For the past century and more there has been lively discussion—and debate—over Abraham Lincoln, his life, his views, and the legacy of his presidency left to us. Writers as diverse as historian David Donald, black writer Lerone Bennett, and Professor Thomas di Lorenzo (in two significant books), have attempted to dissect Lincoln’s life and the revolutionary “new” America he gave birth to. Most recently those Neoconservatives—those Establishment conservatives whose “conservatism” is actually rooted in a variant of Marxism—have claimed Father Abe for their own, denouncing any and all traditional conservatives or Southern writers who might criticize him or dissent from their virtual canonization of the rail-splitter.
Only consider the watershed “case” of the late Dr. Mel Bradford, the distinguished Southern scholar and writer, who was considered back in 1981 by President Reagan as his appointee to head the National Endowment for the Humanities. Backed by Senators Jesse Helms and John East of North Carolina, and by Democrat Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, Bradford was viciously attacked by Neocon journalist George Will and other Neocon publicists such as Bill Kristol. In the end Reagan appointed Neocon-favored Democrat William Bennett.
Bradford’s major “crime”? He had engaged in a long-running, scholarly debate with Dr. Harry Jaffa (Claremont College, California), very critical of Lincoln’s deleterious influence on America. (full discussion)
Lincoln has been boosted to ethereal heights in American history and politics. Despite the ongoing discussion, his virtual triumph as a demi-god and the Founder of a New Nation who actually implemented the promises of the Declaration of Independence, demonstrate the triumph of one of the most fraudulent and perverse charades in our history.
This article first published in the Post raises important questions, but unfortunately those questions will not be seriously considered by Neocon ideologues like historically-challenged Dinesh D’Souza or Ben Shapiro or Jonah Goldberg, who remain mired in what is essentially a faux left-wing bog contaminated at its very base by a whole series of progressivist positions and assumptions about civil rights and globalism.