The Party of Lincoln in the Era of Trump

I had the pleasure of listening to Rush Limbaugh on the way to a dentist appointment today, and he covered a clip of Hillary Clinton speaking about the trajectory of the GOP. She said, "The Party of Lincoln is becoming the party of Trump." Limbaugh was aghast at this, offended that Clinton would position herself as Lincoln's predecessor, because Lincoln was a Republican. He belongs to the GOP in that sense. With all the conversation about the Republican convention, the party platform, and especially with this rhetorical backdrop, I'm curious about how modern day Republicans and Democrats compare to the party of Lincoln. So let's take a look at what the party platform of the Party of Lincoln that he won the 1860 election on. A good portion of the platform handled issues of the day, but can still be roughly translated into ideas that still hold currency today. If you'd like, take a peek at the full document here, while we run through the lines that tell the most about the party then and now. 

The entire platform consists of just 17 planks (18 if you count the "Supplementary Resolution".) Paraphrased, they are: 

1. The Republican Party should exist - nothing too special here, boilerplate stuff
2. A staunch defense of the Constitution and Declaration of Indepencence - This rings consistent with much of what modern Republicanism holds dear, with a slight twist. The plank defends the standard "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" but also the part that insists "to secure these rights, governments are instituted." This defense of government can be partially understood in the context of secessionists wanting to split from the union, but we must be attentive to the fact that at it's inception, Republicanism was the party of Federal Government.
3. The third plank takes this further and says the US owes it's success to the federal government that unifies the states. And of course along this it adds that "threats of disunion" are "an avowal of contemplated treason."
4. This claims states as sovereign, and not to be invaded by armed forces (likely in the context of secessionist military activity)
5. An abhorrence of Democrats trying to legalize slavery, especially in Kansas with the infamous Lecompton Constitution, which was a revised constitution that allowed slavery in Kansas, banned free blacks, and restricted voting to only white males
6. A claim that the Federal Government is recklessly extravagant, corrupt and unaccountable. It also includes an accusation that the Federal Govnerment is beholden to 'sectional' special interests - This is a claim that falls more comfortably in the realm of current Republican values as far as I can see. It's a point that I think holds a lot of political power. It is somewhat baffling to me that Democrats today strangely defend the size and management of government resources; it's not a winning argument.
7. A rejection of the idea that the Constitution justifies slavery throughout the union - this is another plank particular to the era. But I'm glad it's in here, it's a good one.
8. A position that the Constitution forbids slavery outright when it says "no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." - This is both a salient argument against slavery (in grade school history I always found it odd that "all men are created equal" somehow didn't apply to other races.)  Perhaps more interesting, it speaks to a great number of current controversial, hard choices. The first that comes to mind is the use of explosive drone to kill the Dallas shooter. These are hard issues but an attention to the principles of our country dictate that we must always put our civil ideas above the circumstances, or expediencies of an situation. 
9. A plank chastising the re-opening of the Atlantic Slave Trade - again hard to carry through, but a pretty good idea
10. A plank criticizing governors of Kansas and Nebraska for vetoing anti-slavery acts from their state legislatures - This plank is interesting procedurally because it seems to insist that governors not intervene, not veto, any law passed by legislatures. It seems a curious insistence from a rule standpoint even if admirable from an ideological one.
11. Kansas should be a state - Good call.
12. This plank argues for protective tariffs, above what is necessary for government revenue. It argues for tariffs "which secures to the workingmen liberal wages." - The obvious echo from this plank in todays policies are realistically found on both sides of this race: Trump (and Sanders) speak strongly against free trade agreements which tear down trade barriers like tariffs. The Democrats are the champions of raising the minimum wage.
13. A protest of sale of land inhabited by settlers - this appears to be another era-specific issue but has the larger overtones that public land should be available to people for their personal activities and perhaps ownership
14. An opposition to any policies that abridge or reduce the rights of immigrants and naturalized citizens - this is a policy that seems to run somewhat counter to the current narrative about immigration, refugee policy, and Muslim-specific bans coming from the modern Republican party.
15. An approval of federal funding for river improvements - Very counter to many modern behaviors like the debt ceiling votes of recent history
16. A demand of the Federal Government to help build the national railroad - This along with plank 15 seem strongly counter to modern GOP sentiment that government should be tightening its belt rather than spending more to take on big projects. The one exception to this seems to be military spending. 
17. Asking for support of the citizenry
18. A sympathy to those exiled by slave states and secessionist states, as well as an olive branch to those people.

Now I won't go through all the planks of the 2012 GOP platform because there are more planks in one section than in the entire platform from 1860. But given the proposals making it into the debate for the 2016 platform, it's clear that we are dealing with a different beast that the foundational republican document. The provisional platform at the time of this writing, "bars women from combat, describes coal as a 'clean' energy source, and declares pornography a 'public health crisis." It encourages teaching the Bible in public schools, it disapproves of homosexuality, and transgender rights. In short, the planks that are making headlines suggest a platform geared towards policing morality and identity issues. Crucially though, these planks are meant to reduce individual rights and freedoms, as compared with the earnestly pro-freedom agenda of the first Republican platform. In fact the only newsworthy plank that attempts to expand a freedom is one that advances corporate freedom for coal companies. I'd like to think there is more to these proposed policies than bigotry and reactionism. But I find it hard to reconcile the two versions of this one party. At inception, it seemed a party concerned solely with issues of government and governance. Today however this same party dedicates itself to cultural norms and regressive attempts to go back to how things used to be. Note how adroitly the Lincoln platform calls to constitutional authority to take progressive stands. Compare it to what is shaping up to be a backbend to justify regressive policies and culturally restrictive stances.