In the comments section of an earlier thread (and elsewhere on SoundPolitics and other blogs), some libertarians and some Ron Paul supporters refer to President Lincoln as a tyrant and voice strong opposition to the Lincoln's war policy, his governmental philosophy, and his actions to defeat the pro-slavery secessionists in the Civil War.
I don't agree with this characterization of Lincoln and the other early leaders and founders of the Republican Party, but I've discussed that issue elsewhere.
In my opinion, we have seen true tyranny in the 20th and 21st centuries - in Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, the evil Soviet empire, and in today's Islamic fascism (which I consider the focus of evil in the modern world.)
Although the Soviet Union fell apart, and although many Eastern European countries and former Soviet Republics have overturned communism, we see tyranny today in Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere - including in the western hemisphere (witness Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Fidel Castro in Cuba).
While it is hyperbole of the most extreme sort to call Lincoln a tyrant, Chavez and Castro are real, living tyrants, posing a serious foreign policy threat for America. The question of how to deal with Cuba and Venezuela came up in the December 9 GOP presidential debate in Miami.
I've watched every minute of every GOP presidential debate - except for this one, which was broadcast in Spanish. But I did read the entire transcript, which is available on line courtesy of the Wall Street Journal at http://tinyurl.com/23brb7
In the course of the debate, Ron Paul was questioned directly about U.S. policy toward Latin America, and discussed the twin advocates of socialist tyranny in his remarks.
Two excerpts from the transcript are posted below to show Paul's comments and the audience reaction. Based on just the transcript, the reaction of the audience was mixed - booing and applause. Many in the audience evidently knew first hand, or at least from the experience of their families, of the actual tyranny existing today in communist Cuba. You can't tell from the transcript whether the booing or applause predominated. However, by going to the 90 second video clip of Congressman Paul's comments, you can judge the audience reaction for yourself.
Also, Michelle Malkin has extensive commentary (with strong criticisms of Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Rudy Giuliani and praise for Duncan Hunter) on the debate at http://tinyurl.com/yog89j
Here are the excerpts from Ron Paul's comments:
EXCERPT #1
MODERATOR: ....Now we're going to talk about Latin America. A week ago, exactly a week ago, Venezuela rejected changes to the constitution, but the president, Hugo Chavez... President Hugo Chavez has insisted that he's going to propose them again. Many consider him a threat to democracy in the region. If you were elected president, how would you deal with Chavez? Let's start with Congressman [Ron] Paul....
CONGRESSMAN PAUL: Well, he's not the easiest person to deal with, but we should deal with everybody around the world the same way: with friendship and opportunity to talk and try to trade with people. (AUDIENCE BOOING) We talked to -- we talked to Stalin, we talked to Khrushchev, we've talked to Mao, and we've talked to the world, and we get along with people. Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba. (AUDIENCE BOOING) (APPLAUSE)
EXCERPT #2
CONGRESSMAN PAUL: But ... let me tell you why we have a problem in South America and Central America: because we've been involved in their internal affairs for so long. We have been meddling in their business. (APPLAUSE) We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries.... (AUDIENCE BOOING) (APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: Thank you, Congressman.
The whole "Lincoln was a tyrant" take on history I found unsettling, but not surprising. Revisionist historians, (mostly leftists),have for years promoted the notion that the Civil War was "not about slavery". It was rather about "states rights". That's the way it's taught in history departments on most campuses. It's just another part of the left's game to vilify Republicans and smother the fact that the Democrats were historically the party of racism. Any person with a lick of common sense knows the Civil War never would have occurred were it not for slavery.
One is left to wonder what these same folks would think of Lincoln had he allowed the southern states to secede and retain their "peculiar institution".
Not that I need to emphasize the point about slavery being the true cause of the Civil War, however, here's an appropriate quote from Lincoln's Second Inaugural,
"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."
For historians to say otherwise is both dishonest and designed to serve their ideology.
Back to your original topic; The liberal/Paulist belief that if we just play nice with bad guys all would be well resembles the simplistic reasoning of a child. It's 1960's nonsense. That tragic decade has left us with a dreadful hangover. And just as an aside, in my observation lefties and Paulists seem particularly unable to play nice those that disagree with them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 31, 2007 12:09 PM