I say “categorically” because my
limited understanding of history convinces me that presidential campaigns have seldom been free of heated, impassioned discourse.
Nor have they been free of those who play fast and loose with the truth or
those who demonize opponents with spurious accusations.
A few years ago, David McCullough’s John Adams proved to be an eye-opening
read for me. Among the author’s most striking revelations was the “dirty
politics” that ran rampant during Adams’
bid for re-election against Thomas
Jefferson. Those are two of the nation’s most revered Founding Fathers, yet
that campaign was rife with slurs and innuendos and out-and-out lies.
According to McCullough, “In the
summer of 1800 the question of who was to lead the nation became a contest of
personal vilification surpassing any presidential election in American history...and
whether Adams or Jefferson was the most abused would be hard to say.”
Among the charges hurled at
Jefferson:
“...a Jefferson victory would mean
civil war.”
“...Jefferson had swindled clients
as a young lawyer...”
“Not only was Jefferson a godless
man, but one who mocked the Christian
faith ...Bibles would have to be hidden away for safekeeping were he
elected.”
faith ...Bibles would have to be hidden away for safekeeping were he
elected.”
Adams was no less a victim, being
ridiculed as
“...old, addled, and toothless.”
“...[sending] Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney to London to procure four
pretty mistresses to divide between them.” (Can you imagine?
John Adams??!!!)
pretty mistresses to divide between them.” (Can you imagine?
John Adams??!!!)
“...quite mad.”
John
Adams was published in 2001, so I don’t know if after the 2004 and 2008
elections, McCullough would still claim the Adams-Jefferson election was the
vilest in American history. But it has to be right up there as one of the
meanest, and if the situation hasn’t changed in the past 212 years, I don’t see
it doing so in the future.
But if I can’t offer hope the acerbic
atmosphere of campaigns will improve, maybe I can at least offer the following suggestions
for easing election angst:
1) Completely dismiss the campaign
and watch only sitcoms and reality TV.
Or keep the subject light and get all your political information from
SNL skits or late-night talk shows.
Or keep the subject light and get all your political information from
SNL skits or late-night talk shows.
OR (and these are the two I
recommend)
2) Educate yourself by reading. Reading the opinions of those
you
respect and trust or reading the words as they came straight from
the horse’s mouth allows you time to absorb and process the material
being presented without the yelling, interrupting and posturing
found on most political talk shows or without the convenient
"spinning," the telling us what we just heard in case we're too dumb
to figure it out for ourselves. You should also read information
presented by BOTH sides.
respect and trust or reading the words as they came straight from
the horse’s mouth allows you time to absorb and process the material
being presented without the yelling, interrupting and posturing
found on most political talk shows or without the convenient
"spinning," the telling us what we just heard in case we're too dumb
to figure it out for ourselves. You should also read information
presented by BOTH sides.
AND
3) Pray...for God to appoint and anoint
our next president. And then
\ —whoever is elected—continue to pray for him and our country.
\ —whoever is elected—continue to pray for him and our country.
I agree with so much of what you've said here. Politics is not civilized...but it shouldn't be ignorant. That is what makes me want to tear my hair out. It seems social media has made an expert of everyone. I overheard someone laughing about making comments on Facebook just to see how many people would respond.And, here's the part that gets me...SHE WASN'T EVEN REGISTERED TO VOTE. Many people popping off on Facebook and elsewhere haven't watched the debates and haven't studied the candidates, and haven't watched or read news sources with viewpoints unlike their own. So, if you were saying that reading the opinions of people you respect and trust is enough to cast your vote, I disagree. (Although, I'm really just stressing this because I do think you intended this as a multi-prong approach.) I don't think a person's vote should be decided by one's minister, bff, spouse, political commentator, or funny guy online.
ReplyDeleteThe time to place trust in other people is when we cast our votes. And, hopefully, after other voters have carefully researched and voted on the person who best shares their idea of the future. That is what makes the system represent who we truly are as a nation.