Reading HW Brands’ “The Zealot & The Emancipator,” I was struck by a good way to analogize Lincoln’s famous lack of political experience — a single, decade-old term in Congress, and a few even older terms in the state legislature, before an unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate. 1/
2/ It’s not that Lincoln was an outsider, like Zachary Taylor, elected president on the basis of his war heroism despite having never served in any prior political office and indeed never really expressing any political beliefs. Lincoln was intensely involved in IL politics.
3/ No, Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s was the 19th Century equivalent of a modern cable news commentator.
4/ What Lincoln was famous for was his role as a speaker on behalf of the young Illinois Republican Party. He’d travel around the state, speaking at Fourth of July celebrations and other public gatherings — often paired up with people of other political persuasions.
5/ The public knew and liked Lincoln because he was an engaging speaker with a knack for distilling Republican arguments down into understandable, persuasive chunks.
The 19th Century equivalent of a cable news commentator.
6/ Brands: “Lincoln didn’t run for office again, not yet. Instead he campaigned for Whig candidates around Illinois, which meant taking on [Stephen] Douglas, who was campaigning for Democratic candidates… Political speeches in those days were high entertainment.”
7/ Lincoln was at first primarily famous as a LOCAL commentator, in Illinois. But his debates with Douglas gave him national prominence, and he started doing speaking tours around the country, which won him more support.
8/ When Lincoln expanded beyond Illinois, he first went to other western states, like Ohio and Kansas. “Republicans in Kansas had favored William Seward as the most forthright of their party on the slavery question, but Lincoln won many over on his visit to the territory.”
9/ Despite the fact that Lincoln was not publicly running for president at that time, and was publicly coy about the possibility, people who saw him came away wanting him to run for president; he was sometimes introduced as “The next president” at speaking events.
10/ The key moment for Lincoln’s national political career was early 1860, when the Young Men’s Republican Club of New York invited him to speak there. Some were curious to see Lincoln; others just hoped “the rustic westerner would afford the city folk an evening’s entertainment"
11/ This was his famous Cooper Union speech, delivered at the Cooper Institute in NYC. It was such a success that he was bombarded with other speaking requests in eastern states, turning his NYC visit into a regional speaking tour.
12/ After this, Lincoln was now a national figure (at least in the North), and widely talked about as a presidential candidate. Seward was still the front-runner, but Lincoln cannily positioned himself as an uncontroversial alternative, and won the 1860 nomination.
13/ And so, when nominated for president — at a time when the Democrats had fractured and the Republican nominee seemed the prohibitive favorite — Lincoln was famous mostly as a speaker and debater. He had the bare minimum of conventional qualifications, but it was enough.
14/ You might argue there are better analogies for a modern TV commentator than Lincoln, such as actual media figures like Horace Greeley (who himself ran for president in 1872). But these newsmen debated via the written word. Lincoln was a speaker.
15/ Now, Lincoln was extremely literate, and a huge part of his success — as @baseballcrank points out — was that his speeches were often reprinted, verbatim, in newspapers, exposing people who hadn’t seen Lincoln to his arguments.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This piece gets at an element of the ongoing debate over whether certain terms — “lie,” “coup,” “fascist,” “socialist” — should be applied today. The two sides are sort of talking past each other, with some people focusing on LOGICAL definitions & others on EMOTIONAL ones.
One person says, “Well, I define [Term X] as [definition], and event A, while terrible, doesn’t fit that definition. Rather, we should use [alternative technical term].”
Others basically argue, “Stop quibbling! This is bad, let’s use the term that conveys how bad it is!”
People using “emotional definitions” don’t want to use a dry technical term to describe something or someone they dislike. They want to use a term with a powerful (negative) emotional valence, to capture the proper attitude to the target.
12 newly reported #COVID19 deaths today — a pretty low figure that’s normal for a Monday. In fact that’s actually up from last Monday’s total of just 4.
But with such small numbers, these don’t mean much — just a statistical blip. The long-term trend is still decline.
Newly reported cases, curiously enough, are EXACTLY the same as last Monday: 980. Here again the long-term trend is down.
This downward trend in cases shows up more clearly when you look at cases by sample date, which aren’t distorted by reporting effects. Last Monday saw a drop in cases, after weeks of increases.
40 newly reported #COVID19 deaths in Minnesota today, down from 44 last Sunday. The 7-day average is down to 31 deaths/day, from nearly 40/day last Sunday.
Meanwhile, Minnesota’s average newly reported daily cases dropped below 1,500/day for the first time since Oct. 17. This is about the level cases were at before the November wave hit.
This isn’t a function of falling test volume, either. (MN’s average testing volume is just slightly higher now than it was in mid-October.)
Minnesota’s average #COVID19 positivity rate is down to 4.6% and falling.
Stephen Douglas “had expected complaints from the likes of Abraham Lincoln, but he hadn’t expected [Bleeding Kansas]. Douglas was cannily smart in the fashion required for success in politics, but he lacked the imagination to see into the souls of extremists like John Brown.”
— HW Brands, “The Zealot and the Emancipator,” on Douglas’ “popular sovereignty” approach to slavery in the territories backfiring.
John Brown, accelerationist: “If Frémont had been elected, the people would have settled right down and made no further effort. Now they know they must work.”
37 new #COVID19 deaths reported today, down from 43 last Saturday — continuing the nearly month-long downward trend in this metric. BUT the death rate is *still* higher than it was in the May wave, even with the decline.
New #COVID19 cases have resumed trending down after our mini post-holiday spike, even if you control for testing volume. Another drop tomorrow and MN will finally fall below the 1,500 average cases/day level it was at before November.
Positivity rate is 4.8% and falling.
A minor uptick the past two days in #COVID19 hospital admissions. Too soon to say if this represents anything significant.
Today, @mnhealth released two days of #COVID19 data in one (data reported on 12/25 and 12/26).
But considering it’s two days of data, it’s pretty darn encouraging! New cases were only up a few hundred, and are STILL below last Sunday’s levels (which was just 1 day of data).
@mnhealth And while new cases went up a little bit over last Sunday (which again isn’t apples-to-apples), new tests went up a ton. So the positivity rate was below 3%.
For the first time since Oct. 7, Minnesota’s 7-day average positivity rate is below the key 5% cutoff.
@mnhealth Deaths were what I was worried about, as they’ve been the highest metric recently. Two days of data in one means we could have easily seen 100+ newly reported deaths. Instead, we got 40.
Now, it’s possible next week will see a lot of backlogged deaths from the long weekend.