Michael Knox Beran is a contributing editor to the invaluable publication, City Journal, a product of the Manhattan Institute. He has written a new book sure to be the subject of discussion and debate by many. I draw your attention, though, to his article in the current Autumn 2007 issue of City Journal. Here Beran briefly describes the state of the world nearly 150 years ago and how it appeared to someone facing the daunting, enormous task Abraham Lincoln confronted in 1861.
Lincoln clearly viewed the success or failure of the American Experiment not only in domestic terms, but as a benchmark, a turning point, in the struggle of all mankind. He wrote on December 1, 1862, in his Annual Message to Congress, the following:
In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free —honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth.
President Lincoln echoed, in those words, the call to destiny in Thomas Jefferson’s “the last, best hope for mankind”. Let us not forget that all freedom loving people in the world depend upon America’s continued success here and abroad.
33 Responses to “Abe Lincoln - The First Neoconservative”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Too bad modern-day liberals don’t appreciate America’s position in history. They have no appreciation or respect for the sacrifices it has taken to reach this point.
All liberals want is to create a welfare state with Hillary and her ilk in charge.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
After attempting to read the spending bill, I know our money is going all over the world. I’m not sure how much freedom money buys.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
As political spin, Beran’s article is brilliant, though simply the latest in a lengthy history of political commentators who have wrapped themselves up in Abe Lincoln to claim his legacy for their modern agendas.
As history, it’s an abomination, completely devoid of the measured attentiveness to documentary evidence that characterizes the better writers of the historian’s discipline.
This is immediately discernable in Beran’s tortured and ahistorical attempt to portray Lincoln as the world’s lone ideological bulwark against Otto von Bismarck. Aside from lacking any direct historical evidence in the documents, writings, or recorded actions of the lives of either of these men, Beran’s argument is simply bizarre on its face. Lincoln and Bismarck actually subscribed to very similar economic policy views that, unsurprisingly, distilled from the exact same grain of a century prior: Alexander Hamilton. Lincoln inherited economic nationalism from Hamilton by way of Henry Clay. Bismarck from Hamilton by way of Friedrich List, a German economist who visited the early United States and used Hamilton’s treasury model to design the Bismarckian precursor Zollverein confederation of the German states.
Beran’s “three great powers” thesis - America, Russia, and Germany - also completely and inexcusably overlooks a fourth great power - Britain - whose global influence in the 19th and early 20th century surpassed the aforementioned three several times over.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect much more out of Beran’s book in its treatment of either Bismarck or Lincoln. I’m certain it will be replete with flowery language and a tight, consistent narrative. Unfortunately that narrative will better resemble an act of jaded political propaganda than an effort at measured historical analysis.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
As a practical matter, the idea as The US as a city on a hill is unquestionably correct. From the experience of my Countrymen, I can tell you the British Class system started to crack as the American colonists started to embrace freedom. Since that time the run-of-the-mill-Brit has more or less said to himself, ‘I want what they’ve got’. That doesn’t mean to say that there haven’t been jealousies from outside. Without the holding together of the US during Lincoln’s time, The World would be MUCH LESS FREE.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Hindsight is always 20/20, but in reality we cannot ever know for sure what would have happened in the 20th century had a drastically different result emerged in the 19th century. For example, there is a very plausible argument that the stage for Hitler was set in the 1920’s when the German economy collapsed under the weight of sanctions for World War I under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The sanctions, of course, were obtained as a concession by Woodrow Wilson in exchange for Clemenceau’s support of the ill-fated League of Nations. Absent the post WWI economic collapse experienced by Germany, it is far from certain that Hitler would have risen to power as he did.
On the other hand, it is probable from the given trend of history that a united U.S. would play some sort of superpower role in the 20th century under most scenarios. Exactly what that role would be, though, is anything but certain.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Phil, Phil, Phil…I’m on a tight schedule with family obligations and would relish nothing so much as a death match over your assertions. I think you are wrong on many counts, correct on a few and wobbly on others. I’ll have to keep my sword undrawn until a later time.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
A duel you say? I anxiously await…
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Did texpat just pull an Arnie?
I’ll be back!
I cant wait to read both sides.
Give e’m hell Phil.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
It would be more interesting to see what Lincoln would have to say about a reality where a nation now has the power of God over not only it’s foes but its’ friends as well.
This is a much more fascinating, if also far more terrifying, book.
“If detonated, Szilard’s doomsday device—a huge cobalt-clad H-bomb—would pollute the atmosphere with radioactivity and end all life on earth.”
http://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-Men-Strangelove-Dream-Superweapon/dp/031237397X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198448094&sr=1-1
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Two things jumped out at me that seem highly relvevant today, and we might weel learn from the comparions of Lincoln’s approach vs. those of the other nations mentioned during the period.
The Paternalism of the past has morphed into the Political correctness and Liberalism of today, and are justified to us in much the same manner: We are protecting you from (fill in the blank).
And today we have (Superior) Militant Political Islam claiming the right to impose their wills on other (inferior) peoples of the planet.
Both ideas have the same potential to destroy Liberty and it’s rewards today, just as they did in Lincoln’s time.
As an aside, I’ll point out here that in the 1862 elections, Democrats called Lincoln a fool, said he should be impeached for abrogating Civil Rights during The Rebellion, and used losses in the War to gain seats in Congress. They promised to end the War and stop the bloodshed, and tried like Hell to do it, too. Then, in the 1864 elections, they were faced with the prospect of a Victory in that war which they said was impossible and foolish to pursue in 1862.
And they remained out of power for nearly three decades afterwards.
Then, there are the “Claire Booth Luce Republicans” of 1942 who acted in a similar manner—and the Republicans remained largely out of power for the next three decades as well.
December 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Attention:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
A challenge and call has been met in dispute of intellect and ideology, texpat vs. Phil_M, the duel date needs be set and advertised that all may attend this event.
The New Year is on its way let this be part of the approaching festivity.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Two problems:
1. Beran is completely misusing the concept of nationalism here. Nationalism is defined entirely by the relationship of a people to the nation-state in which they reside, not a relationship between a claimed superior and inferior grouping of people regardless of national borders.
2. Beran’s historical association of nationalism is similarly misplaced. The Republican Party of the 1860’s, and Lincoln in particular, espoused a distinct brand of American Nationalism (as opposed to the ideology of Regionalism espoused by the south). In fact Lincoln’s entire economic policy viewpoint is known today as “economic nationalism” - a comprehensive program of centralized banking, trade autarky, import substitution, industry subsidization, federal land use management, and federally administered infrastructure programs - all aimed at a highly nationalistic goal of claimed “economic independence” from the rest of the world. He was also virtually identical to Bismarck’s view in this regard. His wartime policies and his speeches in particular were also extremely nationalistic, stressing “the union” as a national whole over its component states or regions.
These are the sort of things that happen when journalists pretend to be “historians” despite their utter lack of qualifications. Instead of the measured and well-documented analysis of detail that good historical writing requires, they are constantly tempted to cast broad issues, eras, and figures of history into carefully tailored and extremely oversimplified buzz words. Beran has done so here, and in the process he has managed to completely separate the concept of “nationalism” from its historical roots and attach it to a shallow and artificially designated phenomenon of thought that, coincidentally, happens to support the narrative of his Bismarck-Lincoln-Alexander paradigm.
December 23rd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
It should also come as little surprise that in addition to lacking scholarly credentials outside of his real trade - a lawyer - Michael Knox Beran is a Claremonster. Most historians, be they pro or anti-Lincoln, learn early on to avoid the Cult of Harry in most matters concerning our 16th President.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
One BIG problem with your analysis. Beran is not talking about mere “nationalism”
His specific quote is regarding:
And one can arguably make the distinction between “nationalism” and “militant nationalism” just as one can make the distinction between “Islam” and “Militant Islam.”
So he does not ignore the “nationalism” of Civil War Republicans. He separates it from another form of “nationalism” which he labels as “militant” to describe the ruling classes of European nationalists (who were concurrently militarists, and one might suppose this is the genesis of his coinage of the term) who truly DID see themselves as being “Superior” to those who they ruled, and who were every bit as “paternal” as the slave owners of the South in both their style of governance and justifications for thier actions in the manner Beran describes in the quote posted above.
For the want of a nail, a shoe was lost—
For want of noticing one word, an entire argument is sent down a rabbit hole.
Beran is correct in making this distinction, and his point is well taken. By 1918, the United States was well on it’s way to being the most Liberal Democracy of the Western World—some states even allowing Female Sufferage (not to mention the Post Civil War Constitutional Amendments)—and enjoying all of the fruits of economic prosperity and puiblic well being that entails, but it would take a World War to finally remove the European “Militant” nationalists from power.
The Nationalism of the Nazis and Fascists were an attempt to return to that style of governance. Not having had the Liberal Democratic tradition for the even the 50 years between the end of the Civil War and the end of WW1 in 1918 left Germany ripe for that yearning to return to “the good old days” when the government did the thinking for you. The fact that we abandoned them to their own devices and imposed reparations didn’t help much either.
The Russians, of course, did not even have the 15 years of the Wiemar Republic to rely on, and the Soviets were merely a replacement for the Tsar for lack of that 50 years of Liberal Democratic tradition as well. It would take a generation of Cold War and the foreign Policy of Ronald Reagan to effect their removal. With Putin, we may be seeing a reapeat of this process, where a short period of Deomcracy is followed by autocratic rule at the point just before Libeal Democracy takes hold—only to return after another period, and take final root.
I agree with Beran that ahd Lincoln not been on the Stage at the time, or if he had given in to his Demorat Oppositon (and Public Opinion of the time, I might add) and ended the unpopular war with the South we may well have shared the same fate here in this country.
Something to think about 20 or 30 years hence when Historians and the General Public look back on Bush’s actions vis a vis Iraq. The fact of the matter is that we have succeeded there to turn a large population of Muslims against Al Queda will be a significant fact that will not be able to be ignored by then, as it is being ignored today. It remains to be seen if Iraq will grow into the kind of Liberal Deomcracy that Japan, Germany, and even South Korea became, or deveolves back into an autocratic regime as Germany did in the early 30s or Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Loas did in the aftermath of that conflict. One thing is certaion, however, Iraq won’t be able to become another Japan if we leave them the same way we did the Viet Namese—or the Germans after 1920.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
#14 - Militant or not, the term “nationalism” is inextricably linked to the concept of the nation-state, hence the attachment of national to ism thus forming the word. Beran’s goofy misapplication of the term completely separates it not only from its commonly understood definition but its own etymological root.
He does so necessarily when he (1) misdefines nationalism as a generic ideology of superiority vs. inferiority with no intrinsic connection to the nation-state, and (2) misidentifies southern *regionalism* in the Civil War as a type of nationalist cause.
Furthermore, sarge, your own failure to recognize Beran’s abuse of language’s common meaning in his argument comes not from an overstatement of a word’s significance but rather from your own apparent continuation of his original error. Like Beran, you continue to dissociate nationalism from its necessary root - the nation-state - and confuse it with distinct diverging concepts ranging from paternalism to radical islam. Nationalism cannot exist separate of the concept of a nation, be it existing or desired, because the latter as an entity is the inextricable substance of the former as an ideology.
Beran misses this entirely because he incorrectly defines the term “nationalism” and then begins to haphazardly confuse its use with other distinct concepts such as paternalism. By accepting his mistaken original definition you only continue that original error further.
The one thing Beran got partially correct - and I am certain it was strictly by accident - was his association of the term “nationalism,” albeit under a mistaken definition, with Otto von Bismarck. Far from being a simple one-word descriptor, the word “nationalism” is a primary defining attribute of his paradigm, and particularly its application to Bismarck and those he identifies later in the article as Bismarck’s heirs and fellow travellers (another sweeping yet misapplied generalization that he contorts to include everything from the south in the Civil War to the Kaiser regime in Germany to the Nazis to the Russian Bolsheviks).
Britain is also still noticeably missing from your continuation of Beran’s narrative, and leaving Britain out of the history of the “liberal tradition” of government is about like leaving beer out of the history of alcohol. In many ways, Britain was leaps and bounds ahead of the U.S. in measures of “liberal democracy” at the turn of the last century. They abolished slavery decades before we did (and managed to do it peacefully and across a much larger empire at that!). They liberalized their economy and opened themselves up to international commerce way back in 1845, whereas we remained protectionist until 1913. The women’s suffrage movement in Britain began in the 1830’s long before its American counterpart swung into action, and achieved success in 1918 a year before the United States. Even as a colonial power, Britain installed the framework for parliamentary systems in virtually all of its holdings (most of which retain them to this day) - a significant contribution toward liberal democracy considering that virtually all of them had been absolutist monarchies, chaotic tribal confederations, or practically anarchic no-man’s-lands prior to British involvement. To ignore Britain’s role in liberalization and pretend that the United States - a comparative latecomer to the game that didn’t really even fully arrive on the scene until the last bit of WWI - is pure folly, and Beran excels at comitting it.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
A Bolshevik or Nazi regime emerging in an alternate-history south? That’s utter nonsense for multiple reasons. Southern political ideology since the time of Jefferson has exhibited characteristics that are fundamentally at odds with the centralized nature of the nazi and bolshevik regimes: (1) fundamentalist Christianity, (2) vehement regionalism, (3) cultural and economic agrarianism, (4) political individualism, (5) constitutional strict constructionism, and (6) reverence for tradition. Each of these factors virtually guarantees popular resistence in the southern region to the ideologies Beran mentions (as well as explaining why the south is the “conservative region” of the country today).
Nor is has this observation been lost upon the advocates of totalitarian ideologies. Hitler himself in Mein Kampf chided the traditional “state soveriegnty” argument of the American south and praised the centralized federal government as a “superior” system. He did so while simultaneously praising Bismarck, and Hitler saw very little of Bismarck to be had in the U.S. south.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Phil You missed the point, It was the ‘example’ of freedom which led to the efforts to fulfill the yearning of such. Obviously the US as a Super Power had a part, But it was influencial Psychologically as well.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Unfortunately, ’tis you who is unfamiliar with language and terms.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (and we ARE discussing Philosophy here) defines nationalism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#2.1
So we find that groups can be both nationalist and stateless, and therfore “nationalism.” The Iroquis example given above and Disapora era Jews are just two examples of that. We also find that “nationalism” is not, as you claim “inextricably linked” to formation of the “nation-state.” And now, as regards the Iroquis above (and Dispora Era Zionists–as a subset of Diaspora Jews) we have an additional form of “nationalism” introduced: “state-focused” nationalism.
So we need more precise terms, such as “militant nationalism” in order to properly discuss the ideas Beran puts forth. It appears the use of the broad term of “nationalism” without further refining is counterproductive to understanding and discussion.
SEP goes further:
To the “militant nationalist” political autonomy is not enough. A modern day example would be those Iraqi Kurds (who have a “nationalist” attitude towards thier ethnicity, just as the Iroquis do and Dispoara Era Jews, excepting Zionists, did) who are content with being politically autonomous within the confines of the Iraqi political entity (as well as those Kurds within the borders of Pakistan and Iran), and the PKK who are “militant nmationalists” who attempt use force to create a new nation-state composed entirely of ethnic Kurds and whose geographical borders are defined by that ethnicity.
And how could the Iroquois nation achieve their nationalist goal of becoming a “nation-state”?
Well, they could do it politically through negotiation, or they could become “militant nationalists” as any other nation would to either create, preserve, or defend thier nation-state through military means.
For further reading:
http://books.politicalinformation.com/political-science/politicsSheet124_view_624.html
December 24th, 2007 at 11:29 am
post in the spit bucket–
We’re discussing philosophy here, so it;s long.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I made no such claim. I spoke of “us” as a nation in totality, maintaining the pre-Civil War Nation absent the Civil War, and/or the fate of the United States (as op[posed to the Confederate States) had Lincoln given in to his Deomcrat opposition and Public Opinuion of the time and ended the War before Victory.
The Anarcho-Socialists, Father Coughlins, George Lincoln Rockwells, Eugene Debs, CPUSA, and others of the late 19th and early to mid 20th Century United States all had their followers, some of them significant in number, and Beran’s point, with which I agree, intimates that they may have had more success with thier movements in the “alternate” history universe.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Garbage. Britain was at least as good of an “example” and probably a better one, seeing as its parliamentary system was copied in virtually all of its former colonies. Yet Beran’s strange little paradigm has no room for Britain.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Okay, but Beran certainly did when he stated this:
IOW, the south was destined to become allied with Hitler absent Lincoln. And I’ll say it once again - that is a completely ridiculous and historically unfounded proposition.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
It’s a sure sign of a weak position when somebody takes to arguing minutiae from an internet dictionary in lieu of the plainly evident understanding of a word itself. Nonetheless, even your own chosen example fails to coincide with Beran’s use. Witness the recurring theme:
As I have stated all along, the defining characteristic of the term is the same as its etymological root: the nation. Even the supposed “stateless” counterexamples you list - the pre-Israel zionist movement, the Kurds, etc. - are defined in nationalism, as I previously indicated, by their desire to create a nation-state.
Contrast that with Beran’s definition, where you will notice something is missing entirely:
That something is the nation-state, and his definition conforms neither to common usage for the word “nationalism” nor to your web dictionary of choice. No matter how you spin it, sarge, Beran’s definition of the term omits any genuine consideration of the nation - the central defining feature of the term - in favor of a broader definition that is completely removed from the concept of the nation and conveniently tailored to his artificial historical paradigm.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Re. #22 - It should also be noted that the “South=Hitler” line that Beran forwards is a recurring theme of the Claremont Institute’s pseudohistorians. Its origin traces to the Lincoln biographies of Harry V. Jaffa, which cite a known apocryphal source to “prove” that Hitler disliked Lincoln. Several real historians have pointed this out to Jaffa & Co. previously, but it contradicts their cultish political line so they continue with it anyway.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Again, Phil;
Your entire argument centers around your personal definition of “nationalism” and it ignores the distinct points and differences of sub types.
This is akin to saying that all Conservatives are republicans and/or that all republicans are Conservatives. Your argument would deny the existence of Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, and Security Conservatives.
And if you think a fully constituted Confederate Stateshaving recently been at War with the United States would not seek alliances with other States and Nation States with similar beleifs, completely ignores the causes of the events of August, 1914 where a system of alliances and counter alliances between States erupted into World War. It was just the way that Statecraft was done in those days.
It is highly likley that, if the United States had remained in alliance with Great Britain (which is likley given good relations with Canada), that the Confederates would seek an alliance with the Germans despite any governmental differences they may have had.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Far from it, my argument centers around the very etymology of the word - nation - and universal understanding of the concept of nationalism’s intrinsic tie to the concept of the nation-state.
Far from being a mere “sub type” of nationalism, Beran’s definition (and evidently the one you embrace) completely omits the concept of the nation, thus inherently voiding itself as a valid definition!
It is one thing to argue the finer details of specific types of nationalism, but despite your protests that is simply not what Beran is doing. His definition of nationalism is as plain as day, and nowhere in it does the essential defining concept of the nation-state appear:
If you maintain otherwise, then show me where Beran’s definition encompasses the nation-state. Otherwise you have no valid point.
Now you are simply misstating my argument. I did not say the alternate-history south would not seek alliances elsewhere (in fact, the historical confederacy did seek alliances with Britain and the Vatican…hardly bastions of nazism or communism!). I questioned Beran’s specific insinuation that an alternate-history south would ally with the heirs of Bismarck, meaning Hitler. For reasons previously stated, that claim is absurd.
Statements like that reveal your grasp of diplomatic history to be severely lacking. British opinion during the Civil War was notoriously sympathetic to the Confederacy. Palmerston’s government unofficially recieved multiple diplomats from the southern states, entertained brokering a truce between north and south shortly before the battle of Antietam, and turned a willfull blind eye towards munitions suppliers, ship builders, and blockade runners who were supplying the south. Britain was even pushed to the brink of entering the war on the southern side during the Trent Affair, when a Union warship boarded a British mail steamer carrying two Confederate diplomats in 1861. After the war was over, British/U.S. relations remained strained for over a decade due to the Alabama claims - a legal dispute on liability for northern shipping sunk during the war by several British-built confederate warships. In the late 1860’s some of the Radical Republican members of congress even seriously entertained going to war with Britain over the claims. Canada was similarly situated by the way, and Montreal was a hotbed place of exile for Confederate agents and smugglers throughout the war. The southern treasury operations were smuggled through Canadian channels and in 1865 a network of Canadian sympathizers with the south arranged for the escape of John Surratt, co-conspirator with John Wilkes Booth.
In light of those events, to suggest that an alternate history South would have sought its main alliance with Germany over a pro-north Britain is so far off base as to render it comical.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
One more thing - German opinion, and particularly German-American opinion, during the Civil War was overwhelmingly pro-north. The Unionist hotbeds in the south were always in the German communities. Germans also provided what was easily the largest immigrant group in the northern army. In Britain, the most pro-north voice (and the guy who is largely credited with stopping Britain’s entry into the war during the Trent Affair) was Prince Albert - a German.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Military plans for G.B. to come through Mexico with the goods and the creation of political alliance with CSS turned on the loss of a battle.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
“The Confederacy and the Allies.
August 9, 1863, Wednesday, New York Times
…The first great necessity in his American scheme, and the first great object of his desire, is the establishment of the independence of the so-called Southern Confederacy. Of the wishes of Napoleon there cannot be much doubt. …
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B05EED91E3BE63BBC4153DFBE668388679FDE
December 25th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Booshwah
That’s like saying that since the etymology of the political term “Conservative” is from the root word “Conserve” which means:
December 25th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Sarge - Your analogy to “conserve” is ridiculous as even your own definition of choice for “nationalism” directly links the term to the nation-state no less than six times! I believe the phrase “hoisted by your own petard” is applicable here.
Yet the concept of the nation-state is completely missing from Beran’s definition of “nationalism.” His definition is unique to the entirity of political philosophy in that regard.
He made up a new definition to fit his argument and, no matter how you spin it, that definition is simply wrong. Get over it.
December 25th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Furthermore, the root of “conservatism” is indeed properly placed in the word “conserve.” Not in the jelly sense, as your ridiculous straw man suggests, but in the sense of the conservative being the preserver and guardian of that which is traditional - our culture, our religion, our societal values, our laws, and our liberty.
That has been the defining characteristic of conservatism since Burke distinguished it as a branch of political thought over 200 years ago.
December 26th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Well, phil, I think your definition of conservatism (at least for those who call themselves conservatives) is quite limited and although possibly historical is not confined to that totality today i.e. all conservatives do not share the same goals. What I see in todays conservatives is mainly opposition to the welfare state as proposed by liberals and socialists. Conservatives generally believe in individual responsibility disassociated from the protections of a nanny government but are not opposed to change. Most conservatives are also proponents of ‘free’ markets.
If all that equates to ‘preservation’ for you, so be it.