Ah, they don’t make Illinois pols like they used to! Since I am a Wisconsinite and grumbling about Flatlanders ( or, more accurately, visitors from Chicagoland) is one of our favorite hobbies, it pains me to admit it, but Illinois has done pretty well historically when it comes to producing distinguished statesmen. Admittedly, the current bunch is a disappointment, and I doubt any state can quite match the bumper crop produced by Virginia, but, well, there was that Eureka College graduate, for starters. And I can imagine what Adlai Stevenson would say about Blago (well, actually I can’t, because Stevenson would come up with a much more devastatingly witty put-down than I’m capable of dreaming up.)

And then there’s the astonishing career of Paul Douglas. I had never heard of the man until I came across him in the pages of E.B. Sledge’s “With the Old Breed”: a professor who enlisted in the Marine Corp in his 50′s, was severely wounded on Okinawa and survived to represent Illinois in the Senate. (Heck, they don’t make Democrats like they used to either.)

I don’t mean to change the subject, just to point out that Illinois has produced some very fine pols in the past and God willing, will do so again.

Also on the GOP side, don’t forget the great, unabashedly pro-life and Catholic statesman Rep. Henry Hyde; Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen, a key backer of civil rights legislation (if you’re ever in Pekin stop in at the Dirksen Congressional Center, run by a really great guy, Frank Mackaman); and Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, who defied what some describe as a bipartisan corruption “Combine” to bring us U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation).

I forgot to mention Dirkson and Hyde – 2 more fine gentlemen.

Your neighbor from the schizophrenic state to the north (home of the LaFollettes, the People’s Republic of Madison AND Tailgunner Joe) salutes them.

I love how Buchanan uses selective quotations to pretend as though he has a better argument. The south has a right to secede? Of course it does- a small newspaper in Maine said they did.

Sorry, but as a scholar I find this kind of shoddy workmanship offensive. When you are presenting an argument, you have an obligation to present the other side’s point of view as fairly as possible. If this was a term paper I wouldn’t even give it a C.

I am sure Elaine that when Mr. Hyde came before God for judgment he had a myriad of small advocates.

I will attempt to do a proper “fisking” of Buchanan’s article during the weekend.

Man, I’ll be glad when the Lincoln worship on this site has passed.

Don, most historians love the state and love centralizers. Thats nearly always the philosophical lens they use in their work. They love “do-ers” who assert power and win. Lincoln was all these things, so whatever “fisking” you do isn’t really going to surprise me, or even continue to prove your case that Lincoln is some objectively awe-inspiring political man-god. If anything I was a bit surprised to see Buchanan dislike Lincoln. Buchanan’s support of protectionist economic policy (ie, bailing out the auto-industry) reeked of a sentimentality towards the state that blurred his view of reality. At least thats where my nose takes me.

However, the racism/anti-semitism charge gets trotted out from time to time against the “old right”/libertarian-type guys. I’ve yet to see it, plus its fairly difficult to make any kind of sober criticism of such matters until someone comes right out and admits they hate so-and-so. Its like when someone advocates for “non-intervention” and suddenly they’re a “isolationist”. Again I think Buchanan’s protectionist sentiments – particularly with regard to cultural matters – drive his thinking. After all, some times you’ll find him praising minority figures, and other times criticizing them. I might disagree with his point or even his attitude, but I won’t object to his willingness to jump into sensitive areas with a critical eye.

I can only imagine that the accusations get used to bludgeon into submission those who would dare consider the politically incorrect things like Lincoln’s “evolving” views on race and slavery, or that WWII might have been brought about by political bungling and maneuvering.

Ah well. Its all in good fun.

“objectively awe-inspiring political man-god”

Nice phrase Anthony. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have posted about Lincoln, but it is a nice phrase.

“Don, most historians love the state and love centralizers.”

Most academic historians today are of the political left and they do love the State. Fortunately most of them also write in a deconstructionist or postmodern gibberish that renders them unreadable by anyone who is not paid, fellow academics, or forced, poor students in their classes. Popular historians, i.e., historians who can actually get people to plunk down money to buy their books, are more ideologically mixed, and often take a more jaundiced view of the role of government in human affairs. As for Lincoln, there has been an historical battle royal waged over his actions since before the guns fell silent in the Civil War, and the battle continues to be waged down to the present day. In this battle Lincoln has been attacked from Left with almost the same ferocity that he has been attacked from the Right.

“fisking” you do isn’t really going to surprise me,”

Ah, it may not surprise you Anthony, but it will make you better informed. Buchanan gets the basic facts twisted and that is what my fisking will be about. That Buchanan is a Confederacy fan doesn’t particularly bother me. That he mangles the historical record to attack Lincoln does. Historical accuracy is a passion for me and I detest attempts to distort the historical record, as Buchanan does in his ham-fisted way, to serve political agendas.

“However, the racism/anti-semitism charge gets trotted out from time to time against the “old right”/libertarian-type guys. I’ve yet to see it, plus its fairly difficult to make any kind of sober criticism of such matters until someone comes right out and admits they hate so-and-so.”

You must not be looking very hard Anthony. You might start by reading this 1991 article by William F. Buckley and then googling Buchanan and Jews. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n24_v43/ai_11810753

I accuse Buchanan of being an anti-semite based not upon one or two isolated statements but upon a pattern of statements and actions over the decades. He is a kook and and an embarrassment to responsible conservatives. He fits to perfection the strawman conservative liberals love to attack: anti-semitic, friendly to racists and their causes and buffoonishly ignorant. It will be a happy day for the Right when he totters off the public stage.

The things you find on the internet. Here is a transcript of a debate between Harry Jaffa, probably the most eminent Lincoln scholar post World War II, and DiLorenzo on May 7, 2002.

http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=9