[ad_1]
Of all the places in Washington, Beto O'Rourke chose to run to the Lincoln Memorial. The week following his loss in the US Senate race in the US capital, O'Rourke found himself jogging in a winter storm. He found himself, knee to the stomach, and everything else, climbing the steps of the majestic monument of the 16th president. There, he wrote in a Medium article, he stopped to read the lyrics of Lincoln's second inaugural address. Suddenly, his knee stopped hurting him, as if Honest Abe's words had a special healing power (but "maybe it just had to warm up completely," he wrote.
O 'Rourke did not compare to Abraham Lincoln, but that did not stop others from noting some similarities in thinking of his potential for the presidency. While O & # Rourke had lost his Senate bid against Republican Ted Cruz in Texas Red, his fundraising skills, his organizational reach and his ability to attract crowds of volunteers (his "beto maniacs" ") Have propelled the national conversation about the identity of Democrats. should be named in 2020. Viewed from this angle, the message of his early morning run was hard to miss: if a former congressman from Illinois in the long run could reach the presidency in 1860, so is it. likewise for a sudden not so long A congressman nominated three times in Texas in 2020.
The story continues below
But to win the presidency, O & # 39; Rourke will not only have to to have the chance of Lincoln, but also his determination, his ardent ambitions and his considerable political skills. And, say several scholars of the 16th president, he would do well to follow Lincoln's scenario in 1860.
Those who might dismiss the analogy of Lincoln-O'Rourke are right to make fun of it; despite their common traits, the two are very different – and 2020 is not 1860. But comparisons are nonetheless intriguing. Like Lincoln, O'Rourke is charismatic, tall, lean, full of energy, an accomplished speaker and a natural activist. Like Lincoln, O'Rourke is an outsider able to lead an audience and energize an army of followers. Finally, just like Lincoln, O 'Rourke would begin his quest for the presidency (he says he's not a candidate, but who believes him), as a result of a campaign in the Senate that he lost. "I'm coming back to our history and I'm selecting the presidential candidates and I can not think of anyone who became president after losing a campaign in the Senate," Harold Holzer, Lincoln Specialist, author of the revolutionary book Lincoln At Cooper Union says. "There is Lincoln and nobody else. If Beto O'Rourke does it, he would be second. I must say that it would be amazing.
There is more: Lincoln's defeat against Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, Holzer points out, enhancing Lincoln's reputation, as does O'Rourke's defeat against Cruz. Not less than the Texas Monthly (this reference referee of Lone Star policy) noted that if O'Rourke had lost his candidacy in the Senate, his strong presence in a conservative state made him a winner. He came just 2.6 percentage points from his opponent, which has become the closest race to Texas in 40 years. "Beto O'Rourke lost his fight against Ted Cruz by helping his Democratic party more than any other candidate in two decades," said Monthly .
The same goes for Lincoln. Prior to his 1858 campaign against Douglas to represent Illinois in the US Senate (the election was decided in accordance with the laws in effect at the time by the state legislature), Lincoln was a former Congressman whose term of office was unknown. But its (still legendary) debates against Douglas made it a national political force. The representation of Lincoln brought the Republicans back to his level. In addition, the Lincoln-Douglas Tilt made Douglas, who covered his position on the issue of slavery, a pariah among pro-slavery Southern Democrats (the brawl around his presidential nomination , in 1860, broke the party). Cruz is not a pariah among the Republicans, but he also seems deeply hated that Douglas was in 1858. Then too (and as was the case with Douglas), Cruz's imminent defeat against an upstart did not attract him to the pillars of his own party. . The two men, Douglas and Cruz, should have won in no time. They did not do it.
Lincoln's campaign against Douglas in 1858 drew unprecedented national attention – mainly because, as everyone knew, the real problem between Lincoln and Douglas was slavery, thus placing the issue at risk. the forefront of national attention as no other race had done in this election this year. . Almost all the major newspapers in the country have covered their debates: the three main newspapers of New York (the 19459006) New York Evening Post the New York Tribune and the New York Herald ) each on the Evening Post excited about the correspondents sent, while smaller local newspapers (from Reading, Pennsylvania, to Mansfield, Ohio, to name just two) and regional heavyweights (the St Louis Morning Herald ) also weighed. The same was true for the Cruz-O 'Rourke campaign, with mainstream media constantly weighing O' Rourke's chances against favorite Cruz, then presented in the field. televised reports on the rallies of Cruz and O & # 39; Rourke. This may seem obvious, but it's relevant: the television made the national confrontation between Cruz-O'Rourke, while the newspapers once featured the Lincoln-Douglas match.
The highly publicized loss left Lincoln a unique window, and O'Rourke's defeat could have done the same. If Lincoln had defeated Douglas in 1858, he probably would not have been a presidential candidate in 1860. "Lincoln desperately wanted to become a senator," says historian and author Douglas Egerton, "and he had been elected in 1858, would probably have remained in the Senate, and conceded the Republican nomination to [New York’s William. H.] Seward. And you know, running for the Senate presidency while sitting in the Senate has proven difficult. "Egerton's point of view is confirmed by history: only three candidates became President while they sat in the Senate: Warren Harding, John F. Kennedy and Barack. Obama. In other words, the defeat of Lincoln in 1858 against Douglas made him available to the presidency two years later, just as Cruz's defeat against O. Rourke in 2018 made him available in 2020. [19659002AfterlosinghiscandidacyintheSenateLincolnsettledonthepresidency"Lincolnknewthatithadbeenalongtimetowinthenomination"EgertonsaidbutIthinkinhismindheconsideredhimselfanattractivechoiceforthevicepresidencyHeknewthatRepublicanshadtowinthestatestheyhadlostin1856when[Republican candidate John C.] Fremont lost to Buchanan. Illinois was the centerpiece because with Illinois would come Indiana, Missouri and even Pennsylvania. The map was therefore in Lincoln's favor.
The same goes for O'Rourke, whose bid could build a new democratic blue wall anchored in the southwest and centered on Texas and its 38 electoral votes. O'Rourke's card would include not only Colorado and New Mexico (which Clinton won in 2016), but also Arizona – which Clinton lost. O'Rourke's map appeals to Democrats, as does Lincoln's map to Republicans.
Of course, the test of any political analogy is whether it works in practice. "Lincoln was a very talented politician," says Egerton, "and O'Rourke is very good. Egerton, who described Lincoln's presidential race in his 19459006 Year of Meteors claims that Lincoln voluntarily positioned himself as a centrist on the issue of slavery. "In 1860, Seward was considered a radical, while Lincoln made statements that would make it more pleasing to moderate Republicans. It was absolutely crucial, "said Egerton. Specifically, Lincoln was helped when, in 1858, Seward described the division on slavery as "irrepressible conflict." This sentence was considered a war order – and Seward was vilified.
Lincoln deliberately woo the center of his party. Mr. O. Rourke has not learned a lesson yet, according to several campaign analysts. One of them is David Alexrod, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, who told Tim Alberta of Politico that he admired O. Rourke, but that he "held positions Rourke apparently hoped to compensate for this by recruiting new, younger voters, many of whom were educated liberals drawn to Texas by the burgeoning job market. In the end, that was not enough. Lincoln took care to stay in the center, a lesson O'Rourke might have to learn if he ran in 2020.
Of course, there is no recipe for getting your party nominated – and every campaign is different. But as Harold Holzer notes, O'Rourke could do worse than follow Lincoln's strategy in 1860. When I spoke to Holzer last week (on the occasion of the anniversary, as he pointed out, from Lincoln's Gettysburg address), he presented a compelling argument that O 'Rourke could begin as Lincoln – with a speech delivered before the New York Cooper Union . as a testing ground for national candidates. "New York is a tough crowd. Lincoln had to do well there to be taken seriously, and he knew it. And Cooper Union was in Seward's backyard, so Lincoln was throwing a challenge. Lincoln's speech was cautious, precise, pissed off, typically from west-central – and was a huge success. Lincoln then delivered speeches in New England, and returned home while awaiting the result of the candidacy vote. O'Rourke could follow a similar strategy, using an appearance of the Cooper Union to show that his Texan roots are playing well in the East, while differentiating himself from other candidates, as potentially Kirsten Gillibrand, of New York.
But even after his success in New York, Lincoln knew that he needed a convention strategy – first to stop Seward, then to make sure of his own appointment . Holzer recounts Lincoln's thought: "The first thing Lincoln did was to choose David Davis to lead his campaign at Congress. Davis was brilliant. He really knew what he was doing. The second thing he did was to get the votes of the Illinois delegation, who accompanied him on every ballot. The third thing he did was get approval from his state's most important newspaper, Joseph Medill, Chicago Daily Press and Tribune . Holzer suggests that O 'Rourke probably does not need Lincoln to learn these lessons, but it's worth remembering: "He'll need his own David Davis, from the delegation of Texas and newspapers. . "
Egerton bursts out laughing:" Lincoln's bid was a bit underhand, "he says. "Davis printed counterfeit passes for galleries during the convention and distributed them to Lincoln supporters. They arrived early, while Seward's people were left outside. And Davis placed the Illinois delegation at the convention center, where she was the center of attention, with Seward delegates in New York well ahead, where no one could see them. Lincoln was elected in the third round. Seward and his followers were stunned.
Lincoln was he?
"I think that when Seward was not nominated for the first round of voting, Lincoln had to know that he would win because the other delegates were not so attached to their favorite candidates that Illinois him and New York to Seward, "argues Egerton. In Ohio, Salmon P. Chase, a humorless marplot, was their favorite son, while Pennsylvania hosted Simon Cameron, a clever but corrupt man. But unlike Illinois and New York, the delegations of Ohio and Pennsylvania only committed to their candidates in the first round of voting. "Chase was also unpleasant in Ohio and even the Pennsylvania delegation knew that Cameron was corrupt," says Egerton. "So when Seward failed in the first round of voting, it was only a matter of time before Ohio and Pennsylvania joined Illinois. There was a little of luck, but it was pretty well played. "
So, where can the similarities between the two candidates go? The process of nominating and electing a president in 1860 seems almost more superficial today: there are no primaries, no "super delegates", no mass mailings, no digital strategies and no half-hearted televised debates – a dozen candidates ( or more.) And, despite the controversy over a number of issues (such as immigration), the United States does not face "an irrepressible conflict", as it was in the middle of the And while Lincoln was underrated in 1860, O'Rourke was not, and of course Lincoln turned out to be one of the greatest leaders in the history of the United States, and who knows now whether or not O. Rourke can get closer to the comparison.
But if Beto channels Abe, his post-campaign jog At the top of the Lincoln Memorial steps, he'd do well to study the emancipator's nomination strategy. Because in 1858, as in 2018 (and Lincoln knew it well), it is one thing to be in the national conversation and another to stay in this conversation.
Source link
