May 13, 2010

The supposed "big tent" of the GOP "moderates"

When it debuted, the new "moderate" GOP blog Delaware Tomorrow made a big deal about the need to hear diverse points of view, lamented the influence of the hard-right on GOP politics, and by and large yearned for a "big tent" among GOPers. Just check out its first few blog entries.

Well, that didn't last very long.

While perpetually engaging the juvenile antics of the LGOMB's Jason Scott -- who never adds anything of substance to any discussion -- contributor Michael Stafford amazingly took offense that I challenged his notion of Abraham Lincoln as the "greatest president in history." You be the judge: What about this comment is so out of line -- to merit (again, by so-called "big tent" moderates) a response such as this:

The alternative to saving the Union was the emergence of a slave state republic in the south- and the high probability of future fracturing. Given the role America has played in, quite literally, saving the world in the 20th Century, I find it draw-droppingly insane to think that he should have simply let the South go its way.

Debatable? To whom?

You can read my follow-up comments; however, the reaction by Michael to my points are along the lines found every day at the LGOMB. It's "jaw-droppingly insane" to suggest the South be allowed to secede as it wished (which I did not, at any rate, outright suggest). The suggestion of alternatives to that which Lincoln undertook is "not debatable." As I just noted, it seems Michael really didn't take much time to actually read what I had written and instead placed his own words and thoughts over my own. Then, the topic had to be dropped:

Iím not going to follow you much further down this off-topic rabbitt hole of yours Alice- if you want to blog about the causes of the CW- by all means, go and do it.

That's great. Nice "big tent" you have there, Mike. Very receptive to different points of view, especially from someone who is likewise right of center. Amazing how someone like Jason Scott is constantly tolerated but I cannot broach Lincoln's impregnable aura.

Over the years at Colossus I've posted about Lincoln and how he handled matters political and legal during the Civil War. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among others. Judge for yourself. I hardly think Lincoln's handling of the war is "not debatable;" indeed, if it is, then why can't any ideologue claim such about any historical figure he likes?

UPDATE (May 15): Just caught this News Journal "Community View" article about the Civil War by former DE Libertarian honcho and DE State History Prof. Steve Newton. In its conclusion he writes:

The Civil War remains one of the most complex events in American history. We need to understand the conflict rather than turn it into fodder for squalid political debates. But that's how politicians and pundits achieve their goals: misusing history to advance present-day agendas.

Hear that, Michael Stafford?

Posted by Hube at May 13, 2010 04:21 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Hube, it is just one more bit of evidence that "moderate" Republicans are ones who want to accommodate the Democrats while dismissing the GOP base.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at May 13, 2010 07:43 PM

It's sad, really. I really thought those guys were different. The [main] guy Dave Burris I still have the utmost respect for, 'tho I think he's way too tolerant of the LGOMB a-holes, especially Scott.

I mean hell -- in one of those past linked threads in this post you disagreed w/me about certain aspects regarding Lincoln/secession, but it was all just a calm, rational conversation. Funny how "big tent" Republicans get so peeved about it.

Posted by: Hube at May 13, 2010 08:23 PM

And I've gone back and forth on that very point over the year, though i still think that Lincoln's actions during the war created a Constitutional crisis of the first order that was ultimately resolved favorably only by the war's end and his own assassination. I also still accept the argument that states had (and have) the constitutional right under an originalist reading of the document to withdraw from the Union.

That said, i still thank God that the Union won the Civil war.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at May 14, 2010 08:01 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?