Any writer who presumes to make a political case that the Founders — or any other icons of American history — are on his side has a considerable burden of proof to meet. Few are up to the task.
Trying to figure out What Would [fill in the blank] Do in current circumstances almost always ends in the writer amazingly enough discovering that [fill in the blank] would do exactly as the writer would.
So Rich Lowry’s “Lincoln Unbound: How an Ambitious Young Railsplitter Saved the American Dream — And How We Can Do It Again,” comes as a welcome surprise in a genre not exactly filled with edifying examples.
Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, succeeds where others failed because he rests his case on two sturdy pillars. Most importantly, his reach does not exceed his grasp. His goal is not so much to use Lincoln to justify current Republican policy proposals as it is to mold those proposals around Lincoln’s core principles.
In doing this, he avoids the mistakes of those such as Mario M. Cuomo — an example Lowry cites — whose “Why Lincoln Matters” miraculously found a modern liberal lurking under that stovepipe hat. Cuomo’s Lincoln “is all in favor of sharing, inclusion, diversity, and whatever else Cuomo deems valuable and important.”
Lincoln — who fought the Southern rebels with every fiber of his being, risked re-election to do so and ultimately gave his life to the cause of union and freedom — would have argued that “attacking terrorists creates more terrorism,” in Cuomo’s telling.
Lowry, on the other hand, looks under the hat and sees a Whig.
The nanny-staters of the 19th century, the Whig Party, favored government action in support of economic growth (through helping business) and federally funded infrastructure projects such as telegraph lines, railroads and canals. At the core of the Whig philosophy, though, was an understanding that the success of the American experiment depended on the goodness of the people, and the Whigs were determined to make people better. The middle of the 19th century was a time of great religious ferment, and the social reform movements that grew out of that ferment were natural allies of the Whigs.
Lincoln, a Whig for the entire existence of the party, was a big believer in self-improvement because he was himself a primary example of the breed. “Lincoln felt drawn to the kind of people who tended to be Whigs, the ‘better sort,’ people who were firmly embedded within the commercial economy and welcomed its ethos,” Lowry writes.
Lincoln was no small-government conservative. In those days, that was the role of the Democratic Party (except when it came to protecting slavery). But he was devoted to free enterprise, property rights and the ability of Americans to aspire to better things by virtue of their own hard work.
This was, in fact, the essence of his argument against slavery: the injustice of seeing another enjoy the fruits of your own labor.
Hard to imagine a man making that argument backing big tax increases or ever-increasing social welfare transfers. Lowry alludes to this, but he fortunately doesn’t dwell on it. The point he makes is larger.
Former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., candidate for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, holds his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem as he waits to take the stage for his town hall campaign rally with Sen. John McCain at the Pinkerton Academy in Derry, N.H., on Monday, Aug. 18, 2014.