraham Lincoln has succeeded through failures - which must include never winning an election or even having a more than one single success as an elected person - as his WAY to run for President rather than him running for President as a way to nationalize accomplishments he's already achieved is really a sad commentary on the substance-free nature of American politics today. In this year 1859.