You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

Editorial columns

  • Short-sighted decision shortchanges students
    Since taking office last year, one of the most exciting things I've seen in Indiana has been the growing momentum and support for early-childhood education.
  • In the best interests of Hoosier children
    Earlier this year our state made history by approving the first state-funded pre-kindergarten grant program for low-income families in Indiana.
  • Domestic violence a worldwide scourge
    Many of us have found ourselves shocked at the sight of Super Bowl champion Ray Rice punching his then fiancée, now wife, so hard in the face that she was rendered unconscious.
Advertisement
Associated Press
Steven Spielberg’s new film “Lincoln” has useful advice for today’s leaders.

The lessons of ‘Lincoln’

Much has changed, but much is the same in managing Congress

– Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” is so lush you feel like you’re watching it in a velvet chair. But after my wife and I watched the film, her first reaction was: “I kept thinking about health care.” She wasn’t talking about the gritty scene at an Army hospital. She was talking about the Affordable Care Act.

At the center of the film is Lincoln’s fight to find the votes to pass the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, and though the bloody and muddy war scenes make the stakes quite clear, at its heart the movie is a math problem: How does Lincoln get two-thirds of the tick marks on the vote tally sheet to go his way? That’s how ending enslavement of an entire race can remind you of health care reform. The math is the same in all big legislative fights: How hard do you push to get what is right when pushing too hard can spoil the whole enterprise?

President Obama has seen Spielberg’s film and is a fan of the Doris Kearns Goodwin book, “Team of Rivals,” upon which it is based. Screenwriter Tony Kushner has said Obama liked it. So it makes you wonder what lessons a newly re-elected president with a gift for oratory might take from it, especially when our own president faces his own fight with a lame-duck Congress.

The first lesson is that great oratory doesn’t get you votes. The movie starts and ends with Lincoln’s famous speeches. But the main drama – the hunt for votes – has almost nothing to do with the president’s power of public persuasion. In the scenes where Lincoln tries to convince individual lawmakers, he is forgettable.

The next lesson is not one available to our current president: Votes are for sale. At the start of the film, Lincoln is faced with trying to secure two kinds of votes: conservative Republicans and a smaller number of Democrats who have been voted out of office in the election of 1864 but who can still vote in the lame-duck session. He employs a crew of political hacks to offer Democrats plum postings after they’ve left office. This is how Lincoln gets a good share of the hard votes. Vote buying is largely unavailable to the modern president, certainly when it comes to influencing members of the opposite party. This points out an immediate caution for anyone trying to draw lessons from this film. A lot has changed. Lincoln’s careful strategy could not have survived the first tweet.

The more useful skill a modern-day president could mimic is Lincoln’s careful management of his allies. He secures conservative Republican votes by stringing the lawmakers along. Lincoln’s fellow Republicans will vote for the 13th Amendment if he promises to entertain peace entreaties from the South. Lincoln sends Francis Preston Blair to Richmond to meet with the Confederates. But if word leaks that any conversation with the South is under way, it will sap the energy for passing the amendment. Throughout the film, Lincoln simultaneously pushes for the vote while stalling the approach of the Confederate representatives heading North to talk peace. He never quite lies to his allies, but he manages their intake of information so that they hear what they want to hear – and stay in line.

Many Democrats today find Obama’s manner too timid and accommodating, a charge the radical Republicans of Lincoln’s day leveled at their president. Their leader, Thaddeus Stevens, wants full rights for slaves. Lincoln, who is being mercilessly hammered by Democrats for his anti-slavery activism, wants Stevens to tone down his rhetoric.

Lincoln is repeatedly blamed for being too deliberate and slow. Leading from behind, you might call it. But what Lincoln knew was that he could not go any faster than the public allowed him.

In the end, Lincoln wins over Stevens who, while debating on the floor of the House, refuses to be pushed into declaring his more radical private beliefs. He repeats that he wants nothing more than equality for blacks “under the law.” It is an act of self-denial and lawyerly weaseling that infuriates his Democratic opposition but gives the newspapermen looking down from the gallery nothing incendiary to write. As a result, the vote coalition sticks together.

“Lincoln” has been heralded as a great civics lesson. It is a good but not great one, and not just because there’s sadly little inspiration for our own president to draw from the movie. Stevens’ act of self-denial makes you want to cheer, but the power dynamics and motivations of various parties are confusing and unexplained at times.

The actual counting of votes is clear enough – we even see Mary Todd Lincoln’s tally sheet as she watches from the gallery. But we get no sense of the inner turmoil these lawmakers are going through. Why does the gentleman from Kentucky, to whom Lincoln has appealed, change his vote? In one of several comical vote-buying scenes, one of the political hacks is nearly shot by a Democratic lawmaker he’s trying to bribe. Members of the House get off some good lines as they forever yell at one another, and their play-acting and verbal sparring can feel removed from today’s debates only by the old-timey language. The film is trying to show the gap between Lincoln’s lofty ends and earthly means, but the debate over the amendment banning slavery should feel more weighty in the moment than today’s posturing about the fiscal cliff. Members wept after the amendment was passed, but there’s little in the film’s portrayal of the vote hunt that makes us want to weep, too.

By contrast, when we see Lincoln lie down by the fire next to his sleeping son, you feel his weariness, and you ache for him. When his wife rages at the president for allowing their older boy to go to war, your shoulders tense with her rage. The personal dramas are always going to outstrip the legislative fight, but when it comes to the vote, which consumes so much of the movie, in the end it often just feels like so much math.

John Dickerson is Slate’s chief political correspondent.

Advertisement