Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Thoughts from Gettysburg

By

As some may know, I am in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania this weekend.  Our family has been members and supporters of the Friends of the National Park at Gettysburg, including volunteering with our kids on park maintenance for some years now.  Twice each year, there is an annual “muster” where licensed battlefield guides do staff walks and present research.  Fascinating stuff.  

My time here is always spent in a numinous presence, and is a chance to renew my commitment to the values that caused me to become a late in life attorney.  The Gettysburg Address, called for a “new birth of freedom” .  The possibility of that freedom was what caused my direct ancestors to emigrate here between 1905 and 1927.  For me, also, there is a living presence of Lincoln here, especially at the Wells House and the National Cemetery.

Politics and elections and who we choose to govern us are important precisely because it is politics, election, governance and citizen involvement which determine whether that new birth of freedom lives or dies.  We are living in times that will determine whether our children live free and retain the rights I once took for granted as a citizen, or are indentured servants to bloated corporations and corporate-owned government.

Such thoughts became clarified for me during a seminar I took here in Gettysburg this weekend.

One of the presentations this year was “Rival Teams” – taking the thesis of Dolores Kearns Goodwin’s marvelous book Team of Rivals and examining the Cabinets built, and evolving during their Presidencies, as created by Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln.

The presenter analyzed and demonstrated for both regimes the  relative political effectiveness in the USA, the diplomatic effectiveness, the attention to long and short term logistics, and the financial infrastructure created and managed by each, as well as the personalities and changes in those cabinets.

I encouraged the presenter, Joseph Miceczkowski, to write the book or books since he has already done the research.

Lincoln choose the strongest possible candidates, without being intimidated by their egos or intelligence, and yet made his own decisions without degenerating into micromanaging their decisions.

The relevance to here and now is that the campaign management, subordinates and running mates that candidates choose constitutes perhaps the most incisive way to evaluate their competence as executives, and potential success in overcoming obstacles and reaching goals.  A strong leader does not fear strength in subordinates, but gathers strength to himself or herself and builds an effective team.  A fatally flawed leader surrounds themselves only with those who reflect what the flawed leader wants to see and hear.  At any event, that is one of the lessons I drew.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. President Obama scores high on this one: his greatest rival is secretary of state, an accomplished senator as vice president, three top-tier former governors in cabinet.  Indeed, my great complaint in early 2008 was diverting so many strong Democrats into the executive branch…he’s got a top team working with him.

  2. From an NPR interview with author Eric Foner, who knows a lot about Civil War history:

    <

    p>

    GROSS: Because of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, “Team of Rivals,” a lot has been made about how Lincoln put together this team of rivals, his political opponents, people with different points of view, and that concept helped him become a great president. And I wonder if you agree…

    Dr. FONER: Well, you know, Terry, with all due respect to Doris, who’s a very good historian, I don’t think this really holds much water. First of all, every president did that in the 19th century. That’s how you created a Cabinet. You brought in the leading figures of your party. The secretary of State was supposed to be your main rival in the party. John Quincy Adams had Henry Clay, and I could name others who were rather much more obscure. Second of all, Lincoln’s Cabinet was basically dysfunctional. I don’t think it’s a good model for Obama. I hope that’s not what he thought he was doing. It did consist of several people who thought they were better qualified to be president than Lincoln, and some of them were ambitious to succeed Lincoln in 1864. And the Cabinet didn’t meet very frequently. Lincoln basically dealt with each member individually in terms of their own departments. When they did meet, they frequently couldn’t make decisions. So, it’s a wonderful idea, “Team of Rivals,” but actually when you get into the history, this analogy between Lincoln and Obama, it doesn’t actually hold water.

    • In fact, if you compare the cabinets composed by Lincoln (and the evolution of these cabinets, and who the secretaries “were” before they were put in place and the jobs they did) the fact is, Lincoln’s cabinet was, after shaking out say Simon Cameron, composed of strong individuals who had to learn to accept Lincoln’s authority and did a superb job (Edward Stanton especially comes to mind) and Jefferson Davis’s cabinet did not “add value” to governance in the same manner or to the same degree.

      <

      p>I would say that Obama’s cabinet picks show that he continues to make his own decisions, is not afraid of being eclipsed, and can build a strong working government team – but I was not evaluating Obama at all in my comment any more than, say, Gov. Deval Patrick or Sen. Kerry or Sen. Brown but rather giving another “metric” if you will for looking at both elected officials and candidates – just WHO do they surround themselves with and rely on?  Lobbyists?  Synchophants?  Professional ‘political car salesmen’ of the James Carville type but local (bet you all could make a list)?  Or strong academics, equals in governance, solid community activists with independent constituences, etc?

Archives