Abraham Lincoln Quote 1/3/08

great quote and so timely in today's situation

Great quote. Thanks for sharing.

The "house" has always been divided. The key to preserving it is to have it divided so many ways and by so many issues that people whom you oppose on one issue are people you support on other issues. It is only when all the issues considered important are organized around two or three centers such that if you oppose someone on one issue you will oppose them on all the other issues as well. That can cause the house to fall.

That is what happened around the slavery issue. It came to be too important and other issues on which slave and free could agree were not important enough to balance the slavery issue.

Too bad our government today can't pay attention to the great leaders of the past.

Larry - a very interesting and insightful analysis. If you think about our current situation, it would seem that we all coalesced around the idea of national security/anti-terrorism after 9/11. But then we fell apart, and perhaps even more emphatically so, after we chose to go into Iraq and the public rationale for doing so turned out to be more ideological than real.

I wonder if that is still true in 2008.

Jessica - I would have thought that studying Lincoln, as well as the other great Presidents, would be a requirement for public service at that level. It appears, however, that lessons were lost.

We watched a show on Andrew Jackson last night. History just keeps repeating itself in so many ways.

i sooo hate the 2 party system. takes away the public will & allows party heads to make decisions for us.

the quote is fitting for so much more than politics....thank you

The two party system is part of the problem not the cure!

It is time for a strong third party. George Washington said the two party system would ruin this nation.

I think that everyone should start pulling together and not against each other. And maybe George was right. Great quote

Great quote!

Let's hope it can be kept together without violence.

I wonder what the alternative is to a 2-party system? The 1-party system (i.e., King, Dictator, etc.) doesn't seem to work too well, except possibly if there is a benevolent despot (not sure if there have been any).

Many countries have multi-party, shared governing systems. But it doesn't appear they work that well either.

So, 1- party is a dictatorship. 2- party doesn't seem to work because the two sides rarely agree. Multi-party doesn't seem to work because it's almost impossible for multiple parties (all with their particular agendas) to agree, which leads to power-trading.

Maybe it's not the number of parties per se, but the fact that they seem to see governing as a way to further their own agendas rather than find workable solutions that are in the best interests of the majority of the people (if not for certain individuals).

There are no easy answers.

I would suggest that so long as our "inner houses remain self-divided" any "outside-in solution," political or otherwise, which only addresses symptoms, can never "heal the inner dis-ease" itself.

Or, more directly stated: If I wish to change my world, the first thing I need to change is my heart.

thanks for the quote and for explaining the speech in which it was spoken.

I don't believe the Democrats and Republicans are diametrically opposed. I think the people with extreme views who manage to tout their views as the popular views (for money, power or both) are the exception and not the rule.

A reasonable, middle-of-the-road free thinker, who offers objective, balanced viewpoints isn't going to get a 235 million dollar radio contract.

That's entertainment.

I don't believe we are a 'house divided,' as Lincoln said over the issue of human beings owning human beings. I don't believe, in their core, the Democrats or Republicans are immoral or act immorally because of the party they belong (granted, at his time the Federal government has been hijacked by a few-in-number neocons)

I think there is a danger in average people buying the hyperbolic crap that spews across the airwaves, believing the entertainment to somehow be objective reporting of facts.

karl - it strikes me that you've hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Most people are focused on living their lives, but the few vocal ones seem to drive the "national" debate.

So, the goal is to find a way for all the reasonable people to be heard by the people we elect as our representatives. Which to me means finding a way to get us to hold them accountable.

Holding them accountable. Now there is a novel idea. Let me know when all people from both parties can be held accountable. Now it is just tit for tat.

I have many ideas on the problems of our 2 party government. At the moment my strongest feeling is disgust for all of them.

There are extreme views on both the right and the left. It is currently an unfortunate situation that the far right wing nut jobs are the ones in the White house now and are also the ones in the Senate blocking anything that does not benfit the big corporations...... The country is divided for a purpose,but there is light coming from the independent voters in 2008, they will not be voting for the right or left wing nut jobs so a sufficient number of them will be gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert et al.

I do hope that we will decide to hold our representatives accountable, but it starts with us. We need to understand that not everyone agrees on the way things should be, and that usually neither side is all right or all wrong [we're people, we have different opinions]. So we need to find candidates that will understand that all reasonable opinions and priorities need to be considered. That doesn't mean some wishy-washy compromise that accomplishes nothing but appeasement, but it does mean we/they must govern for all people, not just those who agree with them.

I have always liked that quote

David et al, my comment is on a hopeful note. Most people would agree that change is needed in the direction we are going in. On a practical note every piece of legislation recently allowed to pass has maintained the status quo, more governement subsidies for oil companies,more money for war and defense, no move to restore our constitutional Democracy. i am hoping that a few of the extremists on both sides are going away and some sensible middle of the road people are taking over,it is a long shot at best.

I don't think our two party system is democratic. I'd love to see six viable parties.

Our system of government is purposely designed to restrict the power from any one branch (executive, legislative, judicial). In doing so it invariably leads to inefficiency and incremental change only (not counting dramatic events like 9/11). Wars have a way of uniting (when it's "us" against "them" such as it was immediately after 9/11), then dividing (when it's still going on past the point of the "stay the course" versus "it's not worth the lives lost" crowds).

I'm originally from New England and have friends from the deep south. I currently live in the Washington DC area (northern Virginia). I'm surprised how much the "North" and the "South" still see the Civil War from different viewpoints. The two party's are defined not by all of the things they agree on, but rather by the small number of things they disagree on. Combined with the fact that participants must vie for their seats, this means that they are constantly in competition with each other, and the only way to discriminate yourself from your opponent is to carp on the differences.

Still, I have hope that we can bring civility and rationality (and honor and integrity) back to public service.

you so called "independents" sure do think highly of yourselves *chuckle*

Thank you for sharing this.

Great quote.

This quote shows Lincoln's ability as a wordsmith. He was such a great speaker. As to the state of politics today, I agree with Michele K.

Interesting. I checked out the Iowa caucuses tonight and it kind of highlights the differences in priorities of the two parties. All the votes are not in, but the MSM are predicting wins for Obama and Huckabee. Consider the contrast:

Obama: It appears many of his supporters are 1) younger, and 2) feel change is very important and very much needed.

Huckabee: Many (most) of his supporters are evangelical Christians, who tend to want the status quo (i.e., no change).

This suggests one party thinks everything is hunky-dory and it should stay the way it is; while the other party thinks everything is going down the tubes and has to change dramatically.

Talk about your house divided.

"Those who ignore the lessons of history are destined to repeat the mistakes thereof!"

In this corner: the "Party of the People" we want big government, higher taxes to spend on our pet projects, we want to have abortion on demand, it's not really murder; legalize pornography, you don't have to watch if you don't want to. Remove God from public places everwhere and restrict Christians from practicing their faith...after all, we all evolved from animals anyway so why not act like it! We believe the gov't owes me a living! I don't want to work for it, just give it to me, I don't care where the money comes from, just get it from the wealthy people, they have too much anyway, but when I win the lottery, leave MY money alone. Lets open more strip clubs and bars, legalize prostitution and drugs. Yeah man, that's my kinda party.


And in this corner... those who work for a living and build businesses to employ other people who want to work for a living. Smaller gov't, less taxation. Let's Keep the First and Second amendments to the Constitution in tact. Let's stop killing the unborn! Let's Help those less fortunate who ask for it. Help the world to remain free to govern itself instead of succumb to cruel dictators who slaughter their own people for disagreeing with them. Give people the right to worship as they please. Let us be a people that stand for goodness and integrity. We realize we are not perfect and stumble, but learn from our mistakes and move on! Let's make a much better world, not a worse one. Yes, I am biased... but truthful! Dave

One party, two parties, three parties, six parties. It doesn't matter how many there are, except that the more parties there are, the smaller the group capable of electing the president.
Personally, I think that it has more to do with the people than with the parties. Every candidate smears the other one...it's easier than proving themselves worthy with their own track records. And why do they do it? Because we the people put up with it.
Take clinton: Was he a good president? can you think of any major changes he make while in office? The thing with the cigar and the intern; what was her name?

I'll bet the majority of the people who'd read this would have to think about the first two, but would know the last one right away. We're a nation of gossip loving, O.J. watching lumps, myself included, and until we get the motivation to stop being dumbed down and start being responsible citizens, we are going to get what we deserve.

Mike A. (jan 4, 2008, 2:17 am) -

Very well said!

Dave Stauffer - good summaries. Obviously pointing out the extreme with tongue firmly in cheek, but many of the points have valid undertones.

Your last line intrigues me: "Yes, I am biased... but truthful!" I wish more people would admit that they are biased one way or another. We are all creatures of our upbringing and our experiences. It's hard to see the world from a view if you have always been positioned from the other side.

Which gets me to the part that intrigues me, the "but truthful" part. My feeling (my bias, if you will) is that truth is not a single entity that you either accept or disavow. Truth can be viewed from many sides. Consider the classic adage about the blind men each touching one part of the elephant. One touches the trunk (and thinks it's a snake), one touches the leg (and thinks it's a tree trunk), and one touches the tail and thinks it's a rope) and so on. In the end, they each make their judgments based on their limited experiences with the elephant. True "truth" (if you pardon the alliteration) must always consider the inclusion of all points of view.

LOL - seems I went off a philosophical tangent there.

Mr Stauffer I would like to thank you for your comments. So little is said for for the downtrodden wealthy of our country. Those people on whose backs the nameless, faceless masses ride should pay homage, and show due subserviance to your greatness. Now...how many adoptions of drug addicted babies can we count on from your great family. Now they dont have to live up in the big house...with you...pherhaps a rental property with a Nanny for whom you will draw compensation for from the government which you manipulate through well paid lobbyists. How many is that....cant hear you sir....

James T. How nice of you to respond in such a loving informed manner. You see, I grew up very poor and have NEVER rose above what you may call lower middle class. My home has bee shared many times by those who often fell upon hard times and I had little but shared my home, my family, food, and transportation with them. I raised my teen age brother for five years after both my parents died at 48 years old. I,ve had teens from troubled households stay for periods of over a year on a few occasions, a friend who was homeless for four months stayed with me. I've never had a home larger than a three bedroom house to house me, my wife and two children. When I worked in the factory, the union always supported the "party of the working class people." Yet I never seemed to benefit from it, except that I was a victim of Plant closings twice, once during Carters term in office, the other during Clinton's. I have helped out in jail ministries, half way houses for released convicts, erected housing for single mothers, taken food to people who lost their jobs, clothing to inner city children, and visited many people I didn't know in nursing homes and hospitals. My family supported a child in Haiti so that he could grow up with and education and clothes. I gave money to two different groups to help build orphanages and supported a lady that went to help run one of those. I have assisted with a group who housed and ministered to unwed mothers and young unmarried pregnant teens. I took groups of kids to summer camps and many other community outreach activities. So, with your smug comments, I ask you Mr. James T. What is it YOU have done for others less fortunate than yourself? GBY Dave

One of the drawbacks of written comments on Gather and elsewhere is that smetimes it's hard to tell whether people are being serious or playing. In either case, it points out the fact that it helps to see the world from the viewpoints of others.

Thank you so much David, Abraham Lincoln was a great president.