Judge Dennis Davis
Film: Lincoln
Judge Dennis Davis - Film: Lincoln
- So hello to everybody and have a wonderful Thanksgiving and maybe it’s appropriate to have this film on Thanksgiving for all sorts of reasons. But let me start, before we get into “Lincoln,” the movie by Steven Spielberg- It’s interesting, I had inadvertently forgotten, when I’d agreed to do this lecture, that it was going to be on my concert night. Those of you who come from Cape Town know that the symphony concert’s on Thursday night. Turns out we have an absolutely fabulous cellist who’s playing the Elgar “Cello Concerto” tonight. But I didn’t want to miss him, so I went to the final dress rehearsal. Why do I tell you this? Because he did a magnificent performance of Elgar. And when I lectured on Elgar not that long ago, I emphasised the fact that the “Cello Concerto” which emerged from Elgar after the First World War, all the tragedy thereof, should be played, probably this cellist played it in a way which I thought was absolutely right, of the melancholia and the sadness of the time. And, in effect, even though if you listen to it, particularly the last movement, where there’s a hint that maybe it’ll resolve itself in some form of triumph, it actually ebbs into the weight of despair, which clearly Elgar felt at the time. And I thought to myself how appropriate it is, at this particular point in time. It’s true that we are about to at least have the relief of huge amount of, well huge, 50 hostages being released, which is an extraordinary relief to all, and particularly the families. But this is a time of complete despair. Just today, of course, we learned that Holland had literally, at least the majority party, not the majority party, biggest party was of course extreme right-wing party.
And I was wondering, in terms of this melancholia, about something which has troubled me for a long time, I wanted to share with you, which is the concept of leadership. It seems to me that we live in a world where there’s very little decent political leadership. And what I mean by that are leaders who’re prepare to lead, who have the courage and the principle and integrity and the personality, the charisma, and the plain ability to lead populations, rather than ultimately to be led by them or led by the crassest of them. And of course, if you look around the world, there is a dearth of such leaders all over the world. And therefore, look how we are at the moment. My sort of melancholia, which I experienced by listening to Elgar this morning, in a sense, is replicated by my despair about the lack of fundamental leadership in the world, which actually can push us into a better place. Why do I tell you all of this when you say you’ve come to listen to me talk about Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln?” Because the movie is about leadership. On Sunday night, William Kentridge, and I can’t help but as I listened to him think, “Isn’t it wonderful that South Africa has produced, hasn’t many cases, but produced such a genius, such an extraordinary artist, such a consummate polymathic artist.” He made the point quite correctly that when you look at art, it doesn’t tell the whole of reality. It tells a portion thereof which we grapple with, given the uncertainties with which we as human beings live.
And Spielberg, in the case of Lincoln, is not trying to make a form which captures Lincoln in some autobiographical way from year one to the time that he’s assassinated. He chooses a particular period and he clearly chooses a theme which he thinks we should listen to. The film was made in 2012, 13, sorry, 11 years ago. But it seems to me to speak to our times, as I watched it in preparation for sharing it with you tonight. It seems to me that what it is about is particularly the ability of a leader to know that in a moment of extreme crisis, in a moment where the country is rupturing, there comes a moment where if you are the leader, if you are the president of the country, you have to know, particularly if you’re the kind of politician of integrity of which Lincoln generally was. And I’ll come back to that in a moment. You have to know that something drastic has to be done, at least in part to, as it were, redress the original evil, which has created the difficulty which he’s encountering, which is the Civil War, which of course bedevilled his presidency. And if you think about it, Lincoln, in many ways was a remarkable person. The film “Lincoln” is to some extent, and the screenplay, to some extent reflects this, draws on the work by Doris Kearns Goodwin called “The Team of Rivals,” Lincoln’s team of rivals. And it’s interesting to reflect just a little bit about what she writes, because it’s relevant to the film, which Spielberg then makes. In 1860, a prairie lawyer and a former one term congressman, Abraham Lincoln, stunned the world by prevailing over three far more prominent rivals at the time, William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase and Edward Bates to win the Republic nomination for President. Equally surprising was the fact that one, he was elected, and two, what he did after he was elected. He appointed all three of his rivals to the cabinet, Seward as Secretary of State, Chase as Secretary of Treasury, and Bates as Attorney General.
And what she does in her book, “Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,” she explores extraordinary array of personal qualities that allowed him to appoint, to win over these men who were his bitter rivals, and how in fact these actions helped him to steer the country through its darkest moments. And of course, she’s a wonderful historian, I might add she won the Pulitzer Prize for “No Ordinary Time,” which of course talks about Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. Also the author of “Wait Till Next Year,” the FitzGeralds and the Kennedys, and “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dreams.” Really high quality stuff, well worth reading. But what she says effectively about Lincoln, that as he came out of the blue to become the leader of the Republican Party and then the president, he faced a Republican Party that was basically insouce, its members had come from a variety of other parties, former Whigs, former Democrats. He put, as I say, his rivals into the cabinet. And he then was prepared to have access to a variety of opinions which he took to sharpen his own thinking.
He didn’t want yes men, he didn’t want people to slavishly say how wonderful he was, that he was God’s gift to America or anything of that authoritarian sort. And he, and basically he then was able to weld those conflicting opinions into a unified party, which at the end of the day, sought to confront the fundamental question of slavery. And I mention all of this because in a way that’s what Steven Spielberg chose to do. He chose to make a film which was ultimately precisely about that, because the film begins a year before the end of the Civil War. And then of course it goes, as it were, to look at the drama which occurred when Lincoln sought to push through the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the abolition of slavery. Just to give you a feel, just to give you a feel, let us start by just having a look at the trailer to the film, and then I can start to contextualise it rather more adequately.
[Narrator] A bombardment, of the largest fleet the Navy has ever assembled. A hundred shells a minute till they surrender.
Dear God.
Mr. Lincoln, I hate them all, I do. I am a prejudiced man.
Congress must never declare equal those whom God created unequal.
You’re going to pass the amendment to abolish slavery. No-one’s loved as much as you by the people. Don’t waste that power.
Come February the 1st, I intend to sign the 13th Amendment.
A fight like this is to the death.
Those Southern men are coming to propose peace.
Abolishing slavery settles the fate for the millions now in bondage and unborn millions to come.
It’s either the amendment or this Confederate peace. You cannot have both.
Slavery, sir, it’s done.
Even if every Republican votes yes, we’d still be 20 votes short.
Only 20?
Slavery is the only insult to natural law. Even worthless, unworthy you ought to be treated equally before the law.
These votes must be procured.
Congressmen come cheap. A few thousand bucks will buy you all you need.
We can’t buy the votes.
Let you see what you can do.
Think of all the boys who’ll die if you don’t make peace.
I can’t end this war until we cure ourselves of slavery. This amendment is that cure.
We need two yeses.
Get the hell out of here and get them.
But how?
I am the President of the United States, clothed in immense power. You will procure me these votes.
Compromise or you risk it all.
The war will be over in a month.
We are guaranteed to lose the whole thing.
You shoot me dead, I am voting yes.
Leave the Constitution alone.
Today we will vote.
You insult God.
I’m sorry about the sound. I actually had checked it earlier, it seemed much better. But at least this introduces something. First, it introduces the fact that Lincoln is played by Daniel Day-Lewis. What an extraordinary actor, one of the great actors, I suppose, of our time. What is interesting about Daniel Day-Lewis is that he won three Academy awards of which “Lincoln” was the last. And what is curious about him particularly, he won for, “My Left Foot,” he won for, “There will be Blood,” and he won for “Lincoln.” And what is interesting, probably the greatest method actor after Brando, I suppose. But what is interesting is that he retired from film in 2017, when he was only 60 years old. And it’s also interesting that he only made five films between 1998 and his time of retirement. So he was particularly fastidious about what he did. But this is an extraordinary performance, as I hope we can see from one or two of the clips that I hope will give better sound than you’ve just had. And of course, his wife is Sally Field, and there’s a wonderful performance of Thaddeus Stevens, who I’ll come to in a moment, played by Tommy Lee Jones. But here’s the thing. The film starts, as it were, in the last year of the war. The Civil War is got a year to go, but what is what in fact Spielberg does, and this is the point of the choosing of a film director, which, why it makes genius, is that he doesn’t deal with much to do with the bloody context of war.
There is, however quite clear reference to it, right at the beginning. He has this incredible scene of Lincoln, almost sitting like a statue, kind of a rock-like, physical president, weary from war but sitting there talking firstly to two Black soldiers who’re recalling the brutality of battle, and then introducing two White soldiers, who recall the Gettysburg address. And so right up front. he kind of contextualises the Civil War and what people are fighting for and what this is all about. Not just, I might add, in the 19th century, but today, by this wonderful scene, which I hope, I pray that the sound will be better than it was that you just heard. But let’s watch this extraordinary first scene, which is clip two.
I’m Corporal Ira Clark, sir, 1st Massachusetts Cavalry. We’re waiting over there, we’re leaving our horses behind and-
[Assistant] Can you hear the sound now?
[Dennis] I can, yeah, yeah.
[Assistant] I just, there’s a setting I have to change, so I’m just going to leave it on this view.
Hang out with the 24th Infantry for the assault next week on Wilmington.
[Lincoln] How long have you been a soldier?
Two years, sir.
[Lincoln] They’ve been Kansas Coloured Infantry. They fought bravely at Jenkins’ Ferry.
That’s right, sir.
They killed a thousand rebel soldiers, sir. They were very brave and making $3 less each month than White soldiers.
[Lincoln] That’s second Kansas boy.
Another $3 detracted from our pay for our uniforms.
[Lincoln] That was two years-
We have equal pay now, but still no commissioned Negro officers.
[Lincoln] I’m aware of that, Corporal Clark.
Yes sir, that’s good that you’re aware, sir. It’s only that-
[Lincoln] Do you think the woman’s in a-
Now that white people have accustomed themselves to seeing Negro men with guns fighting on their behalf. And now that they can tolerate Negro soldiers getting equal pay, maybe in a few years they can abide the idea of Negro lieutenants and captains. In 50 years, maybe a Negro colonel. In a hundred years, a vote.
[Lincoln] What would you do after the war?
Well, sir, perhaps you’ll hire me.
Perhaps I will.
But you should know, sir, that I get sick of the smell of boot black and I cannot cut hair.
I’ve yet to find a man who could cut mine so it would make any difference.
You’ve got springy hair for a White man.
My last barber hang himself- And the one before that. Left me his scissors in his will.
President Lincoln, sir.
Evening boys.
We were talking about it and we were at-
[Lincoln] You boys fight at Gettysburg?
No, we didn’t fight there. We just signed up last month. We saw him two years ago at the cemetery dedication.
You know, we heard you speak. We .
Hey, how tall are you in-
Geez, shut up.
Could you hear what I said?
No sir, not much. It was four score and seven years ago. Our fathers brought forth from this continent a new nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
That’s good.
Thank you.
[Lincoln] Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure it.
We’re met on a great battlefield of that war.
That’s good.
Thank you.
We come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives but that nation might live.
His uncles, they died on the second day of fighting.
I know the last part. It is-
Nobody out.
It is rather-
[Lincoln] Boys, best go and find your company. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. God bless you.
[Lincoln] God bless you too, God bless you.
That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. That this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom. That government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish-
What is extraordinary about that, if you could hear, which I hope you could, is just the encounter. Think about the encounter. This is Tony Kushner writing the screenplay in 2012, in relation to something that had happened, what, 150 years earlier. But he contextualises it for the present, not for the past. That’s the beauty of it, in which he’s basically saying, “Well, we fighting on your side, we part of you, but we don’t get the same pay. We discriminated against. Maybe we’ll become lieutenants and captains and maybe in 50 years time a general. And who knows in a hundred years time we may get the vote.” There’s that sense in which the context of the original sin in the United States to slavery and racism is literally being explored through the prism of Lincoln. And what is so interesting for me is how then he uses the Gettysburg address, not by Lincoln citing it, but by the soldiers doing so, by both sides. And the Black soldier at the end reminding Lincoln that ultimately what he was talking about was that basically all human beings were equal. That four score and 10 years earlier, a nation had been started on the basis of equality between human beings. And so this is not just a film of an historical kind, but it’s a film which is engaging with us because as we listen to that, anybody with a scintilla of understanding of society, would of course say, “Hmm, that’s so interesting, because where are we now in this particular regard?”
And then let’s leave aside- And even if you couldn’t hear properly, just think of the filming of it. The way Lincoln is sitting there, as I say, almost like a statue. And then he sort of rises. And of course Daniel Day-Lewis sort of almost seems to capture the enormous height of Lincoln standing there and is reflected as a man who’s prepared to talk to ordinary people in a way which is also, again, very rare for ordinary politicians. Not a crowd, not a news conference, just talking to the soldiers who are sacrificing their lives. It’s an utterly remarkable scene as far as I’m concerned. And so the play, sorry, the film then goes from that particular proposition to its heart. And the heart is the few weeks in January in 1865, in an overcast, wintry Washington between Lincoln’s second election and his inauguration. In this moment, he’s faced with an absolutely crucial decision. Should he end the war, one of the most costly, bitter and divisive wars, certainly at that time, the most divisive in US history, by a compromising peace with the Confederate enemy? Should he just do that and basically say, “Cheers, let’s, as it were, close the books and end the Civil War.” Or should he make one final desperate attempt to persuade the House of Representatives, the Congress, to reverse an earlier decision to enact the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which would declare that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Let me repeat that. The 13th Amendment said, “Neither slavery nor voluntary servitude would, was permitted except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
And so this particular issue, the abolition of slavery and what it may mean, for a country which, or certainly for a president, who is seeking to promote equality, is at the very centre of the film. Yes, and that’s why Spielberg starts with the context of the war and essentially seeks to place the film within this extraordinary dilemma that Lincoln must in fact encounter. Because what the history shows, and again citing Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, he’s got the problem of the military, he’s got an electorate, he’s got Congress divided on the issue, he’s got his own party who’re essentially not entirely on his side. And the real question is leadership. How do you bring all these parties together? How do you actually lead a situation in this particular context? That’s the crucial point of the film. And if it doesn’t, you know, if that doesn’t speak to today, I think nothing does. So I want to show you a couple of further scenes, which I think have got subtitles, which will make life much easier for me. And if we could have clip three. Just before we start, it’s a debate about how are we going to actually get the votes to get the 13th Amendment through. And just, I mean, you know, given the way in which I’ve thought to couch this lecture as one of leadership through Spielberg’s film, just listen to this, it’s fantastic in my view.
You’ve had no defections from the Republican right to trouble you, whereas to what you promised, where the hell are the commissioners?
Oh my God, it’s true. You, you lied to me, Mr. Lincoln. You evaded my request for a denial, that there is a Confederate peace offer because there is one. We are absolutely guaranteed to lose the whole thing.
We don’t need a goddamn abolition amendment. Leave the Constitution alone.
What if the peace commissioners appear today, or worse-
I can’t listen to this anymore. I can’t accomplish a goddamn thing of any human meaning or worth until we cure ourselves of slavery and end this pestilential war. And whether any of you or anyone else knows it, I know I need this, this amendment is that cure. We have stepped out upon the world stage now. Now, with the fate of human dignity in our hands. Blood’s been spilt to afford us this moment. Now, now, now. And you grousle and heckle and dodge about like pettyfogging Tammany Hall hucksters! See what is before you. See the here and now, that’s the hardest thing, the only thing that accounts. Abolishing slavery by constitutional provision settles the fate for all coming time. Not only of the millions now in bondage but of unborn millions to come. Two votes stand in its way. These votes must be procured.
We need two yeses, three abstentions, or, four yeses and one more abstention, and the amendment will pass.
You got a night, and a day, and a night, and several perfectly good hours. Now get the hell out of here and get ‘em.
Yes, but how?
Buzzard’s guts, man, I am the President of the United States of America, clothed in immense power. You will procure me these votes.
I mean, I think this is breathtaking acting. Consider, just look at the way he was quiet and modest at the beginning, to his assertions now. That’s leadership. His people are telling him it’s going to be very difficult. “I can’t get the votes.” “Well, you go and get them.” Yes, that’s what leadership’s about. I can’t help feeling in a strange way, which is a strange thing for me to say, that in my own lifetime, where I think I experienced this, not because I was in the caucus, but I do think, despite much criticism which he suffered later, that the late F. W. de Klerk revealed some of that when he made his famous speech on February the second, where he actually apparently then said to his caucus, you know, “If you want to resign, you can, but this is the way we’re going. We are going this way because it’s the only way to go.” And I think what Spielberg is showing here, is precisely that. When he says, “I’m a president clothed in immense power,” he’s not using it for his own self aggrandisement. He’s not suggesting that his opponents are vermin. He’s not suggesting that in fact he wants to use it for authoritarian reasons. He’s saying, “I want to do it because it’s the only way that our society can actually move forward. And I’m prepared to take the risk in relation to the war.” It’s a remarkable piece of filmmaking. And of course it’s just totally coloured by the towering acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, of course who got the Oscar for this and deservedly so. But of course Spielberg also shows another part of Lincoln, which I think is, also comes from the book to which I’ve been making frequent reference. And that was Lincoln’s colloquialism. You know, people talk about the present American president sometimes speaking in sort of ordinary colloquial language. Oh, that he could do this, 'cause just listen to the next scene when he is talking to his children about equality. And can we have the next scene, please?
You’re an engineer. You must know Euclid’s axioms and common notions.
I must have in school, but-
I never had much of schooling but I read Euclid in an old book I borrowed. Little enough ever found its way in here, but once learnt, it stayed learnt. Euclid’s first common notion is this, “Things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to each other.” That’s a rule of mathematical reasoning. It’s true because it works. Has done and always will do. In his book, hmm, Euclid says this is “self-evident.” You see, there it is, even in that 2000 year old book of mechanical law. It is a self-evident truth that things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to each other. We begin with equality. That’s the origin, isn’t it? That balance, that’s, that’s fairness. That’s justice.
Again, and by the way, this is an absolute true passage because if you, again, going back to Goodwin’s book, she cites from the archives Lincoln talking in this particular way. The endless anecdotes and folksy memories, the quoting of Shakespeare, the Bible and Euclid, as in this- to make his ideas persuasive, exploiting simple logic and eloquence to get people to do what is right. Knowing just when and where to press an advantage. It is exactly, and again, Daniel Day-Lewis of course, encompasses this so wonderfully, but much more important than that, is the way in which Spielberg focuses. And just look at the intensity of the way in which the cameras are operating in a slightly sort of darkish intense way in which he’s explaining this- so that the logic of equality, which is therefore justice, almost seems inexorable, seems that you can’t argue against it. But of course the fundamental proposition of the entire film is that even though it’s a film about statesmanship, the creation of a democracy, what we can learn from it, he also shows just how fraught the problem was and how he relied on all sorts of people, even people to the left of him, in order to actually get the amendment through. And one of the classic scenes of this particular episode is Thaddeus Stevens, who was effectively a member of the radical faction of the Republican Party. There’d been absolute tension between that group and Lincoln. They thought he wasn’t doing enough, all right.
But he was prepared in this particular case to follow Lincoln. The film in, comes towards the end, a clip I can’t show because the sound is terrible and I’m not prepared to risk it. But you, I’ll talk a little bit about that in a moment. But just listen to this artful speech that Thaddeus Stevens gives, and the representatives, in order to push through the 13th Amendment in support of Lincoln who has managed to weld together, his left and the centre and the conservative members of the Republican party. Let’s just watch this next clip, which is a classic.
How can I hold that all men are created equal when here before me stands, stinking, the moral carcass of the gentleman from Ohio? Proof that some men are inferior, endowed by their Maker with dim wits, impermeable to reason, with cold pallid slime in their veins, instead of hot red blood. You are more reptile than man George, so low and flat that the foot of man is incapable of crushing you!
How dare you.
Even you , Even worthless, unworthy you ought to be treated equally before the law.
Oh, I’m sorry, I’m having a really difficult night tonight with the sound. That was actually perfect when I listened to it. But anyway, the point I’m making is that Thaddeus Stevens and others, basically weld together with Lincoln, and in this particular speech, which is a classic one, where he turns on the Republican conservative wing and says they’re a bunch of basically scumbags, but they’re also equal before the law, is actually a true speech given again, Spielberg actually using the historical record in order to show a point and the drama of it all. And of course if you watch just even the camera work, it’s almost like a painting that he’s basically crafted here. Stevens is interesting because he had a Coloured housekeeper. I use that term because she was of mixed race. Spielberg in a clip I can’t show you 'cause the sound is just absolutely awful. I don’t know why, it was the one I couldn’t get right. Comes back to give her, this housekeeper, Spielberg portrays the fact that they’re clearly lovers, give her a copy of the 13th Amendment. And what he then does, which is so interesting in the film, is to show the joy of the Republicans and the dismay of the Democrats. Isn’t that interesting? The reversal of today in any ways where the reactionaries of the Democrats and the progressives of the Republicans- Of course it’s always been asked, how could a Republican Party which produced Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest American presidents, now be led by Donald Trump?
But I’ll leave that for you to judge, not me. But the film in essence, if I could put it this way, and I do apologise for the sound. I really have tried very hard to get it better, but somehow we haven’t done it as well as we should. The brilliance of this film, which I hope you’ll watch, is just how it speaks to our condition, how it speaks to the fact that ultimately it was extraordinarily difficult to get the 13th Amendment through. And of course, and by virtue of that very first scene that I’ve emphasised, the reality is we all know, that notwithstanding the 13th Amendment racial justice did not in fact somehow just flow through the veins of the body politic of American society thereafter. But it is also true that what it shows is a president determined to do the right thing, to effectively promote the commitments of the Constitution. And the commitments of the Constitution were equality before the law. And what it shows is just what it takes to do that. And what this film is therefore about, is effectively the ability of this man who came from nowhere, a one-term congressman, without very much political clout, but who had the wisdom and the shrewdness and the adroitness, all of which are shown in the magnificent acting of Daniel Day-Lewis, all of which are shown therein, was able to get the Republican Party, which itself was divided, over the line, against the absolutely entrenched opposition at the time of the Democrats, many of whom were slave owners. And for that reason, not only did this film of course win a whole clutch of Oscars, but it remains a centrally important film. And I think when Trudy asked me to do it, what she was thinking about, quite correctly, but I don’t think you can really understand American politics today or society, without at least a reflection there on. I mean, and of course what the film does is just give us a little inkling into that particular politics at the same time that it speaks to politics generally in the world. So I’ll answer, if there are any questions with that. And I’m sorry that I’ve been slightly hamstrung by the sound.
Q&A and Comments:
So let me just, Arlene says, “There seems to be a lack of common sense and values, not only leadership.” Well, that’s true, but the point about the film, Arlene, is that what what Spielberg is showing is that the common sense and values, as it were, were inherent in the repertoire of Lincoln, which led to the kind of leadership that he did.
Michael makes a really important point. Oopsie, I just suddenly switched. Michael makes the point about, “The intrusion of the modern media and social media preventing the emergence of quality leadership.” There is no doubt that the social media has had a very pernicious effect on so much of our society. And I mean the absolutely reprehensible behaviour of Elon Musk in relation to X and the perpetuation of antisemitism at this moment in time, of course, means that it allows populist politicians, such as Trump and others, to exploit all sorts of hatred of a kind that does make leadership much more difficult. But I can’t help feeling that that can’t be a sufficient excuse for people having the courage. I think the fact that so many politicians now are totally obsessed by opinion polls and what surveys say, that, and they say, “Oh, well, no, because we can’t do anything,’ rather than going out and selling a vision, selling something. I mean, strangely enough there, you know, there were politicians in the relatively modern age who were able to do that. She wasn’t of my kind of politics, but you got to hand it to Margaret Thatcher, she was able to get out there and sell a kind of libertarian view of the world which had attraction precisely because she was able to take the step and do it. Now, I didn’t agree with that, but I’m saying, you know, that is a form of leadership. Of course, it’s not necessarily one of which I agree, but at least it’s rather different to the fact of just exploiting fear or doing absolutely nothing. And you can’t but feel that that is the pathology today.
Thank you Rhonda, I agree. She’s a, Doris Kearns is a fabulous writer and that was why I cited so many of the books in the hope that people will read them. And to be perfectly frank, if you want to know about much of American history of the, particularly- whether it be Lincoln in this book I cited, whether it be Roosevelt, whether it be Kennedy, or whether it be Johnson. I can’t recommend this highly enough.
Q: Somebody asked, "What would you say of Zelensky’s leadership?
A: But I’m not sure. I mean, I suppose the answer is faced with the situation of an invasion by the Russians. He’s held the line in a manner which no one would’ve thought that someone, an erstwhile comedian, could have done. Maybe we need more comedians? Maybe we should ask Sasha Baron Cohen to actually stand as a prime minister? But the point about it is, that I think at least what what Zelensky has done is to try to promote the interests of his country as best he can. Of course the question is going to come, there’s no doubt it’s going to come, as to whether a compromise of some sort can be crafted, otherwise this thing’s going to go on forever. And maybe that’s the point that was being made here, was, you know, do you end the war as Lincoln was urged to do, by virtue of the fact that you don’t push through the 13th Amendment and therefore essentially, you know, show a finger to the Confederates? Or do you go for principle, a really interesting question. And I think that is what the challenge of leadership is.
Thank you very much, Warren, I really appreciate it, since we go back a long way and used to talk a lot about films when you were in South Africa. I miss you. As wonderful as Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance is, and is fantastic, credit must be- Yes, Kushner is fantastic.
I agree with you, Betty. I didn’t want to take away that. And the fact that he adapted so much of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book is just a magical-
Q: Ed asks an interesting question. "Do you agree that de Klerk’s motivation was to try to maintain and preserve the economy and White future in South Africa?
A: All alternatives would leave his party destitute. I could never believe that he saw the light of justice.” I think that’s a really great question. And I think that when motivations for politics takes place, and I don’t think you can look at this in a binary way. I have no doubt that when de Klerk in 1990, it was 1990, by the way, when he made his speech, there’s no doubt the economy was in the toilet. The army had lost the Cuito Cuanavale to the Cubans and therefore the military hegemony of the military, South African Defence Force at that time, which dominated White politics, was on the wane. There were sanctions, there were financial sanctions, there was the abolition of the double tax treaty and the tax credit from America, which meant American firms just exited South Africa. It wasn’t profitable enough. And there’s a continuous opposition inside South Africa, in which the unrest could not be quelled by the government at that time. I accept readily all of that played a role. And I do think he must have made some calculation.
In fact, I interviewed him on this particular point and he told me he was going to take the fifth, which was this. When I asked him, “Did he think that he could have cobbled together by doing it so quickly, a coalition of Chief Buthelezi and others-” Some of you of course now know this because of the splendid lectures given by Colin Bundy on the South African part- Could he have, could they have cobbled together a coalition which would have effectively won an election, in the first election against the ANC? And was that uppermost in his thinking? As I said, he took the fifth amendment on that. But I also think that irrespective of that, his party was essentially hugely divided. They didn’t know what he was going to do in the main. He decided that that was the only course of action to take. And that was a really, I think, quite remarkable act, whether we like it or not, it was a remarkable act. And whatever the motivation was, it saved the country because there was no doubt that he could have basically dug in his heels and the South African military and police would’ve been capable of essentially a period of brutal repression, understandably, under a degrading economy and worse conditions. But we probably still would’ve been there and the loss of life would’ve been immense. So I, you know, perfectly obvious if you listened to me over all these lectures, I’m hardly, as it were a de Klerk man as it were. But I want to give him credit for that because I do think it was, for me at least, a modern exemplar of somebody who was prepared to take a decision and bear the consequences. Thank you very much, Carol.
Monty says, “A brilliant English professor always starts his lecture with a quote from Lincoln, "Never allow scientists to partake in government. If you give a scientist a new piece of information, science will change their mind.” Well, you know, it’s partly my job as a judge, I should tell you, to actually change my mind if things are actually, if things are put to me where I realise I’m wrong. One of the great difficulties I should tell you about being a judge is you take a view to start with and people then argue, you know, counsel argues. I’ve often thought to myself, “Why am I holding onto this position when they’re so obviously right?” And I think that’s a position that could be actually extended way beyond just the law.
Thank you very much Carol, and thank you very much, Rita. Yes, I’ll give you, let me give you the name, Betty.
You wanted to know, it’s called “Lincoln’s Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin, G-O-O-D-W-I-N. “Lincoln’s Team of Rivals.” Thank you very much, Barry. Yeah, I mean, thank you very much.
If you say you desperately need leadership in Canada, Barry, come to our part of the world, man. I mean, we really are in poo. “Unfortunately, one of Obama’s,‘ this is Joel, "in the spirit was included Lawrence Summers and other right wingers in his cabinet.” A damn good point, Joel, because let’s be honest about it. Obama certainly would’ve had a lot more scope than met the eye at the time.
And one wonders, despite my criticism of Biden, when history books are written, who will be regarded as the better president? Who got more done?
Thank you, Gail. I’m sorry about the sound.
Rita says, “With social media would Hitler have risen?” Well, I, yes, probably, if people like Elon Musk were in charge of X I suspect the answer is- Thank you very much, Joan.
Q: Angela says, “Do you think Suella Braverman is a lookalike Margaret Thatcher?”
A: Well, she doesn’t have the brains of Margaret Thatcher. Let’s be honest about it. You know, Margaret Thatcher, whatever you thought about her was a very smart woman. And thank you, Carol. “No leadership in Australian by the GOP after January 6th and not censoring Trump.”
That’s the tragedy. And isn’t it amazing the difference between the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln and this one? Seems to me that’s everything. Thank you very much for all your kind remarks and do have a good evening.