An introduction to the book Roh Moo-hyun Meets Lincoln
- written by author of the book, Roh Moo-hyun
Lincoln is everywhere: he is in novels, in storybooks, and endlessly on everybody's lips as a great man. It was through the biographies of great men that I got to know Lincoln, who had already become a myth. 40 years ago I read a book on Lincoln, which was written by Park Sung-ha, in my elementary and middle school years. While reading Lincoln, I gained a general impression that Lincoln was an honest and great man. But even after those days, my understanding of Lincoln was only a general one.
It was after I entered politics that Lincoln took on a new meaning for me. Many people including reporters have asked me whom I respect most. Whenever asked these kinds of questions, I used to say that I respect Kim Ku, who was the leader of the exiled Korean government in China during Japanese Imperialist rule in Korea. It was because Kim Ku was not only a noble-minded patriot who did not give up his integrity even at the end of his life, but also because he was an upright person who fought against the partition of the Korean peninsula to the end. Everyone respects him and so do I.
Whenever I think of Kim Ku, however, I wondered why only the righteous but failed are respected in our modern history. I asked questions such as, "Why did Kim Ku fail?" "Will the righteous man always be a loser?" These questions brought to me a paradoxical proposition that the righteous man will be the loser in our history. But I could not agree with this proposition that implies a doomed history of justice.
I think that my political trajectory has also been confined to the same fate as Kim Ku's. I have always been on the losing side in the real world of politics. Although it is said that my political choice was correct, I lost the general election of 1992, the Pusan Mayoral election in 1995, and the general election of 2000, over and over again. Even in our ruling party, I have not been a member of the power group. So, I returned to my original intention and asked, how hollow would it sound if I told my children that they should follow the righteous path and justice to defeat injustice, although in reality the just would repeatedly be doomed to fail.
I finally met Lincoln in the middle of these self-interrogations. In history, there are many people, say, Genghis Khan and Napoleon, who conquered others or who won wars with overwhelming power. In addition, there are quite a few people who passed their lasting achievements over to the next generations. However, it is hard for me to agree with their thoughts and behaviors if I see them from the perspective of today. Then, whom can I respect? I thought that the respectable person must be someone who set a just course and becomes a winner with an undeniable philosophy of justice for all ages and countries; someone who cultivated fields of history with seeds of justice that flourishes even after 1,000 years; someone who has given mankind the hope that justice will eventually prevail.
It is Lincoln who was successful in these respects. It is not Kim Ku, but Lincoln who showed that the paradoxical proposition that justice will be defeated is wrong and who changed people's conflicting attitude toward the truth. I learned from Lincoln that we deserve self-confidence and courage to create our own history. Korean history after the liberation from Japanese Imperialism has forced people to distort their ideals and make compromises in the name of unyielding reality. Thus, we have to suggest an alternative that can transcend Kim Ku in order to overcome an era in which the ideal is consumed by the exacting reality and the reality is suppressing the ideal.
I came to have new interest in Lincoln. Although books on Lincoln have focused on Lincoln's personal history, we have to understand the historical circumstances in which Lincoln was involved so as to appreciate Lincolns greatness. It has been difficult for me to find books on Lincoln that truly convey his vision.
I came to know several interesting facts in The Introduction to American History by Lee Bo-hyung (Published in 1993, Il Cho Gak). I thought that Lincoln was the first President of American from a common class who lived in a log house, but Andrew Jackson (the Seventh President of the U.S.: 1767-1845) was the first one. I came to understand the meaning and context of the Lincoln era, and Lincoln's ideas on the postwar plan and on making reconciliation after the Civil War. I also found out that Lincoln was not just an Abolitionist, but he also had reasonable and realistic perspectives based upon political and legal theory.
On the night of Apr. 13, 2000, when the ballot counting was going on, like Gandhi who experienced the epiphany of realizing the truth in the cold waiting room after being thrown out of his first class compartment and like Paul's dramatic vision on the hot sandy road to Damascus, I encountered Lincoln's vision. That night, I was reading Lincoln's second inaugural address in The Great Speeches that Moved the World (March, 2000. Monthly Chosun). In the beginning of his speech, Lincoln expressed his complex feelings about an unwanted war:
"Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nations wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." (Abraham Lincolns Second Inaugural Speech, March 4, 1865).
I was deeply moved by Lincoln's second inaugural address, and thus Lincoln came to me with a totally new meaning. From this deep emotion, I wrote in Sisa Journal, the most renowned Korean weekly on current issues, about how I felt about the election I had lost:
"I wish people did not say victory or defeat about my election. I didn't fight against anybody. I didn't fight the opposition candidate, nor did the people of Pusan. I did my best to obtain the goal as a politician and just failed. Of course, I also thought that, until the day before the election, the election is a match that I should win.
On the night of the ballot counting, however, I came to realize that I was wrong while I was reading Lincoln's speeches. Lincoln was reluctant to use the words such as victory or defeat even in the moment of the victory in the Civil War. He did not define the Confederate as the enemy, and he did not try to differentiate the Union from the Confederate by using terms like justice vs. injustice, or good vs. evil. He just talked about love and reconciliation among American people. I was moved by the passages-'Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully,' and I even envied American history."
Many people asked me why I came to Pusan. I dare to say that I went to Pusan because I was concerned about the future of our country. We have seen many unfortunate things happen in the histories of other countries in the world; we witnessed politicians instigate distrust and animosity to promote their political interests among their people. I am concerned about the situation of our country because it could be possible that future historians may define our current political situation as a history of division and deception. I believe that politicians should prevent our history from becoming a national disaster.
After the profound encounter with Lincoln on Apr. 13 of 2000, I was able to redefine a concept of the world. I began to realize clearly Lincoln's true nature. That is, in the past, I used to think of Lincoln as an outstanding politician who was lucky enough to drift with the tide of his time, and who was able to overcome crisis. While reading Lincolns speeches, however, I began to think that Lincoln was not just a brilliant politician but a great thinker and statesman.
Lincoln's eloquent expressions of his agony soothed political rivalries. Politicians employ their old tricks to agitate anger and hatred and to draw lines between friend and foe in the middle of political battle. The more they do battle, the better they can unite their friends and control people on the borders. With this tactic, a politician gains the confidence of victory over the enemy. Asking people to unite with them by instigating anger and hatred between two rival sides is the most classical method in the political game.
Lincoln was also under fire at that time. Some of his political advisers might have asked him to set up his leadership by stirring up people's conviction on victory or by propagandizing his superior authority over the enemy. But Lincoln tried to avoid using terms such as justice and injustice, victory and defeat. He tried to deal with the Union and the Confederate as members of a community. He talked about love not hatred, about tolerance not exclusion. From this point, I began to understand Lincoln's profound understanding of human beings and their way of life. I also could see Lincoln's agony in his search for a solution to human conflict and pain.
Borrowing passages from Cheungchoon Yechan (The Admiration of Youth) in a high school Korean literature textbook: "What was Buddha suffering in the mountain snow for? What was Jesus wandering in the wilderness for? What was Confucius traversing countries for?" I felt that Lincoln was also a seeker after truth. Before the Civil War was over, Lincoln was thinking of how he could reconcile with his former enemy. While reading Lincolns inaugural address, I could understand clearly Lincoln's post-war policies.
In The Great Speeches that Moved the World, there is a speech by Frederick Douglass (1817-1895), who was an Abolitionist, on Lincoln, 11 years after Lincoln's death. The speech was given at the ceremony of Dedication of the Freedmen's Monument (April 14, 1876). This speech depicted how Lincoln, surrounded by critical groups, overcame historic challenges such as the integration of the States and the Abolition of slavery. The fact that Lincoln was surrounded by political foes exemplifies how cautious Lincoln was as a politician and what profound insight he had as an executive. Douglass testifies as follows:
"Few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than Abraham Lincoln was during his administration. He was often wounded in the house of his friends. Reproaches came thick and fast upon him from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. He was assailed by abolitionists; he was assailed by slaveholders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was most bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war.
His great mission was to accomplish two things; first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless.
Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined." (Frederick Douglass Speaks at Dedication of the Freedmen's Monument. April 14, 1876)
Lincoln was not an impatient result-oriented reformist, nor did he merely follow public sentiment. Lincoln had his own solid standard of human value and the future of society. In his standard, there is not narrow-minded thinking. With strong conviction and enthusiasm for progress, Lincoln went forward step by step. He did the best he could given the reality. Although pursuing an ideal, Lincoln confronted reality and did not fret. Lincoln was a humanitarian who did not divert his attention from the ideal. On the other hand, Lincoln was a strategic realist standing on the rock of reality and not upon airy illusions.
Teo Zommer, the German journalist, once evaluated three German prime ministers Konrad Adenauer (1876-1967), Willy Brandt (1913-1992) and Helmut Schmidt (1918-) as follows: It is people acting in every inevitable situation who make great strides in history. I think that Zommer's statement fits Lincoln most.
We can evaluate Lincoln as a human being in many ways. First of all, Lincoln was a successful man in life. As many Koreans made success by selling papers and performing manual labor in our old times, Lincoln made a success from opportunities and reputation based upon his honesty, faithfulness, and endless challenges. However, if that is everything of Lincolns success story, it is not a special one since there are many people who achieve this kind of success story. But the fact that Lincoln had a warm heart is very important because a warm-hearted man's success makes us happy rather than depressed or deprived as hard-hearted people's success stories do. In addition, Lincoln was a wise man; he had the judgment to know how to solve the problems and to tell right from wrong. He had a correct judgment of the political situation, an insight into history, and a conviction in what he believed. His courage, convictions and insight led him to fight to save the Union and to abolish slavery.
However, we should also remember that Lincoln experienced many failures and had many weak points. At the age of 23, he ran for the legislature in Illinois but was defeated and won only in the next election. When he ran for the Congress at 36, he could not get his party's nomination and the same thing happened 2 years later. But in 1846 Lincoln ran for the United States House of Representatives and won after many ups and downs. Lincoln's political challenges, after he finished the term of office and until he was elected as the President, were totally unsuccessful. In 1949 he applied for an executive appointment, the commissionership of the General Land-Office in President Taylor's administration. In 1855 he made an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate; in 1856 he lost the nomination for the Republican Vice-Presidency; in 1858 he lost the election for the Senate again.
Until he got elected the 16th President in 1860, he did not have enough experiences in federal politics except for the two years as a Congressman. In his personal life, Lincoln also had experienced many frustrations and sorrow. At 26, Lincoln was bereaved of his first lover and suffered from depression. At 40, Lincoln lost his second son; at 50, his third son. In the Civil War, his wife's family worked for the Confederate; his brother-in-law and the husband of his wife's sister were killed in the war. What does the phrase, 'Great man's flaw (weakness) is common man's comfort', mean? In my young days, while reading Buddha's biography, I was impressed and pleased by Buddha's weakness as a human being; in the middle of a sermon, Buddha once told his disciples that he would take a rest because of a pain in his back. Likewise, I felt the same comfort from the young Lincoln who did not attend a wedding ceremony though scheduled. I have deep affection for Lincoln's weakness since we common people can find some similarities in Lincoln's character.
Even after he became President, things were not that different. In the wartime, Lincoln went to Gen. George B. McClellan's (1826-1885) barracks and waited for him for 2 hours even though the General had already gone to bed but Lincoln returned without seeing him. This episode has been cited to exemplify how generous and wonderful Lincoln was. But it is not the truth. Rather, it reflects how powerless Lincoln was. Lincoln's administration was not powerful enough to dismiss his cabinet members and generals although Lincoln appointed them. I learned what the supreme leader of a country should be and do from the Lincoln who fought a war for the integration of the Union and the Abolition of slavery with an administration attacked endlessly by its political opponents. Although pretty weak in the exercise of power, Lincoln strongly demonstrated his ability in executing policies with his determination and tolerance.
In Korea today, there are people arguing that we need strong leadership. Some of them feel nostalgia for the former dictator-President Park Jung-hee era. Even some others think that the former general-turned dictator Chun Du-hwan's execution of power was an example of strong leadership. But we are living in a totally different time because if a regime wants to execute the power as the dictators did, the regime will be doomed right away. A strong leadership does not mean a forceful leadership. A strong leadership comes from the leadership of integration based upon the public's faith and the democratic process. It also means a horizontal, open-minded, and autonomous leadership. Only this leadership can overcome the division between North and South Korea, and cure our chronic crippling social problems such as regional conflicts (regionalism) and class confrontations.
Lincoln had a good grip on tasks that should be solved in an era and society. He challenged with insight and overcame obstacles with conviction and courage. But he did not yield to the temptation of power. President Lincoln was a humble leader. A humble leader's humble exercise of power saved America and finally made it a strong country. Comparing Lincoln with his predecessor President James Buchanan (1791-1868), Frederick Douglass commented as follows:
"The tremendous question for him to decide was whether his country should survive the crisis and flourish, or be dismembered and perish. His predecessor in office had already decided the question in favor of national dismemberment by denying to it the right of self-defense and self-preservation, a right which belongs to the meanest insect. Happily for the country, happily for you and for me, the judgment of James Buchanan, the patrician, was not the judgment of Abraham Lincoln, the plebeian. He brought his strong common sense, sharpened in the school of adversity, to bear upon the question."
I dare to say, if there had not been a Lincoln who had a well-balanced common sense trained in adversity, the history of American politics would have been different. It is Lincoln who invented a model by which he showed how to create a strong country with humble character and power. He followed the right path. He makes us think that our dream will come true because he achieved a success through honesty and faithfulness. In our history, we have had wrong ideas such as, "to succeed you have to take a wrong road" and "if you are honest you cannot succeed." Without changing this consciousness and culture, we cannot upgrade our social and historical development to a higher level. Now we have to build a new society where honest, faithful, and fair people can succeed. We have to create and pass down a new society where the dignity of human beings can be fully developed, and a new history in which people with principle can be winners for generations to come. These are my ardent desires and the reasons why I have been in politics.
I wanted to finish my assignment on Lincoln. I shared my thoughts on Lincoln with my aides, gathered materials on Lincoln and polished my writings. After the spring of 2001, the first draft was completed. In the fall of 2001, I came to realize that I should not leave my writing untouched. Our era is very similar to that of Lincoln's since we, Koreans, are still divided between the North and the South as a whole and, because of regionalism, between East and West within the South. Lincoln used to quote a passage from the Bible: "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand" (Mark 3: 24-25). My statement-"without regional integration between East and West, there will be no reform and reunification on the Korean peninsula,"--could be understood in the same context.
This book consists of my reflections on Lincoln's life. It struck me that I have to publish the book though the book has some limits. The readers that I have on my mind are as follows: those who comment on politics easily, those who deal with the politics lightly, those who are not serious about what they are doing in politics, those who criticize the reform process, and those who want to do something through politics. There is no better text than Lincoln for them. I sincerely recommend people who are skeptical about politics to meet the 16th President of America. They will have different perspectives on politics and history as I already experienced.
I want to add that this book is published with several people's help. It is no exaggeration to say that my contribution to this book was the sharing of the moving communion with Lincoln. I want to thank Kim Dae-young and Lim Sang-hun for classifying Lincoln's biography based upon discussion with me. Without them, this could not be published. I also thank Bae Ki-chan for setting up the project of publishing this book; Ahnyun Hong-kyun for polishing my final draft. Finally, I want to thank Wu Chan-kyu, the president of Hak Ko Jae Press, and the editorial staff. President Wu read my draft and gave his approval to publishing this book wholeheartedly, and the editorial staff in Hak Ko Jae made this work a meaningful one with all their hearts.
Roh Moo-hyun, November 2001 at Yo Yi-Do, Seoul, Korea, in a freezing wind.
|
