-In the end it is not that we stand with the man, we stand for what the man stands for
There is an old saying in politics, "Personnel is policy." Which means what it says, the people who govern whether elected or appointed, determine and shape the policy of any government.
The United States has been blessed with some great Presidents and even more not so great, but adequate to the times. There have also been a few that were not so good, oh well we have a long history. Perhaps though, there has never been a man who was truly a better human being than Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln was eloquent yet simple spoken, a great intellect with a homespun character, courageous yet humble, steadfast yet forgiving. These tremendous attributes, were not widely known or appreciated until after his death. There was no radio to give fireside chats like FDR, or television to banter jovially with the media like JFK or Reagan. Before mass communication, only those close to Lincoln realized they were in the presence of greatness and many of them only upon reflection of what they had witnessed.
The Republican Party was formed for one explicit and over riding principle and policy, destroy slavery. On this issue Lincoln was a known champion of that cause. Most people could not see or hear Lincoln, which might have been to his benefit, but they could read his speeches. They knew where he stood on the most important issue of the day. To the nation, his policy was his character. Those who supported his policy supported him, those that did not, opposed him. The idea that we choose our leaders based on character is a myth. Sometimes, as in the case of Lincoln, we just get lucky.
Lincoln was the first Republican President not because of his character, but because of his policies.
In that simpler time before obfuscation became finely honed science of the political class in the technological age, people's view of their leaders was determined far more by what they stood for or against, than who they were. The process was about electing people whose policies you agreed with, that is how political differences are meant to be settled, on the battleground of ideas.
To confine political leadership to simply character is to ignore the history of imperfect leaders who brought forth great and worthy accomplishments. LBJ was a corrupt bigot yet pushed forward the Voter's Rights Act. The fact that he did it to increase his party's raw political power does not change the good of its enactment. Jefferson's hypocrisy in owning slaves does not diminish the powerful spark of freedom that the Declaration of Independence lit throughout the world. Historically and functionally both of those actions far exceed the men behind them. If we hail the men it is for what they did, not for their character.
We choose imperfect men because we live in an imperfect world. Imperfect men often promote good policy and sometimes for selfish motives, it does not make the policy any less meaningful or important. If we abandon our policy principles on the false god of good character then we really had no principles to begin with. In the end it is not that we stand with the man, we stand for what the man stands for.
Lincoln in one of those speeches that helped him be elected, sight unseen, said, "Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice." You could replace the word slavery with abortion and you would have a large policy difference between the opposing views in today's America, and that is just one of many. No Republican, in Lincoln's time voted or supported him because of his character, they supported him to end slavery and preserve the Union.
Somehow, for some, standing up for good policy principles has become secondary to good character and that is morally indefensible. In protecting their idea of morality they are willing to sacrifice the morality they claim to defend, who then is morally bankrupt? Whose character should be questioned? Abandoning ones policies that were previously promoted as being for societies good is not some morally righteous position, it is cowardice. Worse it is betrayal.
I hear that Robert E. Lee was a perfect gentleman.