Sdgrrl: I don’t disagree with any of what you’re saying, but I think you also need to add some context here, too.
For example, Lincoln was not quite as a big a fan of abolition as you’re portraying. In point of fact, slavery was a peripheral issue to Lincoln during the American Civil War. His prosecution of the war centered on disunion and bringing the Confederate States of America back into the union, using any and all means at his disposal. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t happen until 1863, a full two years into the conflict.
JFK’s support of civil rights is far from consistent and he actually voted against Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Recognizing that he needed the black vote to defeat Nixon in 1960, he swung in support of the civil rights movement. I would offer that LBJ, a somewhat bigoted Texan by his own admission, did more to advance civil rights (Great Society) than JFK did and for less cynical reasons.
My point is this: Context and subtext are very important, especially from a historical perspective and there is nothing inherently wrong with radical or reactionary policies. Hell, the Founding Fathers of this country were considered seditious criminals by the Crown!
However, if those radical or reactionary policies ultimately undermine this great country, then they’re wrong, pure and simple. Whether we’re talking about Clinton’s policy of rendition, or Bush’s support of the Patriot Act and the bailouts, or the changes Obama is trying to push through. Wrong is wrong, regardless of its nature.
