"Team of Rivals": Comparing Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush

First and foremost, there's a similarity between Lincoln and Bush, in that both had great crises thrust upon them.  In Lincoln's case, it was the secession of the South and the dissolution of the Union, just as he assumed the office of President after a deeply divisive election (Lincoln won entirely due to his support in the North).  For George W. Bush, it was the attacks of 9/11/01, just a few months after he had asssumed the Presidency on very shaky grounds himself. 

One big difference in how these two men came to the Presidency is that when Lincoln took the oath of office, a disastrous conflict in the country had been building for years.  In Bush's case, the country was coming off of 8 years of peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton. 
Another big difference is that Abraham Lincoln was almost completely a self-made and self-educated man.  George W. Bush was, as former Texas Governor Ann Richards said, "born with a silver spoon in his mouth."  Lincoln was insatiably curious and open to ideas; Bush "knows what he knows."  Lincoln was famously empathetic to other people and to animals; Bush is, by many account, a bully, a jerk, even a sociopath.  It is hard to imagine two more different men in terms of character and values.

Most importantly, the behavior of these two men as Presidents in times of crisis could not be more diametrically different.  Lincoln worked tirelessly to unite the country; Bush has consciously employed a strategy of sharpening divisions through the constant use of destructive "wedge issues."  Lincoln appealed to the "better angels" of our natures; Bush appeals to the worst - fear, anger, ignorance, greed, bigotry. 

Perhaps the biggest difference between the two men is that Lincoln was confident enough to surround himself with powerful, accomplished, highly qualified, brilliant people whose views did not necessarily correspond to his own (hence the phrase, "Team of Rivals").  Lincoln then was skillful enough to manage this "Team of Rivals" - and to LISTEN TO THEM - for the benefit of the entire nation. 

In contrast, Bush has surrounded himself with "yes men," partisan Republican hacks, and sycophants afraid to tell him the truth. Bush has not listened to the few dissenting voices - Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell, Christi Todd Whitman - but has instead eased them out the door.  Finally, Bush has allowed his advisors to reinforce his own worst instincts, instead of seeking out the best advice, even if it made him uncomfortable.  That's a sign of weakness and cowardice, just as Lincoln's diametrically opposite behavior was an incredible sign of strength and courage.

In sum, even in the most trying circumstances (e.g., the Civil War that raged for his entire Presidency), Lincoln took responsibility for his government's actions, listened to advice, and changed course when warranted. In other words, Lincoln showed leadership.  In contrast, Bush takes no responsibility, doesn't listen, and never changes course - on Iraq, global warming, you name it - no matter how much evidence is presented indicating an urgent need for such a course correction.  It's hard to even imagine what Abraham Lincoln, if he were alive today, would think of this "heckuva job," pass the buck, blame-everyone-but-themselves, arrogant, ignorant, disaster of an Administration (and the Republican Party that enables it).  After reading "Team of Rivals," however, I am very confident that Lincoln's judgment would not have been positive.

Comments