Old school GOP

Applying Honest Abe’s politics in modern America

By Tommy Owens
From the March 2006 Print Edition

If the sixteenth president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, were to be involved in the ideological, political, and social issues of 2006, what would he be and how would he think? Most of what historians and political analysts know about the great “rail-splitter” comes from his wartime leadership as president. To be fair, much of what follows in this article is hypothetical, so it is certainly not guaranteed to be entirely true. But for the sake of intellectual intrigue and pure political fun, let’s go for a whirl and see if we can make an educated guess about how Honest Abe would think today.

Throughout his political career, Lincoln was an ideological chameleon. For example, as president he never exactly prosecuted the Civil War as a conflict to bring an end to slavery. On the contrary, he framed the war as a national effort to restore the Union. He appointed political rivals, such as William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Simon Cameron, to vital cabinet positions. He was a member of the only split ticket in American history; Lincoln became an avid Republican after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, but in 1864 he joined Andrew Johnson, a Democratic unionist southerner, to run for reelection.

That being said, Abraham Lincoln was unflinching in his interpretation of the Constitution, especially in regards to federalism. This is where he would most differ from today’s Republican Party. The current party favors devolution, or the transfer of authority of federal government programs to the states. The Republican party of the late 1850s and 1860s, however, favored the power of the federal government, especially in regards to slavery and its expansion, over that of individual states.

As the GOP’s second presidential nominee and the first-ever Republican president, Lincoln had few disagreements with his party, and if alive today, Lincoln would still be an avid Republican.

He would have no qualms about the NSA domestic spying program. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War and used somewhat questionable tactics in the border states — Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and later West Virginia — to ensure their loyalty to the Union. He had no issues about referring to a higher power, as he did in his Gettysburg Address. He also increased the power and authority of the executive branch, as most Republicans favor today.

Most importantly, he was a president who shaped events, rather than let them shape him. Lincoln understood that leadership means sometimes governing contrary to public opinion. Honest Abe, like the current commander-in-chief, faced a hostile group of pacifist Democrats, then called “Copperheads.” He could have accepted a cease-fire, resigned after the New York draft riots, or taken some other drastic measure after the initial Union setbacks. But he did not do so. He took a far-sighted approach when he said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Lincoln would also be a proponent of the expansion of federal power, as is becoming the zeitgeist in the Republican Party. He signed the Homestead Act in 1862, making land in the West cheap to purchase. He also signed the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act, providing government grants for state agricultural universities.

These accomplishments are similar to federal initiatives strongly backed by today’s GOP. The inception of the Department of Homeland Security is the largest reorganization of the federal government in 50 years. The No Child Left Behind Act is also a GOP-backed education initiative that has and will have very positive effects on the state of American education. The 16th president was the one of the first to issue greenbacks, or paper money, a highly controversial decision that is akin to the 40th or the 43rd president’s massive tax cuts.

A man far ahead of his time on social issues, Lincoln would see similarities between the Dred Scott case and Roe v. Wade. Both cases were wrongly decided, he might assert. Lincoln undoubtedly respected the right of private property; however, he did not see the ownership of other human beings as legitimately protected in the spirit or the letter of the Constitution. To be fair, Lincoln would not want to send the issue to the states, as he was hardly an advocate of states’ rights or nullification.

The “Great Emancipator” was a strong, bold president in terms of prosecuting the Civil War. Despite numerous battlefield setbacks, gigantic death tolls, and political pressure from both parties, Lincoln persevered in achieving his war goals. One can infer he would be strong as well today in terms of achieving victory in Iraq. Both conflicts changed their goals. The Civil War became a conflict to end slavery in the secession states through Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and his lobbying for the 13th Amendment. Iraq became a conflict to ensure a democratic, inclusive form of government after the successful toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Especially in terms of ideology, Lincoln is a difficult man to pigeonhole. His genius lay in his ability to lead, his benevolence (his Reconstruction plan, for example), and his unflinching desire to see America live out its maxim that “all men are created equal.” In terms of party and social ideology, Lincoln would be as strong a Republican today as he was when first nominated in 1860. When we celebrated his birthday on February 12, I hope none of us forgot Lincoln’s leadership during the darkest period in American history and how it can be used today to achieve victory in our current struggles.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot