Much has been made of the connection between Abraham Lincoln, the esteemed 16th president, and Barack Obama, our new and popular 44th. In a show of both physical and transcendent connection, the new president even swore his oath on the same bible as did Lincoln 148 years and 28 presidents before. But whether or not they are truly alike or different is an impossible question to answer. President Obama has, at time of publication, only been president for about two days. God willing, he will be president for many more. And while we have known of Barack Obama since his famous convention speech in 2004, like steel, you can only discover a person's true qualities and limitations under extreme pressure. What we think President Obama to be four - or even eight - years in the future, will likely be different from what we think him to be now.
But while there will be more to know later, we do know some things now. An inaugural address may only be the first sentence of the first act in the drama that is the American presidency, but like any first sentence, it has the power to determine the course of the whole play. President Lincoln gave his inaugural address after seven states had already rebelled against federal rule.
Lincoln, like Obama replicated, did take a train to Washington, D.C., but unlike President Obama he didn't arrive to fanfare and adoring throngs of supporters. Instead he was forced to sneak into Washington in the middle of the night, lest someone try to end his presidency before it rightfully began. And today, like then, there are storm clouds gathering, but to many, Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the coming crisis; now many see President Obama as the solution.
Despite the different circumstance, both men used similar strategies in their first public address as President of the United States. Obama, who is inheriting a seven-year-old war on terror and an uncertain economy, chose to combine pragmatism and ideology. During the almost 20-minute speech, Obama included few clap-lines and no memorable sound bites; he instead opted to ground his speech in the realistic sobriety of the moment.
And while President Obama can surely turn a beautiful phrase, the edifice of beautiful language could not conceal that certain campaign promises will not be met. Still, found among the warnings of future "hard choices," there were ideological reminders of who he is as a politician and person. "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works," Obama said in a direct repudiation of Reagan Republicanism.
Lincoln, aware of a possible civil war, chose to interweave his speech with pragmatic concessions to southern slave states and ideological defenses of federal power. He spent much of the opening paragraphs specifically detailing his policy of non-intervention regarding slaves. "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists," Lincoln said, little over 164 words into the 3500 word long speech. But Lincoln, recognizing the importance of his words to the future of the federal government's power, refused to compromise his ideological belief in the supremacy of federal power and inadmissibility of secession, "The central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy ... rejecting the majority principle, anarchy, or despotism in some form, is all that is left," Lincoln warned the people.
As did Lincoln in the years after his inaugural address, American's must now hope that President Obama will continue to govern, as did Lincoln. By tempering his ideological beliefs with pragmatism but never forgetting what he believes to be inextricably right, Obama can guide this country forward, honor his campaign promises and still respect the diverse ideologies within the American political sphere.
Charlie Szold is The Eagle's Editorial Page Editor. You can reach him at CSzold@theeagleonline.com.
