Kristin Kirkman

Paper #12

Revolutions Revisited: Two Faces of the Politics of Enlightenment by Ralph Lerner is an analysis
of major eighteenth-century political revolutions in American and Europe in terms of social
enlightenment and the role of leadership. In chapter 6, Lerner focuses on the influence and leadership of
Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War which lead to a revolution of political understanding in the United
States.
Lerner begins this chapter with the observation that contentment in a society should be avoided if
change and improvement is to continue and democracy is to be maintained. He says, Americans will
have reason to think well of themselves only after learning to think critically of themselves. With this in
mind, the focus then shifts to Lincoln as an advocate for critical thinking and reflection. Lincolns style of
leadership and his character reflect a mindset that is focused on growth and collaboration rather than
manipulative persuasion and division of people. He recognized the necessity for trust and fairness in an
exchange of ideas, for consensus building in order, and for reflection to maintain a democracy. Lerner
says Lincoln was good at not only bringing awareness to problems and possible solutions, but at
encouraging criticism of those ideas.
Lincolns starting point when dealing with the divisive issue of slavery, Lerner explains, was to
identify the basis of what a democracy should look like, and what kind of values would contribute to a
successful government. From this came three key determinations: in a successful democracy, politics rests
in public opinion, shaping public sentiment requires public debate and reflection, and each policy should
be grounded in some common philosophical public value. This supports the Lerners major point:
maintaining successful democracy requires a commonality of its citizens via generalities and
understanding of the moral foundations of that government. An example of this, which Lerner presents to
the reader, is the Declaration of Independence. This idea of strong common values insists that individuals
reflect on modern political situations in terms of the founding ideas of the U.S. government and address
the question does this support and maintain the conditions of a productive and free society?. Lincoln did
this when he asked the public to recall the Declaration and its message. By doing so, he evokes memory,
concern, and action from a civil society who wishes to protect their American values.
Lincoln used these determined values as a logical argument against slavery, putting an emphasis
on the what revolutionaries hoped for the future of the United States and the idea of legacy since
citizens ancestors died for these rights and values, it is the responsibility of the citizens to maintain them.
In this way, arguments against the values in the Declaration insulted the very fundamental principles of
the government. He largely used arguments from definition, as explained in Soders The Language of
Leadership, speaking to the nature of democracy and of a civil society and excluding the values and
actions that did not align with that definition (slavery). Lincoln challenged the public to take individual
responsibility for sustaining the democracy that the founders wanted by reflecting and practicing the
conditions that define American identity.

When reading this chapter, I observed that many of Lerners arguments about the skill of
Lincolns leadership mirrored the traits outlined and encouraged by Bill Mester. Their leadership methods
seem to be similar, and both stand out from other leadership types. Mester described a successful and
efficient leader as a person that is able to address problems in terms of the most basic and fundamental
goals and to aid in the creation of an environment where people can not only converse but compromise
and build consensus. He also highlighted the importance of taking the time to reflect on the issue, and to
hear many perspectives of the argument to develop the best solution possible. I think that Lincoln did
these things, which resulted in an incredibly strong argument that literally revolutionize societys
understanding of freedom.
Lerner describes Lincolns leadership methods with many of the traits that we determined leaders
in a civic democracy must possess, which was very interesting to me. The first is the ability to criticize
and to strive for improvement, as one of the major things that makes a democracy successful is its
consistent progressive development. Lincoln also demonstrates the ability to persuade people to recognize
a condition as a problem, and then to persuade them towards a solution to that problem. Soder wrote
about this exact necessity in his epilogue of Goodlads Romances with Schools. As I mentioned, Lincoln
used mostly arguments from definition. This shows his familiarity with the modes of thought and
human nature, which Soder suggested a leader must understand in order to effectively use each type of
argument (Language of Leadership, Chapter Three). Additionally, Lerner talks about Lincolns character
as a factor in his persuasion (ethos), indicating that his common man demeanor and trustworthiness
played a big role in his leadership. All of these traits (and probably more) are some that we have
specifically identified as necessary for a successful leader in a civic democracy.
On a different note, Lerner mentioned the corruption of society that can occur through
manipulation of passions via falsehood and sophism. I think this is particularly relevant and alarming
because the passion and attention of people is being used in a way that doesnt encourage change. This is
addressed in the first essay we read by George Orwell, Politics and the English Language. This
unthoughtful, unintentional, and manipulated use of language and argument reappears here with the use of
sophism. Using these fallacies on creates more noise that the true arguments have to compete with in
order to be heard, and justification of these fallacies perpetuate this fixed mindset that has no capacity for
growth or compromise. As Orwell said, the use of this type of language only encourages others to
communicate in a similar manner and is like a disease to intentional and thoughtful language. The use of
these fallacies doesnt allow for conversation. It causes separation, which prevents change from being
able to happen.