Am I Reading This Right? NYT

[NoZed Avenger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07murp.html?pagewanted=1&oref=login

This is an article talking about the assassinations of Lincoln and McKinley -- "Acts of God."

Lincoln may have paid for being too religious. The NYT notes his mentions to God and specific Bible passages:

A little more than a month before he was assassinated, Abraham Lincoln stood at the east portico of the Capitol and delivered his second inaugural address. It was a brief speech with a distinctly religious message: he twice cited biblical verses, and made a dozen references to God, most strikingly in assessing the opposing sides in the Civil War. . . .

The address was roundly criticized in some newspapers for overstepping the bounds separating church and state.

And regarding Bush:

Now, with George W. Bush's re-election, God and a newly triumphant Republican president are once again in the headlines. And there are signs that the present national divide, between the narrow but solid Republican majority and a Democratic party seemingly trapped in second place, may be hardening into a pattern that will persist for years to come.

Ok, there's the set up. Now:

Democrats, especially, are left to wonder: What will it take to break the pattern - an act of God? . . .

History suggests several possibilities . . . .

Does this give anyone else an uncomfortable feeling? Perhaps they should have passed that one by an editor one last time and done a bit of a rewrite?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Ok that last quote was truncated a bit for fun.

But still. A little rewording might be in order.

 

[Hutch]

Not a good allegory, IMHO. It was not uncommon for politicians to cite God much more often in the 19th century, and Lincoln was killed for his actions during the Civil War than anything he said at his Second Inaugrual. Little history tidbit--one of the attendees at the speech was John Wilkes Booth.

However, reading your excepts (I am not registered with the NYT), it does sound rather ominous and unprofessional--I'm surprised they didn't point out the 20-yr curse (every President first elected in a year ending in 0 (1860, 1920, etc.) didn't survive the Office, until Reagan broke the "jinx", despite the near-run thing with Hinckley.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, I skimmed the article, and my take on it was that sometimes "acts of God" or other dramatic changes rework the political landscape.

Another realigning event could be the emergence of a paladin in the Democratic Party, a charismatic or heroic figure who could rise above ordinary politics, reinvent the party's popular appeal and break through the Republican fortress to capture some of Mr. Bush's support. Given the modern political realities - no Northern Democrat has won an absolute majority of the popular vote since F.D.R. - "that hero better have a drawl," said John J. Pitney Jr., a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

Or, as occurred in the early 20th century, new waves of immigrants entering the electorate could tip the scales heavily toward one party or the other.

I don't think he was proposing assasination.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I'll make it more clear: the (slight) editing that I did was for fun. The article did strike me as a little odd in tone, but I am not suggesting that the NYT is suggesting assassination.

I do think that they could have used a little more editing, though -- especially with a Brit paper recently asking where is Oswald or Hinckley "when we need them."