[Lincoln’s] first priority was preserving the Union. I’ve got the Emancipation Proclamation hanging up in my office. And if you read through it, turns out that most of the document is – those states and areas where the emancipation doesn’t apply because those states are allied with the Union, so they can keep their slaves. Think about that. That’s the Emancipation Proclamation. Right?
So here you’ve got a wartime president who’s making a compromise around probably the greatest moral issue that the country ever faced because he understood that right now my job is to win the war and to maintain the union.
Well can you imagine how the Huffington Post would have reported on that? It would have been blistering. Think about it. “Lincoln sells out slaves.” There would be protests. They’d run a third-party guy.
Well, I’ll leave historians to judge the merits of Abraham Lincoln’s strategising. What of Obama’s maneuvers, though? I’ll grant that living in communities – of whatever size – can require us to adjust our own desires to accomodate those of others. So, by this logic, furthering the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” is a unavoidable step towards an, er – well – something. Punishing more whistleblowers than any of his forerunners is a necessary tactic to allow for compromise on, er – well, we’ll come back to that. Silencing the people who seek justice from his predecessors is the sad but inexorable result of…
Wait, hold on, none of that was necessary. Reducing the argument to how far a President should be willing to compromise is, well, unnecessary when so many of the Obama administration’s gravest deeds were taken of its own prerogative and to its own agenda. Not the Tea Party’s. Not the Koch Brothers’. Not Michelle Bachmann’s. Their’s.