Lincoln

Matt Yglesias applies a proper beating to Max Boot when the latter tries to compare Bush with Lincoln:

This would be more plausible if Lincoln had launched the Civil War on some kind of whim while substantially ignoring more pressing threats. Still, the point is well taken. The difference between good leaders and bad leaders isn’t that the good ones never make mistakes, it’s that the good ones correct their mistakes. And here’s where the analogy breaks down completely. Lincoln was ill-served by the generals he started out with, and in response he fired them and got some new ones. Many of the new ones turned out to be no good, too, and they got fired as well. Meanwhile, more competent folks were moved up the pipeline. By the end, under Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, Phillip Sheridan, and others the country had a winning strategy.

Indeed, Lincoln is considered by many the finest of democratic war leaders. He infused military actions with political purpose, and was quick to recognize talent and dismiss ineptitude. He understood the synergy between military action and political action (Battle of Antietam and Emancipation Proclamation). He could grasp the purpose of the war and adopt a strategy, under advice, likely to win it. The last puts him ahead even of Churchill, who spent the last two years of World War II wanting to invade Yugoslavia instead of France. He was unafraid to intervene in military activities, but because he understood the war, his interventions were to good effect. In short, it is a poor strategy for conservatives to compare Lincoln and Bush, because Bush FAILS AT EVERYTHING THAT LINCOLN DID WELL. A liberal couldn’t do a better job of magnifying Bush’s failures.

But, Lincoln did talk about God a lot, and so does Bush, so I guess they’re the same.