Applesauce » The myth of Lincoln’s “Team of Rivals”

The myth of Lincoln’s “Team of Rivals”

November 19th, 2008 at 12:42pm Pat Cunningham

As an inveterate Lincoln buff (I have scores of books about Honest Abe), I’ve taken great interest in all the media speculation of late concerning Barack Obama’s purported interest in emulating the manner in which Lincoln assembled his Cabinet.

The gist of all this, if you don’t know, is that Lincoln appointed a bunch of his former political rivals to Cabinet posts in an admirable gesture of bipartisanship. Obama is said to be set on following much the same course.

The textbook for this strategy is historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s best-selling book of a few years ago, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.”

I loved that book and took encouragement from word that Obama is bent on using Lincoln’s recipe for making a Cabinet.

But alas, historian Matthew Pinsker has a COLUMN in the Los Angeles Times in which he submits that Lincoln’s team of rivals was a failure.

Oh, well. That doesn’t mean Obama can’t make the formula work.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

13 Comments Add your own

1. Bob Trojan | November 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Pat;
Where is all this “change” that Obama touted during the campaign. All I see is all Washingtonian’s and Clintonista’s being appointed cabinet jobs. He’s not just picking rivals, he’s picking the #2 people of Clinton’s administration, is this the “change” he’s talking about?
2. shawnnews | November 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

A return to a competent administration would be a wonderful change for the country.
3. Pat Cunningham | November 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Bob Trojan: shawnnews has got it right. Any appointees different from the kind of ninnies George W. Bush had in his government are a welcome change. Do you remember Hurricane Katrina? (”Doing a heckuva job, Brownie.”) Besides, you shouldn’t disparage the Clinton administration. The economy did well under that gang.
4. Craig Knauss | November 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Perhaps Bob Trojan forgot that McCain tried to distance himself from George Bush and McCain claimed that he represented “real change”.
5. bob trojan | November 19th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Craig;
Nice try, Obama was the first to get on the mantra of “change” and now he has to lean on the Clinton past organization for his positions. As a new Senator, no doubt he didn’t develop his own network. Congress is also likely to tell him who’s really in charge.

Now, I will support him in the short term and for the benefit of our country, wish him well. I also hope he doesn’t get any wild cards thrown at him like an 9/11 or a Katrina disaster. Monday morning quarterbacking is always a good sport.

He’ll have his hands full like no other incoming President; if he fixes it in the next 4 years and is successful, he’ll have my vote next round. If not he’ll get thrown out.

In the meantime, I’ll support him, enough nit-picking!
6. echo4charlie | November 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am

Before wrapping up his late summer “world tour”, Barack Obama stopped in Hawaii to address a gathering of minority journalists. He, once again, apologized to them (as he’d apologized to so many other groups) for what a rotten place America either used to be, or still is (It’s hard to tell from his comment, “I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged.”). Barack Obama also apologized to the French and Germans for Americans who are too ignorant to learn their language before embarking on their once-in-a-lifetime two-week visit abroad. He’s apologized for the simple Midwestern rednecks who, forced to cling to religion and guns to justify their antipathy, just can’t help themselves.

There was a time when it was considered unpatriotic to be ashamed of America, but that time is long past. Being proud of America means you are probably a Bush-loving neoconservative, so the only sure way to prevent such misidentification is to apologize for it (at every opportunity). Wouldn’t anybody besides me personally like to see somebody in the White House who doesn’t think America needs apologizing for? He needs to stand up, the past is the past. It is gone, the future is what is important here. We need to keep moving forward, and do what is best for America. Words won’t do anything. Actions are what matters, now.

America has never faced so many different crises at the same time (at least, not in my living memory, or any of the history books I’ve ever read). The war with al-Qaida and Islamic terror, the Iran crisis, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, the rising price of oil (it won’t stay where it has fallen to for long), the falling dollar, enemy acronyms like OPEC, NAM, OIC, U.N. … Obama is correct in saying that the world is ready for someone like him – a “messiah-like figure”, charismatic and glib, and seemingly holding all the answers to all the world’s questions. I really hope he’s right, though, with his answers. I don’t want America to learn a hard lesson on his watch. I don’t want him to learn a hard lesson the hard way. I want, more than anything for him to be successful and make the right decisions. I want him to make all of the right moves.

You know, the Bible says that such a leader will (likely soon) make his appearance on the scene. It won’t be Barack Obama, or any American politician, in my opinion. But, Barack Obama’s world tour provided a foretaste of the reception this coming leader can expect to receive.

This leader will probably also stand in some European capital, addressing the people of the world and telling them that he is the one that they have been waiting for. And he can expect as wildly enthusiastic a greeting as Barack Obama got in Berlin.

The Bible calls that leader the Antichrist (I, personally, believe that the Mormons are wrong in “pegging” Barack Obama as the Antichrist…..that, to me, is just silly).

As everything keeps lining up in light of biblical prophesy, moreso now, and more rapidly than ever, it seems apparent, in my opinion, that the world is now ready to make his (this “great world leader’”, or the Antichrist’s) acquaintance. This world is thirsting for peace so badly (we all want world peace), it just lines up. But that peace will be ushered in, to refresh earlier comments, by the leader that the Bible calls the Antichrist.
7. Milton Waddams | November 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Charlie, just when I am starting to enjoy reading your post about apologizing, you go and throw out this Anti-Christ stuff.

I don’t think we need to apologize for anything we have done, but I do think we need to start setting a better example in a few areas. Additionally, while I don’t feel we need to apologize, we shouldn’t be surprised when other countries react negatively to our meddling in their governments ( most of Central and South America, among other places ), and disregarding our foreign allies. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are living in a globally linked society and getting more linked everyday.
As we have outsourced much of our REAL wealth building capabilities ( manufacturing and innovation ) and replaced it wealth created by moving paper around ( don’t have to look far to see how well that has worked out ), we are not as dominant as we once were in being able to force the rest of the world to do what we say, simply because we said so. This is the reality that we have to grasp and cope with, and the sooner the better for all of us. The days of my way or the highway are over.

This isn’t what most Americans want to hear, then again they don’t want to hear that they can’t keep financing their life style with the kids credit cards anymore either.
8. echo4charlie | November 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I agree with you, Mr. Waddams.

President Obama has an insurmountable hill to climb.

I know I’m a bit “dark” in my predictions, and outlook, but, the times of being able to “revert back to better days” are definitely gone.

We live in a new world, and have to operate as such. We just need to do our best in moving forward, and, hopefully, President Obama will lead the way. That guy definately took the absolutely worst job America has to offer.

The way the world is today, I’ll be curious to see if he even wants to run again in 2012.
9. Millard Fillmore | November 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Regarding choosing people from the Clinton team - seems to me this makes far more practical sense than selecting people without experience in government, just for the sake of proving your “change” credentials. The change is in the policies, not the personnel. Like it not, the people from the Clinton team have a successful track record.
10. Craig Knauss | November 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

While Obama is choosing people from the “Clinton team”, he is also looking at retaining a few from the “Bush team”. Obama realizes that not everyone on the Bush team was a total loser. At least he is looking past partisan ideology to select what he feels are the best people. That was one of Bush’s biggest mistakes: surrounding himself with a bunch of rightwing butt kissers. And for those who have conveniently forgotten, Clinton had a few Repubs in his administration as well. Advisors are there to advise. And they can’t do this if they are all a bunch of yes-men.
11. echo4charlie | November 21st, 2008 at 2:14 pm

I’ve been hearing rumors of Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State.

I think that would be a smart appointment. I’ve heard John Kerry’s “hat is in the ring” too, but, if true, Hillary is a better choice, in my mind.

She can stand toe-to-toe with anyone, and, right now, that’s what we need.

I think she’s got more “B@&^” than John Kerry.
12. Milton Waddams | November 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Damn Charlie, I am agreeing with you a lot more than I feel comfortable with lately… I think Hillary would make a good Secretary of State. I think Daschle is a good choice for HHS as well. I’d like to see him keep Gates as SOD, he strikes me as one of the more competent member of W’s administration. I hope that Chuck Hagel finds a place in Obama administration somewhere as well. I have a lot of respect for him. If you haven’t read his book, I strongly recommend it.
13. Craig Knauss | November 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Personally, I was hoping for Colin Powell as Sec. of Defense, if he was willing to take it. There are few people more qualified for SoD than the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Hillary is OK for Sec. of State, as long as she doesn’t try to push a conflicting agenda.