>>>"... virtue and vigilance are not hallmarks of society today."
>>
>>??? Care to elaborate? Especially compared to 1861?
>
>Well, 1861 had no internet, television, or radio. There were two ways to learn the candidates views: read a newspaper account often days after the fact, or attend a debate / rally / convention and actually hear the candidate speak.

Agreed.

>The whole process of discussion was glacially slow compared to today's sound-bite world, and I suspect that the voters were better informed.

I can see no way that glacially slow discussion can lead to voters being better informed. The media of the day were more biased and unashamedly partisan than most these days. With relatively primitive transportation and convention facilities, the proportion of the population that actually heard a candidate speak, in person, could well have been smaller than today. There were no nationally televised debates back then.

>There was no lack of slander and lies in the campaign 'literature', but I suspect the candidates themselves had fewer aspirations to political 'power'.

Lincoln's first election on the cusp of the Civil War was a good example of the issues of the day being larger than they are today. Democracy was still under construction, and occasionally, men of passion and conviction could go into politics and realistically aspire to make a significant difference. In that regard, Lincoln was spectacularly successful, and a very high - perhaps too high - standard to compare to other presidents.

Political power is absolutely essential to be able to realize these goals. I'd be willing to bet money that Lincoln's zeal for power was second to none, and more than most. Just because his motivation may be considered "pure" wouldn't have made his ambition any less - it probably made it greater.

>
>Decades of watching local, state, and national politics have jaded me. Regardless of the party of the politition, the outcome is generally (but not always) taking care of ours, and obvious corruption. I've now seen it in Chicago (where I grew up), Springfield, and Washington: both D and R disappoint at best and disgust at worst. Virtue in public office? A rare occurence.

If you grew up under the Daley clan I can see your POV ;-) I disagree about virtue in public office being rare - it's just not as "newsworthy" (or memorable) as vice. While politics tends to attract certain borderline personality types, I have faith that most politicians try their best to do a good, ethical job. At least, I hope that's not limited to Canada ( bg )

>
>Surveys indicate an lack of knowledge or interest in government among large segments of the public who would be qualified to vote, and particularly younger people. Vigilance is not likely when you don't know or care who's in charge or what they're in charge of.

I mostly agree. We've largely relinquished vigilance to the "press"/media.

Government is much larger today (~40%+ of GDP) than in Lincoln's time (~10% or less). That's a strong argument that vigilance is more important than ever. But as you point out, apathy seems to be increasing, either from surveys or from hard data such as declining voter turnouts.