[A. Serwer]
Sean Wilentz's lengthy book review of several Lincoln biographies isn't up on The New Republic's website yet, [actually it is, my bad] but his criticism of several books on Lincoln--and his general objection to the "two Lincolns" narrative that rejects the fact that Lincoln was anti-slavery to begin with, may offer some insight into President Obama's perplexing stances on gay rights.
Wilentz objects to an academic trend he sees as priviledging radicals over politicians, which he feels fails to take into account the exigencies of politics and what brilliant politicians are able to accomplish. More specifically, in one part of the review, he takes Skip Gates to task for taking Lincoln's words at face value only when it suits his preconcieved narrative of who Lincoln was:
He takes Lincoln's words at face value when it suits his own arguments--such as his remarks to the Chicago ministers in September 1862 about black military incompetence--but he is unable to see Lincoln for what his finest biographers have shown he was: a shrewd leader who could give misleading and even false impressions when he wanted to do so, and made no public commitments until the moment was ripe.
Lincoln made a number of statements, that, viewed out of context, would cause us to question his commitment to ending slavery, most notably his statement, responding to liberal Republican editor Horace Greeley that he was determined to save the Union whether it meant freeing all of the slaves or freeing none of them. Wilentz points out that this statement was meant to shore up Lincoln's right flank during the election, but did not actually contradict his anti-slavery views or goals--Lincoln had already secretly begun drafting the Emancipation Proclaimation.
What Obama "privately believes" about gay rights has been the subject of great speculation, and I think there's reason for that. We are, I think, if only by virtue of greater access to information, far more scrutinizing of what politicians say. So it's worth noting again that Obama's position on gay marriage, which TNC parsed the other day, doesn't actually preclude Obama eventually supporting marriage equality:
I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.
This is at least as noncomittal about the extension of secular marriage rights to gays as Lincoln's statement was about emancipation. And yet it gives the impression that Obama is opposed, which may be precisely what it is meant to do.
It's possible that I am parsing out of wishful thinking, so I'm going to quote from Obama's speech the other night:
So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.) We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.
And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.
Like Lincoln's statements on slavery, these statements give contradictory impressions, but they are not, in matter of fact, contradictory. Obama's invocation of black rights and "basic equality" cannot be read as anything other than a rhetorical endorsement of full rights for the LGBT community.
It's worth noting that Lincoln was, as Wilentz writes, pretty adept with the racist joke or occasional n-bomb on the campaign trail. It was a different time, and Lincoln could use bigotry to maneuver himself into a favorable position in a way in which Obama can't or shouldn't. Likewise, it's possible for us to divine in hindsight that Lincoln's anti-slavery ambitions preceded his presidency, and that they were in fact sincere, because of how much he accomplished. Obama really hasn't done anything yet to where his cautiousness on gay rights can be read as part of a larger political strategy. That administration's frustrating foot-dragging on DADT in defiance of public opinion may have to do with internal administration politics, or it may be an indication that everything I am reading into his stance is wrong. At the same time, his incremental moves--extension of federal benefits to same sex couples, appointing John Berry to the Office of Personnel Management--mirror Lincon's baby steps towards emancipation and recruitment of black soldiers.
But I think it's possible, indeed probable, that Obama's slow progress on gay rights may be the kind of political maneuvering Lincoln displayed prior to the Emancipation Proclaimation or the recruitment of black soldiers. Earlier, TNC wrote this:
I've heard it said, many times, on this board that Obama is actually pro-gay marriage, but that he can't come out all the way. If that's the case, then we must conclude that he is lying about his stance. Moreover, he's invoking his relationship with religion, and his God, in that lie. Perhaps worse, he isn't being fully honest with the very audiences he wants credit for addressing--the very audiences, that by his logic, would most benefit from that honesty.
Wilentz writes that current trends in history privilege "idealists who they imagine were unblemished by expedience and compromise" rather than the "scheming, self-aggrandizing political professionals" who are decisive in "the achievement of America's greatest advances."
I think he has a point. We love radicals because they can afford to be honest, they can afford not to compromise. Preferring the radicals over the schemers makes us feel better about ourselves, but if we're being honest we'll admit that there is more of the schemer in our radical heroes than we would like to believe, MLK was not merely an idealist. But honesty is not necessarily a virtue in a schemer or a politician, except when it can be used in pursuit of a larger goal. It is the job of public voices and radicals to be honest--it is the job of politicians to create favorable political circumstances by all available, appropriate means and seize the opportune moment.
Now maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe Obama is merely two-faced, and there is no skillful maneuvering here. I'm certainly not arguing that advocacy organizations should cease pressuring him. I just think it's not that far fetched that Obama, like his hero, sees himself as carefully laying the groundwork for full equality and that he genuinely believes that someday, we will judge him favorably "not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps."
UPDATE: I should acknowledge, that at the end of his essay, Wilentz spends a great deal of time explaining how Obama isn't Lincoln. I think this is basically a straw man--I'm not arguing above that Obama is "like" Lincoln but rather that he may be imitating some of his methods. What's really ironic, I suppose, is that Wilenz attacks Obama for disdaining politics during his campaign in the same manner as academic historians, while practicing the same dirty politics all along, in order to achieve his goal of winning the primary. Forgive me, but isn't that the exact kind of thing Wilentz argues effective politicians do and why it makes them able to accomplish great things? If anyone has failed to misunderstand politics in the manner Wilentz describes, it isn't Obama.
Also, isn't it about time to get over Hillary Clinton losing?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Thanks AS, that was good stuff. I definitely think we put President Obama in a black/white box when it comes to the issues we are passionate about with out ever examining the many shades of grey that he traffics in. Such is the life of a politician IMHO, even the most powerful one in the world.
Very well done. Thanks.
Lincoln's anti-slavery views were formed as a boy in Kentucky. He daily saw the pain, deprevations and inhumanity of the institution.
Later when he piloted a boat down the Miss he feelings against human bondage strengthened.
At every point in his life Lincoln showed lcear signs of abhoriing slavery and wishing its existence gone.
He also knew that slavery was enshrined in the Constitutiion and he hoped, as the founders did, that by preventing expansion the institution would rot and collapse from within.
I love Obama - and I'm disappointed by a lot of what he does. But I expected to be because he pretty much told us we would be early in his campaign and that the heavy lifting was ultimately on the social movements and the grass roots. That's one thing that endeared him to me early on. He wasn't self-aggrandizing as the guy who was going to save the country from the Oval Office. I've been telling "idealistic" folks bitching about him in recent months that the thing they've got to understand about Obama is that he's actually pretty ruthless. I'm certain he's got Jesus in his heart, but he's for sure got enough Machiavelli in his head to flatten his opposition over the long run. (I think we all should understand by now that this White House is full of "long runners.) And dammit that's exactly the kind of strategically complex pol that those of us who feel good about ourselves for detesting all things Machiavellian really need, whether we know it or not.
The exemplary political symbiosis right now summing up the Obama era is evident on the Ed Schultz show segments where he tortures that lady from the White House health reform team over single payer and public option, "drawing a line in the sand" and "growing a pair." In truth, I know she's loving it that Ed and his constituency are lighting their fires, while she dutifully cautions patience. These people know WTF they're doing IMHO.
PD - Thanks for tacking on the note about Wilentz being a total fucking schmuck and sore loser. He really wanted to be the Clinton's Arthur Schlesinger. Asshole...
Uh...that's "PS"
thephoenixnyc has it exactly right. Lincoln's views on slavery were nuanced, evolved throughout his adult life and would have continued to do so had he not been assassinated.
Allow me as brief digression: Ta-Nehisi recently recommended James McPherson's "The Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era." I have just completed this very fine book and can say that it is the best single volume that I have read on the war in no small part because the author does not fall into the trap of quoting and writing about Lincoln and others out of the context of the times in which they lived and struggled.
This comparison to Lincoln is interesting, but not surprising. Radical change is rarely forced down society's throat without adequate preparation. (Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade being two glaring exceptions which are still controversial in conservative circles)
Obama is an example of someone who focuses on winning the war; that's why he trounced McCain, who won nearly every weekly news cycle of the final months of 2008. Obama is the first meta-politician: he so intrinsically understands society's media saturation (and its meaninglessness) that he is unfazed by the machinations of the narrative machines that pump away day-in and day-out.
The progressives mantra "now now now now now" is beginning to get on my last nerve. STFU already—he's got this, okay?
Actually, I think that (along the same lines as brucds's example w/health care reform), the progressive stridency may well be part of the administration's long game. It's useful to have "radical" voices out there so that Obama can appear to be charting a moderate course on gay rights; it may not appease the hardliners on the right, but I think it helps bring along the reluctant middle.
Okay, here's where I may be letting my hero-worship get the better of me, so y'all cynical folks pile on and tell me I'm an idiot.
Let's assume for teh moment that Obama is sincere when he says that he thinks DADT should be ended, and gays should serve openly. He's right that it will really take Congress to change the UCMJ in order for a permanent change to happen.
If Obama does what all us progressive types want, and stops the military from discharging folks under DADT by executive order -- don't you think he takes all of the pressure off Congress? And takes a hot potato off their hands, so they really won't have to deal with it? So an exec order would really prevent the kind of permanent change we all want, even though it would feel great in the short term.
Ok...you're an idiot. This idea is just spin. It's such poor spin that I'm dismayed to even have to address it. They just don't want to do it yet--for whatever reason, the possibilities are numerous--but the press wouldn't stop asking so they had to come up with something.
If anything, the experience with openly serving gays will make it that much easier for Congress to change this down the line. Either way, it stops the ongoing dismissals.
By the way, I have been in meetings where people mention that the spin doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to give the people inclined to support you something to hang a hat on. That was directed at the right, but it obviously goes both ways, and sadly it works.
Actually, I don't think you're an idiot, I had similar thoughts about this issue just yesterday. I kept going back and forth about whether Obama should just issue an executive order to freeze the enforcement of DADT or if he should push repeal of the statute through Congress -- honestly, I think that doing both would be helpful. It's not a perfect solution, but it is a good starting point.
But then I was reading a blog post on the Swamp, and they were talking about how legislation that would repeal DADT was introduced in 2005, but has never made it out of committee...why is that? My thing is this legislation had the support of Congress in 1993, so the current members of Congress should be forced to man up and either vote in favor of repeal or explain why they continue to support a policy that is harmful to our national security, treats gays and lesbians like second class citizens, and wastes hundreds of millions of our tax dollars.
I'm sick of this. People keep accusing Obama of failing to take leadership on this issue, when members of Congress had five years to repeal this policy through legislation that has already been introduced and currently has 150 sponsors.
I get that Lincoln is in these days but wouldn't JFK/LBJ and the Civil Rights movement be a better comparison for Obama and the Gay Rights movement, not so much for the human interest story (I prefer my pscyho-history in novels), dealing with the wars, cold and hot, and the economy and the southern vote and all? It seems worth remembering how MLK and co. had to keep pushing back against "more general/pressing" concerns of the admin and their struggles with the congress. If there is a lesson to be learned from Clinton on gay right it's probably that good intentions aren't enough...
History will tell. But no matter what full equality for gays and lesbians mean to me as a gay man, slavery was the absolute main issue for Lincoln and the country. Think something like terrorism + 2 wars + economy + health care and still all that together doesn't amount to what slavery as an issue meant in Lincoln's times.
What is in the President's mind about gay rights? For a man of his formation, smarts and empathy and for a man that 13 years ago was in favor of marriage equality and for all the things that he says for me it is a no-brainer that he is in favor of full gay rights. You see all Democrats talking about FULL equality for gays and them say they are against gay marriage and you know that this is not what they really think, they really are for gay marriage but cannot say it because they think they will be toast. That is what you see Dems evolving in Conn and New York. There just one Feingold in the Senate. Remember how funny was Joe Biden in the debate about this. Obama is a very skillful politician and so he doesn't sound that funny but really...
I agree that Obama is playing a game here, but I don't think that it is the one Serwer think Obama is. I tend to think that Obama is dragging his foot on this because he thinks there are other issues way more important in his agenda than gay rights. He might not want to ignite a cultural war. He has been courting very hard moderate white evangelicals. He might think that repealing of DOMA will cost the Dems some seats in 2012. He might not want to face the Army on DODT --he actually needs the big Republican guns like Gates and Petraus etc to give him some "tough" credentials vis a disengagement in Irak and procurement reform in the Pentagon. So, so many reasons not to go there.
Sometimes things are simpler: I believe he is stalling because he doesn't think this is the right time. If there is a moment in which doing something will be politically convenient, he will move swiftly.
And hey, he is so good. Read his recent speech to gays on the Stonewell 40 anniversary. Look how seamlessly, beautifully our fierce advocate tell us he is not going to ask us to wait then the substance of the speech is exactly the opposite: wait, wait till the end of my term; Congress, Congress.
"hey, he is so good. Read his recent speech to gays on the Stonewell 40 anniversary. Look how seamlessly, beautifully our fierce advocate tell us he is not going to ask us to wait then the substance of the speech is exactly the opposite: wait, wait till the end of my term; Congress, Congress"
I actually think he did something rhetorically brilliand and honest - especially because in stating "it's not for me to tell you to be patient" he linked the gay movement to the civil rights movement which evokes similiar historical symbiosis between politicians and activists. I don't think he was telling folks "wait", in the sense of "don't keep the pressure on or slow your movement" - I think he was telling people that he was indeed committed to equality over the longer term and what he believes he could actually get done if given the chance. I actually think Obama is smart enough to know that a lack of "patience" at the grassroots isn't at all inconsistent with his successful execution of certain strategic goals within a full-term time frame - it's inevitable and it's more of a help to him than a hindrance. This thing is a dance - not "cheek-to-cheek" but the guy is actually out there dancing with you.
Your reasoning is perfectly plausible. It could be the right one. I admit I hadn't looked at it this way.
But allow me to keep my first reading of it as another possibility. Because it is the one that matches with his actions and the actions of his administration so far.
In either event, the obvious "right thing to do" isn't to "wait" or "be patient."
Nice post, Adam. I think there's a chance this is right - that Obama really does favor gay rights and will eventually act on it.
But even if that's right, I think it's misguided to tell LGBT folks to stop with the "now now now now," as the post may lead some to say. For one thing, if you are a gay person who has finally started to believe you are a real person entitled to equality, it stings when a superstar progressive politician tells the world "too bad" for gays.
For example, the DOJ brief states that DOMA doesn't undermine gay people's rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Sorry, but that is shitty and people have the right to say it. Just like black people had the right to think Lincoln was a jerk for using racism to his advantage. They didn't have equality yet, and lord knows they had no reason to believe it would be coming without a mighty struggle.
Second, if Obama really is committed to advancing LGBT rights, we need to hold him to it, because it's a hard thing for a politician to do. If you want something, you have to hold politicians' feet to the fire. Obama himself has said that he is empowering us, not the other way around, sending the clear message that we are supposed to make our views known and hold people in authority accountable.
I'm sure the calls for "equality now" can sometimes annoy some folks, and I'm sure people can disagree about tactics for achieving, but every community has a right to call out blatant discrimination wherever and whenever it happens.
One more thing: I am not disparaging Obama. He is a politician. I probably would do the same if I was him --and wasn't gay.
But the idea that gay people will STFU already is a fool's dream. I will not happen. Many of us have stopped accepting our inequality and many of us will do so soon. So sorry.
Another thing to consider, I think, is the legal side in all of this.
Obama believes in the rule of law. As a previous commenter stated, it would take Congress to truly repeal DADT, DOMA, etc. . . . or it would take the Courts.
I know that some are upset that Obama has kept the same tact as Bush in regards to defending DOMA, but if that case is defeated - i.e., the government defense of DOMA loses - then there is a legal precedent stating that the law is unconstitutional, which would then necessitate a statutory change.
By pursuing this path (if, indeed this is the path, and it is just speculation on my part), Obama works within the system to produce the result that he wants, it becomes part of U.S. law, and he can use that as further leverage to push for equality.
As I've said, this is speculation, but I think it makes sense.
The other reason to use either the Courts or Congress, rather than Executive Order, is permanence. An executive order can be overturned by the next President that disagrees with it. Law, as determined by the Courts and the legislature, can not.
I think there's also the issue that the administration is technically obligated to uphold the laws as they currently exist, whether they like them or not. But I understand why that's not the least bit comforting to the gay community.
I noted this in comments yesterday, and I'll start with it here again. The WaPo yesterday reported that basically the White House (Rahm) and Congressional leadership have basically agreed to not to take any action on "controversial social issues" for the foreseeable future, so as not to "derail" health care or whatever. Rahm, the article notes, is working from his experience in the Clinton administration.
We gay folks have experiences with the Clinton administration, too. He was a candidate who talked nice to us and fucked us over. Hard. (Let's face it, we got worse law at the federal level under Clinton than Bush, if for no other reason that at least when Bush was in town Congress didn't pass anything to hurt us, try as the Republicans might.)
We really have no reason to trust that any DC politicians will pursue policy favorable to us. (Or maybe there's a solid handful we can count on, but there's no indication that the current President has been among that handful.)
(Or maybe there's a solid handful we can count on, but there's no indication that the current President has been among that handful.)
And Rahm definitely has NOT been among them.
"That administration's frustrating foot-dragging on DADT in defiance of public opinion may have to do with internal administration politics, or it may be an indication that everything I am reading into his stance is wrong. At the same time, his incremental moves--extension of federal benefits to same sex couples, appointing John Berry to the Office of Personnel Management--mirror Lincon's baby steps towards emancipation and recruitment of black soldiers."
I'm inclined to give Obama some of the benefit of the doubt, but I'm loyalty oriented--which is good, but means sometimes I hang on too long. So my question is: when should we worry?
When should we be able to say "We've given you time, you aren't acting, I'm beginning to suspect that maybe you never really cared about this issue".
DOMA, I understand the need to act slowly. It is still a contested issue public opinion is sharply divided on.
DADT, I'm much less understanding on. Public opinion is already on the side he says he is on. We are publically losing mission critical soldiers. The issue isn't very complicated and could be corrected by a very straightforward bill. He isn't pushing Congress. He isn't taking administrative action. I don't get it.
On the HIV travel ban, I REALLY don't get. The Congressional obstacles were lifted at the end of Bush's term under a much more Republican Congress. So he can't blame Congress. What the heck is going on? Another super easy area which is languishing for no reason.
The completely unnecessary DOJ intervention in the Prop 8 lawsuit is very discouraging. This was a direct and un-required administration act. And blaming it on a Bush appointee isn't going to fly. There is no way that brief went out without authorization from the poltical appointees. What the heck?
I'm willing to wait if there is a strategy. But what if the strategy is about shutting me up, not getting things done for gay people?
AS writes - "It is the job of public voices and radicals to be honest--it is the job of politicians to create favorable political circumstances by all available, appropriate means and seize the opportune moment."
That about sums up what I think President Obama is doing. And, I have no problem with the strategy. Yeah, it's easy for me to support this strategy since I'm heterosexual and I'm not being deprived of MY civil rights.
I've commented on other blogs that if LGB and T Americans want to circumvent this strategy, the Obama Adminsitration and Congress are going to have to be shamed into granting them full equality faster than is planned.
Think the black civil rights movement. It wasn't the Montgomery Bus Boycott, sit-ins or even the March on Washington that got us the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was what all Americans saw in Birmingham in 1963 - the bombing of a church that killed four young Sunday schoolers; the dogs and the water hoses.
I'm not advocating that death or harm befall anyone, but usually Americans have to SEE the pain and injustice that is visited upon our discriminated Americans as a group if political action is to be taken BEFORE its "scheduled" time.
I'm all for respecting the automony and accomplishments of Lincoln and LBJ as people who really knew how to work the system and did so for the very best of ends.
But to draw a general lesson from that, to say that we should always just look for the dirtiest politician and assume that they have the best of intentions is a horrible mistake. It's a strange Stakhanovite elitism. Even if Lincoln was the best president and Stakhanov was the best worker, it's stupid policy to expect all presidents to be Lincoln and all workers to be Stakhanov. Most leaders need pressure and convincing to do the right thing just as most workers need incentives to work harder.
all available, appropriate means and seize the opportune moment.
the ends justifies the means - if it works out
Think about the conspiracy theories that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor - at this point 70 years it would only make him a greater hero
I also find it hard to believe any Republican was not for ending slavery wasn't that the whole point of the party in that time period
I don't think the reality on the ground warrants this historical comparison to Lincoln. Obama may be setting aside gay rights for reasons of strategy, but the strategy is not one directed at advancing gay rights . They are doing it for reasons of overall Democratic strategy. I.e., he's just willing to make it lower priority in order to achieve his other goals. I personally don't at all agree that it's as necessary as he thinks -- to me he and his key advisors are far too stuck in 1993--but it's pretty plain that's what is going on. See, e.g., Rahm's recent comments to the press about avoiding hot social issues.
Not even the most cautious of gay rights advocates (and there are certainly many cautious ones, and many that have been burned) think we need to go this slow for strategic reasons relating to gay rights . So to me an analogy where Obama is Lincoln and knows better than any one else working on the issues is both far-fetched and kind of insulting. And it ignores the much plainer story of what is happening here.
I think that's a fair assessment, slavery was the dominant issue of the day in a way that gay rights is not.
"Not even the most cautious of gay rights advocates (and there are certainly many cautious ones, and many that have been burned) think we need to go this slow for strategic reasons relating to gay rights."
Agree with abcommentator. See Obama's uebercaution on DADT although public opinion supports torpedoing it.
Re: Obama, DOMA, DADT, "war" funding, national health, bail-outs for the looters on Wall St, Israel-Palestine, etc...
Obama is looking more and more like Bush in black face to me....but this guy knows better....
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut
Kudos to New England (sans RI) and Iowa for supporting marriage.
And to the marriage foes...remember, we have freedom of religion, and also freedom from religion in America...so find something else to do with your time, because life's too short. Find love..
"Blackface, in the narrow sense, is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to take on the appearance of certain archetypes of American racism, especially those of the "happy-go-lucky darky on the plantation" or the "dandified coon ". Blackface in the broader sense includes similarly stereotyped performances even when they do not involve blackface makeup."
Sorry, but the Bush in blackface irks me. It just doesn't apply to an actual black man.
I would like to call 'time out' on comparisons of Obama with Lincoln or any one else. He didn't finish his first term in the Senate and isn't even 6 months into his presidency. Of course he hasn't addressed the concerns of all his constituencies. Even a stalwart conservative like Charles Krauthammer has expressed shocked awe at the range of challenges Obama has taken on, so many of which are 'third rails' that the cliche needs to be revised. And Obama has now added immigration reform to the list.
Next topic. Petty sniping about Wilentz and the failed Clinton run for the White House campaign ignores what even The Economist, a magazine where news and spin are particularly hard to separate, can see. One of their recent columns says that Clinton's appointment as Sec. of State may be his most successful.
I agree. Obama saw through the small mindedness among his campaign staff and Democractic circles and of course vulture journalists, and recognized her brains, professionalism, maturity and personal integrity. When she accepted his offer she obviously made a full commitment to the job and is giving it everything she has. I was one of the skeptics, thinking that she would have trouble with the reality that Obama would get the brighter spotlights, the bigger headlines. I was completely wrong.
There has been a lot of talk about Lincoln and his Cabinet. Obama is getting off to a great start with his own. I worry about, am skeptical about, some big things in his short record, like compromises on cap and trade or possible big health care concessions. But it's far too early to know. DADT and DOMA are important, but I am OK with Obama's priorities.
Recommended reading on Lincoln and race is "Lincoln on Race and Slavery", intro and edited by Henry Louis Gates. Garry Wills has a fine essay/review in June 11, 2009 The New York Review of Books. Read the Wills review, at least.