Colorado Politics

I’m ‘Wide Awake’ in 2024 | BIDLACK

033123-cp-web-oped-Bidlack-1

Hal Bidlack



Back in 1860 the political landscape of the United States was confused and complicated. And though there were a number of important issues, such as tariffs, a transcontinental railroad and the Homestead Act, in reality, the presidential election of that year would turn on the hideous abomination that was slavery.

The political parties of that time were rather the opposite of where they are today. The Democrats were the more conservative party and the Republicans (having just supplanted the Whigs) were the brand-new liberal party. That’s the reason many of us liberals have a hint of a smile when we hear the GOPers of today brag about Abraham Lincoln, who was quite a lefty for his time, but  I digress.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:11095963150525286,size:[0, 0],id:”ld-2426-4417″});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src=”//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js”;j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,”script”,”ld-ajs”);

The Dems of 1860 had a geography problem. In the north, the Dems believed in what was called “popular sovereignty,” in that any territory or new state would get to decide whether slavery would exist in the new location or not. The southern Dems wanted slavery extended nationally, to all federal territory. The Republicans were, by and large, anti-slavery, though some in 1860 (like Lincoln) argued slavery should be allowed to continue where it was already established but banned from any new state or territory.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Early on, Lincoln was, to put it mildly, a long-shot candidate for the White House. He was from the rural western United States (Illinois was “out west” back then) and was considered by some to be a country bumpkin. But he did want the Republican nomination, having told a friend he had the taste of the presidency in his mouth.

Lincoln was the fourth of four “major” candidates. His election was not at all certain. But a political movement arose that may well have tipped the balance and put our greatest president in office, and it was an organization of young people. The most important political group you likely haven’t heard of was the Wide Awakes.

Founded in Hartford, Connecticut by a couple guys in their early 20s, the Wide Awakes were a political organization that sought to ensure Lincoln’s election. The Wide Awakes wore military-style cloaks and hats and marched at night through cities carrying torches. They sponsored speakers and beat the bushes to get people to attend. They were a vital political actor in 1860 and they ultimately spread across the country in hundreds of chapters, all working to support Lincoln.

The goal of the Wide Awakes was to dramatically increase voter turnout among younger voters. Back in 1860, a younger voter was someone between 21 and roughly 40. Then, like now, youth turnout was a problem, and the Wide Awakes definitely made a significant difference. We can’t know if Lincoln would still have won the Electoral College (he only had 39% of the popular vote) without the Wide Awakes, but their efforts likely were critical.

So why did they call themselves the Wide Awakes? Well, it’s all there in the name. The founders of the group believed that if people, especially young people, just opened their eyes to what was going on politically, especially with slavery, Lincoln would be elected. Being awake, politically and morally, was the key to understanding the true despicability of slavery and the importance of electing a man to the White House who would end it. Being awake was seen as a good thing.

Which, of course, brings me to the very odd ranting of today’s Republican party, more than a century away from its noble beginnings.

For some reason, the current GOPers think that calling someone “woke” is a grave insult. They mean, of course, someone who is in favor of the things they oppose. You know, things like day care and school lunches. Allowing a woman to make decisions about her own body is somehow “woke,” as is being in favor of rich folks paying their fair share of taxes. It is truly odd the radical right (and especially its thrice-married, multiple bankrupted, serial-liar, draft-dodger presidential candidate) would choose the word “woke,” given most people would assume being woke or awake is a good thing.

The implication, of course, is they, the MAGA crowd, are somehow asleep, and I buy that. Only a person who has tuned out the actual world could support a candidate who insulted prisoners of war and other veterans. Remember when he refused to visit a veterans cemetery because it was raining? Somehow other senior White House staff managed to visit and lay wreaths. The MAGA candidate’s greatest achievement is getting many of those who live paycheck to paycheck to truly believe massive tax cuts for the rich are actually targeted at them. They really need to wake up.

After the election of 1860, William Seward, who had been a possible presidential candidate and ultimately served as Lincoln’s secretary of state, was asked about the importance of the Wide Awakes in Lincoln’s victory. Seward said, “The reason we didn’t get an honest President in 1856, was because the old men of the last generation were not Wide-Awake, and the young men of this generation hadn’t got their eyes open. Now the old men are folding their arms and going to sleep, and the young men throughout the land are Wide Awake.”

I can only hope in 2024, when again faced with a demagogue, our nation can awaken. It’s a good thing to be Wide Awake, and to remain woke.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

(function(){ var script = document.createElement(‘script’); script.async = true; script.type = ‘text/javascript’; script.src = ‘https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/userSync.js’; script.onload = function(){ PubMaticSync.sync({ pubId: 163198, url: ‘https://trk.decide.dev/usync?dpid=16539124085471338&uid=(PM_UID)’, macro: ‘(PM_UID)’ }); }; var node = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0]; node.parentNode.insertBefore(script, node); })();

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:11095961405694822,size:[0, 0],id:”ld-5817-6791″});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src=”//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js”;j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,”script”,”ld-ajs”);

Tags

PREV

PREVIOUS

Dissecting how Colorado moved back to the middle — on both sides | HUDSON

Miller Hudson Considering the implications of Colorado’s primary election results and their proof sanity still reigns across much of the Centennial State just as the national Democratic party faces a long-simmering intramural meltdown may confuse the trees for the forest. A presidential candidacy premised on the notion voters will prefer an intermittently lucid incumbent over […]

NEXT

NEXT UP

A less radical path for Colorado Democrats? | Denver Gazette

Let’s welcome this week’s vote by the Colorado Democratic Party leadership against an anti-Israel resolution that was pushed by the party’s noisy and growing radical fringe. At a virtual meeting Monday, the state party’s central committee rejected a declaration whose absurd provisions included one condemning Israel for a “disproportionate military response” to a surprise attack […]


Welcome Back.

Streak: 9 days i

Stories you've missed since your last login:

Stories you've saved for later:

Recommended stories based on your interests:

Edit my interests