Wingnut: ‘Lincoln’ Movie Made to Help Obama


Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union (for some reason, the religious right thinks it’s incredibly clever to play on the ACLU’s name) has a column in the Moonie Times making an absolutely bizarre claim. He says that Steven Spielberg made the movie Lincoln to help Obama implement health care reform. Speaking of Saul Alinsky (can a wingnut ever write a column without invoking Alinsky?), Knight says:

He was talking about the Marxist concept of the ends justifying the means. To illustrate his point, he cited Abraham Lincoln’s “suspension of habeas corpus, his defiance of a directive of the Chief Justice of the United States, and the illegal use of military commissions to try civilians.”

If the cause is noble — in Lincoln’s case, ending slavery — it’s the duty of the commander in chief to break the law and even override the Constitution. Among other things, Lincoln jailed Southern-sympathizing Maryland legislators and shut down newspapers.

No wonder Obama backer Steven Spielberg came out with his 2012 epic movie “Lincoln.” As I watched this well-made film about the first Republican president, I couldn’t help think that it was a clever way to justify the ruthlessly partisan enactment of Obamacare. It’s not as though Mr. Spielberg wanted to make Republicans look good.

First of all, “the ends justifying the means” is not a Marxist concept, for crying out loud. It’s commonly attributed to Machiavelli and to the ethical philosophy of consequentialism. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Marxism. And it’s always amusing to me to see people repeat it as though it was just always valid or invalid. Everyone would agree that some ends justify some means and that other ends and means do not. It’s pretty much an empty platitude at this point.

And I have no idea what he means by the “ruthlessly partisan enactment” of the law. It passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law. There was nothing “ruthless” about it. Knight doesn’t really care about that, of course. If it makes Obama look bad, he’ll say it.

Comments

  1. doublereed says

    It’s pretty obvious that the lincoln movie was propaganda. The vampires lincoln was killing looked like gingrich, romney, and santorum.

  2. some bastard on the net says

    As I watched this well-made film about the first Republican president, I couldn’t help think that it was a clever way to justify the ruthlessly partisan enactment of Obamacare.

    To paraphrase a line from Buffy, “I’m a wingnut, linoleum makes me think about Obamacare.”

    First of all, “the ends justifying the means” is not a Marxist concept, for crying out loud. It’s commonly attributed to Machiavelli and to the ethical philosophy of consequentialism.

    Sooner or later, I’ll bet wingnuts will start claiming that Marxists crucified Jesus.

  3. kevinalexander says

    Old Yeller was about Obamacare. If only he had gotten the rabies vaccine then the Marxists wouldn’t have infected him.

  4. Larry says

    There was nothing “ruthless” about it.

    Are you telling me you don’t remember those videos of Obama holding a knife to the throat of a cute, little puppy saying “vote for my healthcare plan or the dog dies!”. Pretty damn ruthless in my book. And it was a white puppy, too. You figure out the symbolism of that.

  5. howardhershey says

    How, exactly, does a movie that came out in 2012 support the “ruthless partisan enactment” of a law that was enacted in early 2010? Time travel?

  6. Alverant says

    I thought the move was more symbolic on how the 1% treat everyone else. But I guess that’s “Marxist” as well.

  7. Artor says

    @HowardHershey- Of course! Obama’s time machine has been well-established. How else could he travel back to his own birth date and forge his Hawaiian birth certificate?
    @KevinAlexander- No, no, no. The rabies vaccine would have given Old Yeller autism and turned him into an atheistmuslimcommiefascist. Haven’t you been paying attention?

  8. John Pieret says

    howardhershey @ 6:

    How, exactly, does a movie that came out in 2012 support the “ruthless partisan enactment” of a law that was enacted in early 2010? Time travel?

    Isn’t it obvious? Spielberg got a hold of George Soros’ time machine used to plant those birth announcements about Obama in those Hawaiian newspapers.

  9. says

    And I have no idea what he means by the ‘ruthlessly partisan enactment’ of the law.”

    Obama forced the ACA through congress, even though no Republicans would vote for the thing they wouldn’t vote for no matter what it contained.
    Worse, Obama signed it unilaterally, rather than stepping down from his office and letting the winner of the election, Sarah Palin, take a look at it. He’s so divisive.

    colnago80 “Actually, it’s George Soros’ time machine.”
    Actually, it’s the Obama Family Time Machine.

  10. Chiroptera says

    If the cause is noble — in Lincoln’s case, ending slavery — it’s the duty of the commander in chief to break the law and even override the Constitution.

    Personally, I think it would be a very noble cause to jail anyone who makes a statement like this, but I still prefer to live under a Consitutional system and the rule of law that would protect such a person.

  11. freehand says

    Guys, be reasonable. Just because the movie came out after the law was passed doesn’t mean that time travel is necessary. After all, just because the Affordable Care Act passed doesn’t mean it has to be enforced by decent people, right? Unless, that is, they’ve been brainwashed by an exciting historical movie. “Hey, Lincoln was alright,” people will think, “so maybe we should ram the ACA down the Republicans’ throats!”

    The movie has nothing to do with passing that abominable partisan bill, it simply facilitates enforcing it. Damn executive branch government activists.

  12. D. C. Sessions says

    The ends may not be sufficient to justify the means, but they are necessary.

    Always remember that your means may be someone else’s end.

  13. tubi says

    There was nothing “ruthless” about it.

    Yeah, Obama could have required that all the legislators actually read it first!

  14. F [is for failure to emerge] says

    Sounds more like it was meant to support GWB’s/Congress’ suspension of law and civil rights post-9/11, given the mechanisms in the example. (And by extension, Obama’s continuation and expansion thereof.) Unfortunately, neither the ends nor anything else have come rolling around to justify any of the means. Yet these types of means keep expanding into unrelated areas of civil life. None of it is remotely meant to actually protect liberty and freedom, the buzzwords of the apologists and proponents. It is meant to do exactly the opposite, and to go on forever; which one can at least argue that Lincoln and the legislature of the day did not intend.

  15. francesc says

    Also, Machiavelli’s book, “The Prince” seems to be a really elaborated ancient Poe -I mean, pre-internet era. Next on your TV: the Marxist concept of eating poor people’s babies

  16. says

    The story that movie told pretty much vindicated every policy today’s Republicans despise: freeing slaves, extending basic rights to non-whites and non-males, using Federal power to enforce all those rights, that sort of thing. So the Republicans have to demonize it somehow — any line of bullshit is as good as any other, because the end justifies the means.

    And the wingnuts are right about one thing: this movie certainly helps Obama a lot more than the earlier Lincoln movie with vampires! I mean, one look at those fangers and it’s pretty obvious Obamacare doesn’t cover any of that…

Leave a Reply