This week I had the chance to witness Steven Spielberg’s interpretation of history in the movie Lincoln. This was my second time viewing the film, but it was the first time I paid attention to the rhetoric at hand. For anyone who hasn’t seen the movie, here is a brief summary: the movie opens in the middle of the Civil War, and Lincoln feels that if Congress will pass the 13th Amendment, which would abolish slavery, the war might end. The chances of passing the amendment, though, are slim in the House of Representatives, where even some members of Lincoln’s own party (the Republican party) are skeptical of what passing the amendment would do for the country. Even with one hundred percent Republican support, he still needed about twenty members of the Democratic party to vote in favor of the amendment for it to pass with a 2/3 majority. Throughout the movie, Lincoln and some of his cabinet members try to convince members of both parties to support Lincoln in passing the amendment.
The Abraham Lincoln portrayed in the movie (which I have heard is very close to how he was in real life) is an outstanding rhetorician. He is able to persuade and convince many different representatives that backing him in this is a good idea. He is even able to convince some of the nation’s most intelligent minds, his cabinet, that backing him is the right thing to do.
One question that was running through my mind throughout the movie was, “why can’t these tactics be used in our government today?,” and I realized that the answer to that is quite simple. The men who had the difficult task of deciding whether they should support Lincoln or not had a real choice. Most of them had not been reelected for the next term, so they really had nothing to lose in terms of losing the support of their constituency. This, of course, does still happen in our country today, but it seems like it doesn’t have a huge affect on outcomes of votes.
The main difference that I notice, though, is that today’s politicians (and the rest of the country, for that matter) are extremely stubborn and narrow-minded in their viewpoints. We are not easily persuaded to follow something that is completely opposite from our ideological viewpoints unless a major event happens to change these. Even if that happens, though, we make our own decisions on when we want to change our whole belief system. If Lincoln is a decently accurate portrayal of how politics worked during that time period, it appeared that politicians were much more open to changing their opinions, whether it corresponded with their party’s views or not. I feel that if today’s politicians were faced with an issue such as the thirteenth amendment, they would be unwilling to vote in a way other than that which benefits their party or themselves. With this, they would be totally unwilling to budge on their views, even if a person with the opposite viewpoint brought excellent arguments to the table. In this way, I don’t think it is possible for most people to be convinced, even if the rhetoric used was excellent.
Believe me, I’m not saying politicians are the only stubborn and narrow-minded people. I know plenty of people, myself included, who refuse to listen to anyone else’s viewpoint unless it corresponds with their own. I’m just saying that it is interesting to see how times have changed so much, even in the language we use and the way our minds function. I’m also not saying that political action would be successful if we were to take on the mindset that many politicians of Lincoln’s House of Representatives did. So here’s my question to you: do you think that, if we (citizens and politicians alike) were less stubborn about our own opinions and more open to different ideas, our government would run more smoothly, or would it complicate things more?
I must disagree, respectively of course. While a number of the approached congressmen did vote in favor of the 13th amendment in part of the rhetorical tactics employed by President Lincoln, I think it would be difficult to say that the amendment passed because of this sole factor. The movie highlights political earmarks and backroom deals which proved to be effective for Lincoln in accomplishing this colossal task. Lincoln was an outstanding rhetorician and he was able to change the decisions of some voters, but this took other methods of persuasion. However, Thaddeus Stevens among others made a larger impact on the vote in terms of organizing the Democratic Party through rhetorical means(rather untraditionally as I remember from the movie). To answer your question, I think that if we are constantly open to change and new ideas things would not run smoothly. Sticking to our beliefs it what gives us a sense of identity. Things would also be further complicated in the U.S. system of government due to our two-party system. Voters and Constituents elect officials that represent a collective set of ideals, this makes things simpler as far as unifying a massive population under the same set of principles which is necessary for organizational and effectiveness purposes. If every politician refused to vote on something they didn’t believe in, nothing would ever be accomplished. I think it is important to respect and listen to the ideas and thoughts of others, and hopefully come to a compromise. Overall, an excellent and well argued point!
If we, as citizens, and the government alike were more open minded then I believe we would be able to progress further. I feel like many of the problems in current day have to do with people who can’t understand others’ situations, for example gay marriages. I am not saying people are wrong to base their beliefs off of religion, I believe religion can be a beautiful force. I feel that some people won’t listen to others about the facts. I find it interesting Lincoln was able to convince people that blacks should be given rights when many people considered them to be less than human. However in modern day, gay couples do not get the same rights even though they are considered to be people. Now you can take this example and replace it with other things such as immigration or minorities that are “frowned” upon like Muslims (people tend to “frown” upon them even though a large percent have done nothing wrong). In all cases I am surprised Lincoln was more successful than modern day politicians.