
Stephen Douglas, the politician who was too smart for his own good - smacktoward
http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/03/stephen-a-douglas-the-politician-who-was-too-smart-for-his-own-good/
======
dosgonlogs
George W.Bush is actually incredibly smart. I have read the book Bushisms. I
know he has said plenty of stupid things on camera, and that he wasn't an A
student at Yale, but I am tired of hearing this myth.

[http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/](http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/)

~~~
jallmann
Agreed, leading the article with that was irksome -- and rather surprising,
since the rest of the article did decent job of expounding on the the policy
nuances of Stephen Douglas. Too often, media characterization of politics is a
blunt caricature, which paints people and the issues in an unfair and
misleading light.

Reading the bit about the contested nominating convention was interesting,
given that we might be headed into one this year. The contrast between now and
then is stark -- the incredible gravity of the situation in 1860, whereas
today's campaigns seem to draw more on personality than principle. I suppose
we should consider ourselves fortunate enough that we can afford to be a
little embarrassed of our politics right now -- a vote one way or the other is
not going to pose an existential threat to the country for the next four
years.

~~~
humanrebar
> ...whereas today's campaigns seem to draw more on personality than
> principle.

I disagree. There are lots of principles at stake. The open Supreme Court
seat, for instance, is entirely a substantive issue. And almost everyone
agrees it's one of (if not the) most important issue. But what is there to
debate in 30 second soundbytes?

What's missing is substantive debate on our principles. In the absence of
actual debate, the media covers political contests as if they were horse races
or sporting events. So it looks like people vote on personality, not issues.
But what, I think, people are looking for is trust that the official will
break their way when the chips are down, political pressure is on, and messy
facts are laid out.

In that way, the controversy over Douglas isn't that foreign, really. Voters
who like Trump seem to think he's head-and-shoulders over the other candidates
on certain issues (immigration being an obvious one).

~~~
jallmann
> The open Supreme Court seat, for instance, is entirely a substantive issue

It's important, but the "issue" is also entirely because of political
grandstanding, not sensible policy making. It is also one which the
presidential candidates really have no control over -- either they will get to
appoint a new justice, or they won't.

> But what is there to debate in 30 second soundbytes

Nothing, which points to the problem: the 30 second soundbites themselves. So
you have to ask, is that responsible journalism, or linkbait, using bumper
sticker slogans to grab on to flighty eyeballs? Maybe the problem boils down
to human nature, and our willingness to exploit it.

> What's missing is substantive debate on our principles.

Precisely. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that, in terms of historical
precedent, the principles (or "issues," to put a less moralistic bent on it)
we do have to debate are fairly shallow. More on that below.

> people are looking for is trust that the official will break their way

Indeed -- but a vote for trust is a vote for personality. Most people don't
really listen to the specific details of policy positions -- they respond to
whoever resonates with them on a personal level. Why is Hillary Clinton so
popular with African-Americans? She is a master of identity politics. To say
nothing of Donald Trump and his connection with blue-collar America. Ted Cruz
and evangelicals, and so forth.

In some way, the fact we're left with "trusting" our politicians is the crux
of voter apathy. Most of the "issues" on the debate stage have little to no
impact on the day-to-day lives of most Americans. Immigration, for example, is
an important topic... for everybody _not_ in the country. If you're already
here, it's just a vote for who you think should be allowed into the club.
Likewise for foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage, and so on... in most
cases, it is people making decisions about other people (usually the majority
for the minority), rather than a visible, tangible, deeply divisible national
issue. In many ways, that's a blessing -- politics in America is a lot less
fraught than even 50 years ago.

------
squozzer
The article was interesting but rather unfair to Douglas and history. Douglas'
weakness was not his intelligence but the boundaries in which it was applied.
But the greatest flaw of this - and most analyses of the antebellum era - is
that it does not sympathize with the problems of the past.

In 1840, every step of cotton production involved human or animal power. There
would be no technological solution delivered in time to avert a crisis.
Consider the following possibilities if abolition had won a bloodless
political victory -

1) former slaves compensated for their labor at market rates = US cotton
production no longer economically viable, requiring a huge readjustment (i.e.
recession.)

And / or

2) slaves owners receiving compensation under amendment 5 of US Constitution =
probably bankrupting the country.

Stated more simply, the abolitionist position was ultimately a question of
whose back would bear the burden of emancipation.

The other fear - of whites whose labor was not cost-competitive in slave
states, also could not be ignored in 1840. Adding to this was the stream of
European migrants - who were also poor - into the North, whose only realistic
choice was to move West.

So, fellow HNers, what would you do in such a situation? Taking unilateral
military action off the table of course.

Without compromise, would the North been able to handle the South better in
1840 than 1860? Keep in mind our military strength relative to Mexico and
Canada was not as lopsided as it is today. A political rupture in 1840 might
have proved fatal as opportunists took advantage - consider how much blood
France had to spill fighting off enemies after its revolution.

The war did provide two political benefits - it mostly settled the slavery
question, and it did not shift the burden entirely upon the South; the North
had to put a little of its own skin in the game.

~~~
rpgmaker
> But the greatest flaw of this - and most analyses of the antebellum era - is
> that it does not sympathize with the problems of the past.

I think you're critiquing a different article than the one submitted here. The
author never questions whether it was understandable that the South went to
war to defend its economic interests.

You're giving way too much credit to the South by implying that they were
interested in finding an alternative to slavery which they weren't. After the
war alternatives were found, were they not? They had less wealth but wealth
generated from the use of slave labor is wealth that shouldn't exist in the
first place.

> The war did provide two political benefits - it mostly settled the slavery
> question, and it did not shift the burden entirely upon the South; the North
> had to put a little of its own skin in the game.

If you accept that slavery isn't moral why is it a benefit that the North had
to put some "skin in the game" in order to end it? After all, anyone in the
North involved with the slave trade, however indirectly, already had some skin
in the game and was going to feel the adverse economical effect if the
practice was ended.

------
gumby
A great example; there are many more (e.g. Gore), many of whom did attain
power but failed as a result.

It's a good lesson for founders as well.

