Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Jeremy Corbyn shrugs off coup risk in Labour leadership battle | Politics | The Guardian

Jeremy Corbyn has brushed aside suggestions that he would face an internal coup to depose him if he became Labour leader, saying he would follow the example of Abraham Lincoln who acted as a unifying figure after the American civil war.

Established party figures, led by Neil Kinnock and Peter Mandelson, have warned of the "dangers" of a Corbyn victory. Corbyn, in Leeds at the launch of an economic plan to rejuvenate the north of England, said: "Plots and double plots and sub-plots and plotting - it's fascinating. I think Abraham Lincoln made a point. At the end of the American civil war he said, `with malice toward none and charity towards all' we will go forward, I am sure that is the right way to do things."

Up to eight members of the shadow cabinet, led by the shadow chancellor, Chris Leslie, have said they would decline to serve on the frontbench under Corbyn. Kinnock suggested over the weekend that Corbyn, the MP for Islington North, was more suitable to serve as "chair of a discussion group who can preside over two years or more of fascinating debate".

The above got my attention, as those who read my review of Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln would have guessed. But, I'm curious: does Corbyn have Lincoln's alpha-male-handling skills in him? (I don't know much about him.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Aug 11th, 2015 at 06:28:53 AM EST
Reconstruction failed..

And it is not sure that Lincoln's planned reconstruction would have fared better.

by IM on Tue Aug 11th, 2015 at 06:57:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For the umpteenth time, you completely miss the point of a comment you react to.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Aug 11th, 2015 at 07:44:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, not at all:

 I think Abraham Lincoln made a point. At the end of the American civil war he said, `with malice toward none and charity towards all' we will go forward, I am sure that is the right way to do things."

It is quite plausible that this attitude as wrong and Lincoln, like his successors, would have been much to soft on the south.

And cuod you cease you endless personal attacks?

by IM on Tue Aug 11th, 2015 at 08:06:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In case you really didn't miss the point of Corbyn's comment, at least, then you are saying that Corbyn shouldn't aim for a post-election truce with the New Labour elite, but aim for their complete annihilation, lest they sabotage the reconstruction of Labour like the Southern elite sabotaged Reconstruction. You certainly missed the point of my comment though, which was about Lincoln's application of the same principle within his own party (after his surprise selection as candidate), made a success because Lincoln possessed certain political skills his successors didn't.

And no, I won't stop pointing out when you don't engage in proper debate and have an abysmal attitude that is getting quite annoying. This is not the first, fifth or hundredth example of you debating something completely different from what I wrote.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Aug 12th, 2015 at 04:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
" then you are saying that Corbyn shouldn't aim for a post-election truce with the New Labour elite,"

Oh he should. I just doubt it will work.

"You certainly missed the point of my comment though, which was about Lincoln's application of the same principle within his own Party"

But that was not the point of the Lincoln speech. More important, Lincoln was supposed to be the candidate of the moderate wing of the republicans. And indeed most of his coalition management troubles came from so called radical republicans.

And regarding the south, Lincolns willingness to compromise hadn't worked from the start of the civil war. I really doubt it would have worked better in post war era (His power over the republicans would have avoided the impeachment, though).

 "  And no, I won't stop pointing out when you don't engage in proper debate and have an abysmal attitude that is getting quite annoying"

The problem is, you always claim to misunderstood and can' stand to be contradicted in anything.

by IM on Wed Aug 12th, 2015 at 07:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The piece was lost long before the war was won, and I doubt Lincoln nor anyone else could have done that.  As Union armies occupied Rebel territory, it became apparent the antebellum elite would be left in place.  It had to find its own way to stay in power, but the Union wasn't going to force them out, carpetbagger and scallawag fairytails by Moonlight and Magnolias morons notwithstanding.  The Union had neither the strategy nor the will to do anything beyond reuniting the country and ending slavery.  Stevens and the Radical Republicans were able to push their agenda for awhile, but it never took root, not in the target states of the South (of course), and not even in the Republican Party, which wrote off the South and the freed slaves the minute it was certain the Midwest could deliver elections regardless.
by rifek on Mon Aug 24th, 2015 at 11:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Taxing Property

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 27
12 comments

European Defense 4 Freedom

by Oui - Oct 23
16 comments

Owning Brexit

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 20
17 comments

England Herd Immunity Stage 2.0

by Oui - Oct 21
20 comments

Shaming us all?

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 16
31 comments

Occasional Series