Deep Story

EP.11- The Political Genius: Lincoln & Roosevelt

• MPT

Share episode

-Inspired by-
-Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
-Buy from Amazon: https://amzn.to/4gkIZvx

-Discover how Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt redefined American politics through masterful strategies and pragmatic leadership. From Lincoln’s rise as an underdog in a fractured political landscape to Roosevelt’s subtle shift of public opinion during a time of isolationism, this episode explores how these iconic leaders balanced strength and cunning to navigate critical moments in history. Uncover the timeless lessons of adaptability and strategic compromise that continue to shape the art of leadership today.

Support the show

Speaker 1:

Let's be real here, say it, dig it and analyze it. That's Deep Story. Thanks for tuning into Deep Story. I'm MPT.

Speaker 1:

So today's topic is Lincoln the Politician. Now, when you hear the word politician, doesn't it feel a little shady? So today's topic is Lincoln the Politician. Now, when you hear the word politician, doesn't it feel a little shady? Like, is this guy about to roast Lincoln? No, no, no, not at all. I promise.

Speaker 1:

We're just here to tell a few stories about Lincoln and some other American presidents, you know, to explore what real-world politics looks like and the tough spots people find themselves in Now. Isn't it kind of weird? Before Lincoln, the first dozen or so US presidents were all these big-shot types, true legends, political elites, larger-than-life figures. You've got Washington Jefferson right. These were the Virginia plantation-owning crowd. They had land, money and accomplishments out the wazoo. They'd rocked the presidency for two terms, then gracefully retired to their estates, soaking in nationwide admiration. They were the heads-on-money type of presidents. But Lincoln, oh man. By today's standards Lincoln was the underdog of underdogs, a straight-up grags-to-riches story. He didn't come from a fancy family story. He didn't come from a fancy family. In fact, he was dirt poor. He didn't even have one of those gilded political rouser sums. Sure, he loved politics, but let's not forget, this guy couldn't win an election to save his life. Between the 1850s and 1860, the dude ran for office like it was a hobby and lost every single time. He was just a small-time lawyer in Illinois. So how the heck does a guy like that pull off a victory in 1860?

Speaker 1:

Let's start with the Republicans. Back then the GOP had these political heavyweights, real titans like Seward, chase and Bates. These guys were the who's who of Capitol Hill Governors, senators, ego masterminds talk about stacking the RIA sumi. They'd been working toward the presidency for decades. And yet, despite their clout, these guys had a fatal flaw they couldn't lock down the critical swing states of Pennsylvania and Louisiana. These states were the keys to the kingdom and none of them had the right magic. Enter Lincoln. His campaign team must have been running on pure caffeine and optimism because they sold him like he was the hottest ticket in town. They convinced Republican delegates that Lincoln had just enough pull in those key states to make him the safe bet. So at the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago, the party deliberated, hemmed hawed and after three rounds of voting, boom. Lincoln squeaked out a win. The guy wasn't even on the radar in the first round. Talk about a come-from-behind victory. But wait, republicans weren't the only players in town.

Speaker 1:

The Democrats were a hot mess that year. Their top contender was Stephen Douglas, the so-called Little Giant. And when I say little I mean it. This guy was shorter than Napoleon, but his political clout huge. He'd gone toe-to-toe with Lincoln in the legendary Lincoln-Douglas debates. Now, douglas wasn't your classic Southern Democrat pro-slavery type. Oh no, his big idea was that each state should decide for itself whether to allow slavery. Not exactly an abolitionist dream, but also not a slaveholder's manifesto. And here's the kicker Douglas couldn't get along with the hardcore Southern Democrats. They wanted full-throttle slavery, no compromises. So what happened? The Democrats imploded, split right down the middle, like a poorly baked pie. Meanwhile the Republicans were humming along in perfect harmony. So you tell me, who do you think came out on top? Yeah, it wasn't rocket science. The Republicans walked away with the win. And Lincoln? Well, the rest is history. Well, the rest is history.

Speaker 1:

Let's talk about the 1860 election for a second. Because man, was it weird? Lincoln won, but here's the kicker he only got 30% of the popular vote. 30%. But if you know anything about the electoral college, you'll get why he still walked away with the win. See, in the US it's all about winner takes all by. State Doesn't matter. If you scrape by with just one more vote than the other guy, boom, you get all the state's electoral votes. So Lincoln lost the South completely, didn't win a single electoral vote there, but dominated where it counted.

Speaker 1:

Now here's the thing Lincoln wasn't just weak politically because of the election results, he was a weak president by every measure. Look at the guys before him Buchanan, quincy Adams, monroe. These were polished elite statesmen. Lincoln, he was a political outsider, a common man, a grassroots guy. His family was poor, his dad, the quintessential American pioneer, moving from Kentucky to Louisiana, to Illinois, building houses, clearing land, farming from scratch. Young Lincoln grew up doing hard, back-breaking work. He was every bit the frontier kid. And yet when democracy matured in America, who had the power? The voters, the everyday people. Lincoln knew this better than anyone. There's this story about Lincoln's son telling him I Dad, you've gotta stop splitting logs. It's embarrassing. All these other candidates are polished politicians. And here you are with a pile of wood. But Lincoln wouldn't budge. Let it be. He said those logs stay right where they are. Why? Because he understood the optics. He was the first candidate to win by leaning into his identity as a regular guy, a man of the people.

Speaker 1:

By the time Lincoln ran in 1860, the American political landscape had started shifting. Traditional statesman strategies weren't cutting it anymore. People didn't want lofty ideals shouted down at them, they wanted someone who felt like one of their own. That's how Lincoln, a poor, self-made man with a knack for spinning his humble beginnings into political gold, pulled off a win. And it's not just Lincoln.

Speaker 1:

You see echoes of this in modern elections like George W Bush versus Al Gore. Gore, he was the polished intellectual, clinton's VP, as sharp as a tack, and yet he lost why? Well, someone asked this sweet old lady why she voted for Bush. Her answer A priceless oh honey. She said Bush just feels like that nice young man who pumps gas down at the station. I see him everywhere.

Speaker 1:

Gore, he's too smart like a professor. I don't know if I trust that. And there it is. Relatability beats brilliance. You know, there's a subtle but telling difference between the English words. Statesman is a leader with ideals, vision and gravitation. Eh, not so much. The word carries a whiff of cynicism, not as much as the Chinese equivalent, but still.

Speaker 1:

Lincoln himself once said Oath, that's heavy. It means a politician isn't driven by ideals or principles. They're laser-focused on climbing the power ladder. If you've ever watched House of Cards, you know exactly what this kind of politician looks like Manipulative, cunning, power-hungry. Every move calculated for personal gain. Now don't get me wrong. Lincoln wasn't that kind of politician. But you can't deny he operated within that framework. He wasn't a lofty, idealistic statesman waving a banner and rallying the masses. No, he was a strategist, a pragmatist, someone who understood the messy game of politics and played it well. That's why you don't see Lincoln embodying the Hollywood archetype of a bold, charismatic leader. Charismatic leader there's no, let's charge the hill Energy. Instead, lincoln's leadership was quieter, subtler and, yes, more complicated. It wasn't about dominating the room. It was about understanding the game, working the angles and, against all odds, coming out on top. And that that's why we still talk about him.

Speaker 1:

Let's talk about Lincoln's physical presence for a moment. The guy was huge, nearly 6'3". Back then that was like being a walking skyscraper. He moved like a human pile driver. And yet his personality Completely gentle. One of his most famous quotes I have no malice toward anyone, and he meant it In real life Lincoln had this uncanny ability to win people over with kindness, humor and a certain charm. You just couldn't say no to. Humor and a certain charm you just couldn't say no to. And here's the thing about politicians like Lincoln they've got this magical skill for rallying people.

Speaker 1:

In 1860, when the Republican National Convention took over Chicago, who was running the ground game for Lincoln? Just a bunch of his buddies, but not just any buddies. These were the artsy, witty types, not your run-of-the-mill drinking Pauls. They fought tooth and nail for Lincoln, despite not being super close to him. Who were they? Mostly small-town lawyers from Illinois. Mostly small-town lawyers from Illinois, people he met during his legal career. Why would these folks go all in for him? A simple Lincoln was the ultimate storyteller Funny, approachable and endlessly charismatic. He had this way of making everyone feel like they were part of something big. Some people just have that kid factor. You know the type who steps into a room and suddenly everyone's leaning in waiting for what they'll say next. Lincoln could ask you for anything and you'd find yourself saying yes before you even realized it. This knack of his didn't stop with the convention.

Speaker 1:

Lincoln pulled off one of the most jaw-dropping moves in political history after he became president. Remember those big Republican powerhouses? He beat Seward, chase Bates. These were political gladiators, if folks, who spent their lives plotting paths to the presidency. Seward, for instance, was the guy in Washington, chase. He wasn't just a politician. He had an entire family dynasty riding on his ambitions. His daughter was the belle of DC, the most accomplished polished woman in the capital and her mission in life To make her dad. President.

Speaker 1:

Lincoln didn't just outmaneuver these titans. He did something nobody expected. He brought them into his cabinet. That's right. Seward became Secretary of State. Chase headed the Treasury. Imagine the audacity. It's like Obama winning against Hillary Clinton and then saying, hey, why don't you be my Secretary of State? Oh wait, that actually happened. History really does repeat itself.

Speaker 1:

The difference between these politician types like Lincoln and the old school statesmen boils down to survival tactics. Statesmen like Washington or Jefferson they're lighthouses. Idealists standing tall, guiding everyone toward their vision. Politicians, they're in the trenches, hustling for support, building alliances and scrapping their way up. Their power isn't handed to them. They earn it one handshake and one favor at a time. That's why their careers are all about grit, grind and a touch of desperation. Lincoln's story wasn't just a political journey. It was a masterclass in survival. You see this difference echoed across American history.

Speaker 1:

Take Lyndon B Johnson, for example. He's like the 20th century version of Lincoln. Now compare him to Eisenhower. Eisenhower was the supreme allied Commander in World War II, a man of towering authority and unshakable prestige. Johnson, the guy, started as a high school teacher. He clawed his way into Congress, starting as a secretary. His entire career was a marathon of hard work and relentless ambition. And Johnson's style pure hustle. The man had so much energy that he practically invented his own way of moving. People called it the Johnson jog. He'd literally run from meeting to meeting and his stamina unreal. He once gave 22 speeches in a single day.

Speaker 1:

Lincoln was cut from the same cloth Back in his early days. Political speeches weren't these polished, a teleprompter affairs, they were battles. Lincoln's longest speech nine hours. Nine hours of non-stop persuading, debating and pouring his soul out to a crowd. You think giving one teddy talk is hard? Try nine hours of that. Lincoln wasn't just convincing people, he was outworking them. See, that's the thing with Lincoln, he was all about the grind. And speaking of relentless effort, there's a great book called Master of the Senate that dives into this. It's all about how Lyndon B Johnson navigated the cutthroat world of American politics.

Speaker 1:

One classic Johnson story goes like this one day on Capitol Hill and Johnson spots a reporter and grabs him. Hey y'all, I've been meaning to talk to you. Come to my office, let's chat. So the reporter follows him and Johnson tells his secretary jet me a notepad. He scribbles something, then starts gushing to the reporter I've been following your work, it's brilliant. Let me tell you my thoughts. For over an hour Johnson flatters the guy, talks policy and lays it on thick. Now here's the kicker. The reporter later finds out what was written on that notepad. You know what it said. I'll find out who I'm talking to right now. That's right. Johnson had no idea who the guy was, but he wasn't about to waste even an hour of downtime. He had a famous line idleness exhausts me more than hard work ever could. The man just couldn't stop hustling.

Speaker 1:

Lincoln was cut from the same cloth. His life was a series of calculated moves, each one aimed at getting just a little closer to his goals. Take his stance on slavery, for instance. Was Lincoln truly the unwavering abolitionist we've been taught to admire? Well, that's complicated. Back in the 1980s, chinese historians had a whole debate about this. They dug up plenty of records showing Lincoln saying things that didn't exactly align with abolitionist ideals. These weren't made-up quotes. They were things he really said and they're well-documented. So what gives? Was Lincoln a staunch abolitionist or not? The answer is that he was Kind of, but not in the way we might think.

Speaker 1:

There's a story that's often talked about Lincoln how, during a trip to New Orleans, he saw a young black woman being auctioned off as a slave. The sight supposedly pierced his heart and turned him into a lifelong abolitionist. Sounds moving right? Yeah, it's probably fiction. Lincoln grew up in Kentucky, which was a major hub for the slave trade. A quarter of the population there were enslaved people. His wife's family are slave owners. He didn't need a dramatic moment in New Orleans to grasp the brutality of slavery. It was all around him from childhood.

Speaker 1:

What's more revealing is how Lincoln navigated the politics of slavery. On one hand, he's in Illinois telling people he's not in favor of granting black people full equality with whites. On the other hand, he's down south in Charleston assuring the crowd. I've never advocated for black and white equality, never said they could vote, be judges or marry whites, not once. And you know what? Both speeches were met with applause. So which one was the real Lincoln? The answer is neither and both. The key is understanding the logic that ties it all together.

Speaker 1:

Lincoln wasn't just pandering. He was playing the long game. He was playing the long game as a politician. His priority wasn't to champion ideals in isolation. It was to move the needle toward a world where those ideals could become reality. That's what made him so effective. History has this striking line about Lincoln he carefully walked just ahead of the people. When they slowed, he slowed. When they quickened, he quickened. And there you have it the quintessential politician's approach to navigating public opinion. Lincoln wasn't a statesman yelling from the front lines. He was a strategist gauging the temperature of the crowd.

Speaker 1:

One of Lincoln's most famous quotes came during the Civil War. When a journalist asked about his stance on abolition, he said my paramount objective is to save the Union, not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. See, he wasn't guided by moral absolutism. He was laser-focused on one goal preserving the Union. Ah, fast forward to Franklin D Roosevelt and you see a similar pragmatism.

Speaker 1:

One of the defining debates during FFDR's presidency was whether the US should maintain its tradition of isolationism. Isolationism wasn't just a passing policy, it was practically written into America's DNA. Why Geography? With the Atlantic to the east and the Pacific to the west, americans had long felt comfortably removed from the world's chaos. Let Europe and Asia handle their mess. They thought We'll mind our own business here on this fertile, peaceful land. This mindset can be traced all the way back to George Washington's farewell address in 1796, that speech Not an off-the-cuff moment, it was a carefully crafted essay published in newspapers, essentially Washington's political last will and testament. The core message Don't entangle yourselves in foreign conflicts. Later, thomas Jefferson put it even more colorfully Let the Russians grab the ox's horns, let the Turks grab its tail, and we Americans we'll just milk the cow. Classic Jefferson, the idea was simpler let the old world squabble while the new world prospers.

Speaker 1:

But by the time FDR came along, that kind of isolationism wasn't just outdated, it was dangerous. The US had the largest economy in the world and democracy itself was under siege by Hitler in Europe. Roosevelt understood that America couldn't just sit on the sidelines anymore. America couldn't just sit on the sidelines anymore. The stakes were too high and the world was too interconnected, the responsibility of being a global leader Unavoidable. Roosevelt had learned from history, particularly the story of Woodrow Wilson.

Speaker 1:

Back in 1918, Wilson led the US into World War I and for a while he was riding high. He pushed for the creation of the League of Nations, even attending the Paris Peace Conference in person. But when he came back, everything fell apart. During his absence the US Congress had flipped and his political opponents now controlled both houses. Wilson toured the country, exhausting himself, to rally public support for the League. But Americans weren't buying it. Isolationism won the day. The US didn't join the League of Nations and Wilson heartbroken, admitted on his deathbed it seems I misjudged the people, their decision was right and I did not keep up with them A haunting epitaph for his presidency.

Speaker 1:

Roosevelt wasn't about to make the same mistake. When he ran for president in 1932, he leaned into isolationist rhetoric to win votes. He distanced himself from Wilson's legacy, insisting I have no intention of involving America in European politics. I am an isolationist dog. The move outraged internationalists, many of whom had been his allies. They called him a hypocrite, a flip-flopper. But Roosevelt brushed off the criticism, famously saying politics is about one thing first gaining power. And there it is, that same pragmatic streak you see in Lincoln. It wasn't about clinging to ideals, it was about understanding the moment, reading the room and doing whatever it took to move forward. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt knew the same truth Sometimes, to lead, you don't just charge ahead, you adapt, negotiate and, yes, even compromise. After all, as politicians, their job wasn't just to envision a better world, it was to figure out how to get there, one calculated step at a time. Let's dive into Roosevelt's political playbook, because the guy was a master at reading the room.

Speaker 1:

Back in 1932, when isolationism was the gospel of American politics, one of its loudest preachers was media mogul William Randolph Hearst. And Hearst, he publicly endorsed Roosevelt, saying vote for FDR, I've turned him into an isolationist. That's how Roosevelt swept into the White House wearing the mask of an isolationist. But here's the thing once Roosevelt got in, he didn't fully follow that isolationist script. He understood that a true leader needs a direction, a vision. And his moves, oh, they were subtle, deliberate and often brilliant. One classic example the quarantine speech. Ah, picture it Isolationism is in full swing and Roosevelt gives a speech comparing Hitler's aggression to a global plague.

Speaker 1:

What do you do with a plague, he asks you? Isolate it. Smart right? He didn't outright call for war or meddling in European politics. Just one word isolate. It was a trial balloon, a way to test the waters of public opinion. But even that was too much. The isolationist hawks pounced on it, sharpening their impeachment knives. Roosevelt, always the pragmatist, saw the backlash and immediately hit the brakes. He stopped talking about quarantine altogether. See, that's how savvy politicians operate they push, they prod, and when the timing's wrong they pull back.

Speaker 1:

Over his unprecedented four terms, roosevelt mastered this push-then-pause strategy. Take 1940, for instance. World War II was raging in Europe, but America hadn't entered the fight. Running for his third term, roosevelt and his Republican opponent both promised voters I will never send your sons to war. It was an isolationist love fest, each side accusing the other of secretly plotting to drag the US into into conflict. Yet behind the scenes, roosevelt was methodically preparing for war, his approach Day by day, brick by brick.

Speaker 1:

In 1937, when Japanese bombers hit a US ship on the Yangtze River, killing American sailors, it could have been a flashpoint, but Roosevelt held back. He knew the timing wasn't right for open conflict. Instead, he used the incident to convince Congress to approve a billion-dollar investment in rebuilding the Navy and in the 1930s a billion dollars was an eye-popping sum. It was all part of his strategy quietly laying the groundwork one step at a time. Roe Osovat also began phasing out isolationist officials in his administration, replacing them with people who shared his vision. It wasn't flashy, but it was effective. He understood the long game wait for public opinion to ripen, then act decisively when the moment came. And that moment, december 7, 1941, pearl Harbor, when Japan launched its surprise attack, roosevelt seized the opportunity. He raced to Congress and delivered a six-minute speech that would go down in history. The result An overwhelming vote to declare war on Japan, pulling America into World War II. Even then, a few isolationists voted against it, but Roosevelt knew the tide had turned. The isolationist era was over.

Speaker 1:

Roosevelt's leadership style was a masterclass in patience, preparation and seizing the moment. He didn't just react to events, he shaped them step by step until the path was clear. Like Lincoln, he understood that leadership isn't about charging ahead alone. It's about bringing the people with you, one deliberate move at a time.

Speaker 1:

Public opinion in a democracy oh, it's a fascinating beast. Right before World War II, 9% of Americans were all like let Europe deal with its mess. We owe the Brits nothing. But didn't we fight against them? Once? Isolationism was king, but as the war loomed closer, you started to hear a subtle shift. Well, maybe we could lend a hand to the Brits, even if it's risky Bye.

Speaker 1:

By the time Nazi Germany crushed France, american public opinion flipped completely. Even hardcore isolationists started declaring Isolationism is dead. The Nazi threat is too great. What does this tell us? It shows that public opinion is never static. It ebbs and flows, shaped by events and emotions. But Roosevelt, he didn't just ride the waves, he carefully charted his course through them. His approach was to inch forward with the people. Never too far ahead, he once said, with both wisdom and wariness the most terrifying thing in politics is to move ahead only to turn around and find no one behind you. That's Roosevelt, in a nutshell constantly recalibrating, staying just within the bounds of what public opinion could bear.

Speaker 1:

This interplay between public opinion and leadership isn't unique to democracies. Even in monarchies or authoritarian regimes, rulers can't completely ignore the pulse of their people. But in modern democratic societies, this dynamic has evolved into something far more complex. In the age of elite politics. People yearned for a statesman, someone well-educated, morally upright and unwavering in their principles. These leaders were seen as beacons of hope, their wisdom guiding the masses. Yet as mass communication advanced, the balance shifted. Public opinion began to exert an ever stronger influence, pulling leaders back from lofty ideals to pragmatic realities. Politicians morphed into politicians more cautious, more reactive and often less inspiring. So what separates a good politician from a bad one in this era of public opinion?

Speaker 1:

Here's where Machiavelli comes in with his famous concept the lion and the fox. Machiavelli argued the fox lacks the lion's strength, but the lion lacks the fox's cunning. A great leader must possess both qualities. That's Roosevelt in a nutshell. A biography of his even borrows the title Roosevelt the lion and the fox. It perfectly captures his dual nature. Roosevelt wielded Fox like cunning, manipulative, calculating, even ruthless at times, to achieve lion-like goals strength, leadership and transformative change. So what's the real difference between a good and a bad politician? It's not about morality. After all, the profession itself is inherently amoral. The real measure is whether they possess the fox's craftiness to achieve the lion's grand vision. Do they have the patience, skill and guile to pursue the greater good, even when it means getting their hands dirty? That's the mark of a leader who can truly navigate the messy waters of democracy.