ABRAHAM LINCOLN ON THE RISE OF DONALD TRUMP

“Think of your forefathers!  Think of your posterity!”–John Quincy Adams

constitution

Last time I alluded to one of Abraham Lincoln’s lesser known public speeches, an 1838 address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois.  Boiled down, Lincoln made four main points:

1) The finished work of the Founding Fathers was to establish and order liberty, tasks completed by the American Revolution and the creation and implementation of the Constitution.  Their unfinished work, a responsibility that every subsequent generation must shoulder, is to sustain the free institutions that the Founders created and to preserve the political liberty that they bequeathed to us, so that we may convey it undiminished to our children and our children’s children.

2) If we ever fail in this high duty, it will not be because an external enemy has overwhelmed us.  The death of liberty will not come from abroad.  “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”  In Lincoln’s haunting phrase, “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

3) The “strongest bulwark” of our democratic form of government is “the attachment of the People.”  Conversely, free government is never more vulnerable than when the public has concluded it cannot, or will not, protect them and champion their interests.  In such an environment, the majority may eventually conclude—recklessly, emotionally—that any change is better than no change since “they imagine they have nothing to lose.”

This is the earliest known picture of Lincoln, taken in 1846, eight years after he addressed the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois.

This is the earliest known picture of Lincoln, taken in 1846, eight years after he addressed the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois.

4) Such a negative environment is fertile ground for tyranny.  Ambitious individuals will inevitably arise from time to time, men (or women) who will “thirst for distinction” and who will attain it, if possible, at whatever cost.  When such a figure arises, Lincoln maintained, “it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.”  When these attributes are not in place, the people may actually embrace the future tyrant and become active agents in their own downfall.

So what are we to make of this?  Did Lincoln share observations with his audience 178 years ago that we need to hear today?  Since beginning this blog three and a half years ago, I have tried hard to avoid partisanship, both religious and political.  I have called out evangelical writers who exaggerate our nation’s Christian heritage (as here, for example), just as I have contradicted secular writers who would understate it (as in this post).  In the realm of politics, I’ve kept my distance from current debates, even though that is the fastest way to build an online following.  When history gets caught up in political conflicts, it can quickly become just another political tool, a rhetorical weapon valued more for its usefulness than its accuracy.

I detest this history-as-ammunition approach to the past.  Whenever I further it, I am abusing my responsibility as a historian.  But at the same time, when careful study of the past points me toward insights that are relevant to the present and I refuse to share them, I am abdicating my responsibility as a historian and violating the law of love in the process.  And so, although I am committed to making political statements as sparingly as possible, in this post and the next one, I am going to do so candidly.

A word of qualification first: Abraham Lincoln was neither politically nor morally infallible.  Nor was he an unerring prophet, a nineteenth-century Nostradamus who left us clues concerning our future if we parse his words carefully.  But Lincoln did go on to prove himself a statesman of unusual ability, and in so doing he earned our attention.  We don’t have to listen to him slavishly—asking “What would Lincoln do?” so we can go and do likewise—but we should listen to him respectfully.  If history, at its best, can be a “conversation with the dead about what we should value and how we should live,” as David Harlan puts it, Lincoln surely deserves to be a part of that conversation.

So are Lincoln’s warnings of nearly two centuries ago something we should heed today?  Absolutely.  In particular, pay attention to the third and fourth principles in his address.  First, if “attachment to the Government” is crucial to the functioning of a free society, then Americans in 2016 are in a bad way.  If it has shown anything, the presidential campaign to date has demonstrated the magnitude of popular disgust with politics as usual.  On both extremes of the political continuum, huge segments of the electorate are convinced that our national political institutions are obstacles to social justice and must be “taken back” from the special interests that control them.

Opinion poll data put such views in long-term perspective.  According to data collected by the Pew Research Center, the proportion of Americans expressing trust in the national government has fallen to a historical low.  As late as 1964, 77 percent of Americans surveyed reported that they trusted the government in Washington “to do what it right” all or most of the time.  Can you imagine that?  Today that proportion has fallen to 19 percent.  Popular trust began to fall off sharply after the Kennedy-Johnson years, thanks largely to Watergate and Vietnam, and although it has fluctuated sharply from time to time, the overall trend since then has been decidedly downward.

By the fall of 2015, distrust of the federal government was rampant across the population.  The Pew polling data provides percentages for a broad range of population categories, dissecting the nation by race, ethnicity, age, education, and political affiliation or leaning.  At present, there is not a demographic category in the nation in which as much as 30 percent of respondents profess to trust government all or most of the time.  As polarized as Americans now are, they do share this much in common: they are profoundly distrustful of their national government.  If Lincoln was right, and “the attachment of the people” is the “strongest bulwark” of the government, then we live in a nation in crisis.

“So what else is new?” I can hear you thinking.  Aren’t we perpetually bombarded by voices from all sides raising just this alarm?  Not exactly.  Oh sure, it is impossible to listen to the talking heads on talk radio or cable news or to any of a long list of political candidates without hearing dire warnings about the state of the nation and the logjam in Washington.  But the subtext of such jeremiads is almost always that things can be made right again simply by a change of personnel.  All that prevents us from restoring hope or promoting social justice or “making America great again” is the victory of the correct candidate or party or movement.  The message, in sum, is that popular attachment to the government will be restored just as soon as the officeholders in Washington get their act together and start deserving our trust again.

Perhaps Lincoln would be sympathetic with such a posture if he could survey the political landscape in 2016.  We’ll never know.  What we can say for sure is that this is not what he had in mind 178 years ago, not remotely.  The thrust of Lincoln’s Lyceum Address is that the People themselves can also be responsible for an erosion of trust in the government.  Popular attachment to the government is not just something that happens when government does its job.  Lincoln believed that attachment to the government was an indispensable political quality that Americans should constantly, consciously cultivate.  “How shall we fortify against” the loss of faith in government, Lincoln asked?  We do so, he maintained, by promoting respect for the rule of law and by replacing passion in the public square with reason.

“Every lover of liberty” should swear to honor the law, Lincoln lectured his lyceum audience.  The people should purpose to make “reverence for the laws . . . the political religion of the nation.”  This didn’t mean blind submission to every government edict.  Lincoln would not have counseled civilians in Nazi Germany to give unqualified obeisance to the Fuhrer.  “Let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws,” he elaborated, “nor that grievances may arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.”  Such realities will exist on occasion.  (Lincoln certainly believed that such was the case in 1838.)  But in the midst of such circumstances, Lincoln called for a public mind that patiently addresses injustice within the rule of law, working to alleviate ills without violating the Constitutional forms necessary for liberty to flourish over the long run.

In addition to inculcating such “reverence,” Lincoln called on his audience to promote rationality.  Popular passions may have played a role during the American Revolution, Lincoln admitted, when the patriots of 1776 labored to establish liberty.  But passion is actually an obstacle to ordering and sustaining liberty, Lincoln maintained.   Repeatedly, Lincoln directed his audience to passion as the “enemy” of those who would live by the rule of law.  He speaks of “mob law,” the “mobocratic spirit, “the growing disposition to substitute the cold and furious passions” in the place of “sober judgment.”

Passion “will in future be our enemy,” Lincoln concluded, precisely because, when combined with a loss of “attachment” to the government, it leaves the public ripe for exploitation by the ambitious demagogue who “thirsts for distinction” and will do all within his power to attain it, “whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen.”

When such a demagogue arises, remember that Lincoln predicted that three popular qualities will be necessary to “successfully frustrate his designs.”  “It will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent [i.e., guided by reason].  Surely Americans in 2016 fall short on all three counts, which is why the Republican Party faces the appalling prospect of a “presumptive nominee” with no appreciable qualifications for the job but a prodigious talent for channeling popular passions, chief among which are fear, resentment, anxiety, and hatred.

Trump1

Did Abraham Lincoln predict the rise of Donald Trump?  No, not specifically.  But he absolutely nailed the conditions necessary for such a travesty to occur.

I’ll elaborate in my next post.  In the meantime, I’d welcome your thoughts.

10 responses to “ABRAHAM LINCOLN ON THE RISE OF DONALD TRUMP

  1. Pingback: ERIC METAXAS ON OUR NEED FOR HEROES | Faith and History

  2. Pingback: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE AWFUL: ERIC METAXAS’ NEW BOOK “IF YOU CAN KEEP IT” | Faith and History

  3. Pingback: Conservatives for Progressives to Read (revisited) – The Pietist Schoolman

  4. Pingback: “KING DONALD THE FIRST”—PART ONE | Faith and History

  5. H Paul Thompson Jr

    Wow! Lincoln really nailed it! Thanks again for your great work in using the past to illuminate the present!

  6. danieldavis0220

    I find it really fascinating that one of Lincoln’s three bulwarks against tyranny is social unity among the civic polity. Back in March, when the GOP race was still in high gear, Washington Examiner columnist Michael Barone identified “social connectedness” as the most predictive quality in determining a community’s support for Trump (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/does-lack-of-social-connectedness-explain-trumps-appeal/article/2586842). Barone points to a number of examples: Dutch-American communities in Michigan, highly Pentocostal areas of southwest Missouri, highly churched Oklahoma, and the ubiquitously Mormon state of Utah — all of which Trump failed to win. He was especially well beaten in Utah, where Ted Cruz won nearly 70 percent of the vote. This seems to strongly support Lincoln’s stress upon social connectedness as a key bulwark against tyranny. These individuals are far less vulnerable to the lure of the strongman because they are not desperate enough for him. His messianic promises of nationalistic ascendance are less luring, perhaps because the socially embedded person already has what is most important, and that which government can never deliver: family, faith, friendships, pre-political identity.

    At the end of your piece, you use the word “travesty.” I think that describes the Trump phenomenon in the most precise sense of the word. He is himself a travesty of greatness, a complete misrepresentation of what is good, noble and praiseworthy. This makes his mass celebration all the more dispiriting. The man is wretchedness incarnate, and he’s being heralded as a messiah (which is not to minimize our own depravity, only to highlight Trump’s uniquely overt and pronounced depravity). His base of support is shot through with passion, desperation, and a misdirected kind of spiritual longing. I feel almost the same way as when I first found myself (inadvertently) on the streets of a gay pride parade. “We are worshipping a lie. This is completely on our heads.”

    This criticism of Trump — which I guess could be described as the “character” criticism — is often met with a quick and self-assured rebuttal: that we are ignoring the legitimate roots of the Trump followers’ rage. I’ve grown to appreciate some of those roots — R. R. Reno of First Things has given thoughtful yet cautious voice to some of them. All three branches of government, along with the elite coastal class, have grown sorely out of touch with everyday Americans and are acting contrary to their interests in numerous ways. Trump promises to smash this corrupt system. I find that “smashing’ impulse latent within myself — even quite animated at times (e.g. after the Obergefelle ruling, or the president’s transgender bathroom directive).

    But as important as this point is — as well as it explains the discontentment of Trump’s followers — it does not *justify* the man Donald Trump. Mass idolatry is a tragedy in itself, and it demands mourning and repentance, not reluctant cooperation. The mourn-worthiness of the Trump spectacle cannot be cancelled out by rational explanation.

  7. 31 May 2016

    re: ” According to data collected by the Pew Research Center, the proportion of Americans expressing trust in the national government has fallen to a historical low.”

    After this primary season my trust in the political judgment of the American voter has fallen to a new low.

  8. Jack Be Nimble

    Hi Tracy,
    You write this blog in the fond hope that there are people out there who are educated enough to think about Lincoln’s ideas and willing to let history be a witness to the present. I hope this hope is not misplaced. Can you talk some newspaper such as the Chicago Tribune into publishing this in its perspective pages? I think it needs to be on public record so that if and when Trump is elected, we can look back and lament our foolishness. By the way, what about equal time for Hillary or maybe even Bernie? I just finished watching the bio-pic on General Eisenhower and D-Day. Yes, I know, made for TV and probably a bit heavy on the side of Ike’s heroism, but what a contrast with our political leaders today. He and his generation had their characters and values shaped in the cauldron of World War II and their leadership revealed how well iron had sharpened iron. By contrast, our affluence tends to produce a physical, emotional, and mental flabbiness. Trump is not to blame for being Trump; we are to blame for not recognizing him for what he is.

  9. Grady Pennell

    Great posts! Never have the American people been so “disaffected” since the late sixties early seventies. And through you did not say it, prewar Germany was the cauldron of super-intellectual superstars snookered by the little corporal with a less than 40% of disaffected Germans. It does seem from the Barna research the nominal believers (largely disaffected from the church) are the ones Trump has most been able to ignite. Put not your trust in prices. So, as a historian, what can you say about how the church can help the Republic survive such desperate times? What could a Bonhoeffer or Niemoller have done earlier? I fear that it would only be to pray and brace the church for what will happen if you don’t pray. Blessings Pastor Grady

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s