"Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth"
- Archimedes
Or, if you prefer:
Give me a lever long enough, and I will move the Earth. Sometimes context is important. But this guy was right well over two thousand years ago, enough leverage will change the Earth. It's unnerving how a 3rd century B.C. mathematician could perfectly describe the beginning of the 21st century A.D.; even without the knowledge of Jesus Christ for Christ's sake.
Lincoln: I find it horribly ironic and depressing that less than 150 years after the founding of its party, the Republicans would elect a man to office that would completely eviscerate the ideals upon which the party was founded. In 1861, less than seven years after the party was founded, the Republicans elected a little known Illinois failure to the tenure of Presidency of the United States. Not only was he mocked for his inexperience, he formed his cabinet with advisors that despised him believing that the voice of dissent lends truth through its dissonance. He inherited a war that was fomented by his predecessor James Buchanan.
The Dread Scott case, the Lecompton Constitution in Kansas (against the will of the people), the war in Utah (popularly called Buchanan's Blunder), and the Panic of 1857 were only some of the failures of a President hailed by historians as the worst in history. This set the stage of desperate times for successor to the Office, much less the Illinois lawyer who only spent one term in the House of Representatives. One term in the lesser house.
Yet he is heralded as one of the greatest Presidents of our Union, not just by Republicans whose cause he championed, but by all Americans in our present day. He made his voice clear early on, before he ever took the oath of office, that he was an abolitionist and abhorrent to war. In reference to the Mexican-American War he stated:
God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just.
And giving clear statement to his abolitionist credentials he stated in his 1854 Peoria Speech:
[The Act has a] declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world — enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites — causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty — criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
Near the end of the Civil War he was murdered. He had numerous missteps during his administration. But perhaps his best judgment was in appointing a drunken, washed-up general to lead his Army. He succeeded in defeating Lee, the premier commander of the South. It is an argument of history who was the greater man on terms of surrender: Grant for letting the defeated forces to keep their firearm and their horse, or Lee, for not disbanding his forces and turning them to guerrilla warfare.
Although his life was ended prematurely, Lincoln took steps to insure that Reconstruction would be fast and cheap. Truly putting his country first, rather than his own personal legacy, by insuring that the hands of his successor would not be tied. His proclamations before the end of the war that insured general Confederate soldiers general amnesty was put in place in early 1863 to ensure fair treatment and fair trial given Union success. Fair treatment and fair trial to enemy soldiers.
G.W. Bush 2001-2004. A man so unlike the party's (arguable) founder could not be more recognized in G.W. Bush. A man initially unknown to the country (not unlike Lincoln) who promised to be a uniter and not a divider. The 1990's saw divisive partisanship played like a fiddle, mostly to the Republican’s advantage through wedge issues and (perceived) moral authority. And the Democrats had a great maestro in Bill Clinton to enable their bellicosity.
In the 21st century, power has become absolute. Force any advantage through the media and then through the courts if necessary. Bush did come into the Office with good credentials as far as the minority of the electorate was concerned. But that is how the founding fathers set up the Electoral College system and we will forever be slaves to enforce it, even through capitulation of the courts.
For the first few months, Bush did what he was expected to do. Float along until the next election cycle. He interacted little with the legislature and took a lot of vacation. Then the unthinkable happened. September, 11 2001. America suffered the first attack on its sovereign soil since WWII. America, with the near universal support of not only its people, but of the world, attacked the perpetrators of this event through their provided sanctuary and training in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, those in American power also recognized it.
Leverage I. The time after 9/11 can only be described for the American people as a time for morning, and yes, vengeance. But it was justified given the World's support and the balanced response of those in power. This was viewed as leverage for those in American power. Leverage to go after what they saw as the easiest target in the axis of evil: Iraq. Leveraged by Americans desire for vengeance.
They had to know that Iraq didn't possess WMD, just as they had to know there was no connection to Al-Qaeda. The greatest threats according to our government were North Korea and Iran. Yet we never did more than raise the rhetorical finger at them. Particularly North Korea, the greatest unstable threat to America and the world because they do have WMD’s. They also knew that Iraq possessed one of the biggest oil fields known to man and its current head of State was reviled in America due to past transgressions.
The government used its leverage to scare the populace into war. The government had both a grudge and a capitol interest in Iraq. The government used its leverage to force the populace into a war with Iraq.
Leverage II: Ultimately, the 'government' realized that it could make a real power grab based on 9/11. Not just abroad through war, but here at home as well. Bush has always been nothing more than a pawn and an enabler. Being an ex-addict, he would drink in his power from the first person that handed him the cup. Like any ex-addict he swooned to the whispers in his ears: Adoration and Deference in one, Power and Control in the other. Enter Richard Cheney for real.
Enter a man, who was the head of the committee to select the Veep for Bush, who said 'I'm your best man'. On its face this suggestion was absurd. Here is a man whose job was to find the best person qualified defend the country in the event of catastrophe, who selects himself to secretly pull the strings of Power. By definition, that is a conflict of interest, and Bush said OK. The moral attitude of Bush was laid bare by his selection of VP, or more accurately his acceptance of VP. 'I choose myself' is not a conflict Bush has a problem with.
Enter the power paradigm of Guantanamo, enter the reality of Abu Ghraib, enter the reality of spying on American citizens, and enter the reality of torture and all the litany of others. Enter the watchwords for America as 'Power through Fear'. For the first time in history, Americans were cowed through fear.
G.W. Bush 2004-2008. The luster begins to fade. Both wars are mis-managed: troops are dying, costs are rising, and the short war runs on and on. The war at home can only be advanced by firing attorneys with the hope that no one will notice. To assume that firing federal attorney's general would go unnoticed was the first failure. War in Iraq, the second eternal failure. Spying on Americans remains somewhat successful, but leaves lingering doubt. The third branch stands up and says that the tribunals in Guantanimo are a sham...time and time again. More failure.
The American people begin to learn that Bush can read, and he reads history books on the civil war, the Armenian war, on war after war after war. Bush begins to opine on his legacy. He takes his final nod from Rove and distracts the American people as we think that Bush wants his wartime legacy to avenge him. While all rational people discredit this view, the American people cling to it. We buy it hook, line, and sinker. We all believe that success in Iraq is his intended legacy, as he presumably believes it. Never mind that his understanding of war is no greater or deeper than his understanding of global warming, or justice, or the economy.
Leverage III. In the last six months of his presidency, Bush begins to understand the economy. No, he begins to appreciate the economy. He has always been told what to do. War is immediate action with immediate consequences as he understands it. The economy is much more subtle. It takes time to develop, to disentangle; it takes time for him to fully understand what has been happening underneath his nose with the economy. Right now, on Sept. 23, 2008, G.W. Bush fully understands true power.
With the advance of "his" bailout plan he knows absolute leverage. He knows that giving 700 billion to a financial industry that leverages 30:1, he's effectively giving them 21 trillion. Trillion is a number most humans can't even fathom, including G.W. Bush. 21 trillion in bailout is, and think about this, is 13 times greater, adjusted for inflation, than Carter had when he took office for the entire national debt. 21 trillion in bailout is, and think about this, just under four times greater than the national debt when Reagan left office adjusted for inflation. 21 trillion, paid to every single American, would amount to all of us winning the lottery at just under $200,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. THAT is leverage. And that is Bush's legacy. The real leverage to bring the world to its knees.
Right now Bush is huddled in his bed dreaming of sugar-plums and fairies: he cares not one whit for you. He knows that the American people will shoulder his burden as they have done in the past. He knows that that the CEO's in the final hour of desperation, having bailed them out, will bail him out too. He dreams of his legacy. He dreams of a MBA from Harvard saving this country from certain ruin without understanding that it was he who brought it on. He dreams not of cheaters, of murderers, of villains, he dreams only of himself in the ideal. He dreams of his lever that he finally pulled to move the world.
Denouement: Strangely, Archimedes was right. If given a big enough lever you can move the world. The question was never asked: In which direction do you move it? I only ask this question. Could it be that a political party that started its movement with a little known lawyer from Illinois that championed equality and ethics end it with a blow-hard from Texas completely antithetical to everything that little known lawyer ever stood for?
I find it interesting that the Democratic Party now rallies behind a little known candidate that stands for everything the party has been historically against. I find it interesting that, through the lens of history, Lincoln was more a Democrat than he ever imagined.