Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Politics As Usual...... Low Down And Dirty!!!
I read TUA's post entitled "One Free Pass Too Many" the other day and it got me to thinking. (You can read it here.) There are a couple of points in it that need expanding upon.
He says that at one time, a candidate's family and personal life was off limits. That may have been true to some extent, but really, American politics have always been lowdown and dirty. Americans have always liked it that way. They just won't admit it. Oh, sure, you'll always hear people moan and complain about the dirty politics and decry the negative ads, and swear that they just want to hear high minded discussion of the issues. Bullshit. Sorry, I'm just not buying it. I mean, what's the average American gonna pay attention to? A realistic discussion on Social Security privatization? A down to earth talk about how to restructure the health system in this country? How about a slimy article on a blow job supposedly received by the next candidate for Senate? You tell me which piece they'll read, and which one they'll ignore. This is, after all, a culture that's completely up to speed on crap like American Idol and Big Brother, yet can not tell you who their federal representative is. (John Kline, in my case, and no, I DIDN'T vote for the idiot.) Campaigns use dirty politics and attack ads because they WORK.
Even from the earliest times, our country has seen some pretty outlandish claims made by campaigns. In fact, politics was considered such a scandalous business that in the earliest elections, the candidates rarely appeared or spoke in their own behalf, leaving the dirty work to campaign committees and aides.
The 1828 presidential campaign between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson stands out. There was no love lost between these two because of a bitterly fought 1824 election. But the 1828 election got really nasty, with the Adams camp accusing Jackson of adultery, fornication and illegitimacy. Jackson wife's previous divorce was, unbeknownst to her, not finalized. Once it was, they remarried. However, one campaign pamphlet asked “Ought a convicted adulteress and her paramour husband to be placed in the highest offices of this free and Christian land?” His mother, it was claimed, was a former prostitute brought to America by British soldiers. His wife, Rachael, suffered a heart attack and died before the inauguration. Jackson layed the blame for his wife squarely at the feet of the Adams campaign. In an early version of "Swift Boating" Jackson, who was running on his reputation as a war hero, was accused of murderous misdeeds during the war of 1812 in a series of pamphlets called the "Coffin Handbills."
And, as you can see from this picture, they didn't pull any punches with editorial cartoons.
The Jackson camp didn't exactly pull any punches either. Adams, former ambassador to Russia, was accused of handing over a young servant girl to satisfy the lustful appetite of the Czar and of using public money for purchasing gambling equipment for the White House.
This is only one example. There are many others throughout history. With little effort, they're easily found.
My point is, that in a land of vapid TV programming, National Enquirer journalism, and newspapers written to a 9th grade level, we shouldn't expect anything less. Just like bad television, in my opinion, we've got no one to blame but ourselves
"Whenever a fellow tells me he is bipartisan I know he is going to vote against me."
Harry Truman
He says that at one time, a candidate's family and personal life was off limits. That may have been true to some extent, but really, American politics have always been lowdown and dirty. Americans have always liked it that way. They just won't admit it. Oh, sure, you'll always hear people moan and complain about the dirty politics and decry the negative ads, and swear that they just want to hear high minded discussion of the issues. Bullshit. Sorry, I'm just not buying it. I mean, what's the average American gonna pay attention to? A realistic discussion on Social Security privatization? A down to earth talk about how to restructure the health system in this country? How about a slimy article on a blow job supposedly received by the next candidate for Senate? You tell me which piece they'll read, and which one they'll ignore. This is, after all, a culture that's completely up to speed on crap like American Idol and Big Brother, yet can not tell you who their federal representative is. (John Kline, in my case, and no, I DIDN'T vote for the idiot.) Campaigns use dirty politics and attack ads because they WORK.
Even from the earliest times, our country has seen some pretty outlandish claims made by campaigns. In fact, politics was considered such a scandalous business that in the earliest elections, the candidates rarely appeared or spoke in their own behalf, leaving the dirty work to campaign committees and aides.
The 1828 presidential campaign between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson stands out. There was no love lost between these two because of a bitterly fought 1824 election. But the 1828 election got really nasty, with the Adams camp accusing Jackson of adultery, fornication and illegitimacy. Jackson wife's previous divorce was, unbeknownst to her, not finalized. Once it was, they remarried. However, one campaign pamphlet asked “Ought a convicted adulteress and her paramour husband to be placed in the highest offices of this free and Christian land?” His mother, it was claimed, was a former prostitute brought to America by British soldiers. His wife, Rachael, suffered a heart attack and died before the inauguration. Jackson layed the blame for his wife squarely at the feet of the Adams campaign. In an early version of "Swift Boating" Jackson, who was running on his reputation as a war hero, was accused of murderous misdeeds during the war of 1812 in a series of pamphlets called the "Coffin Handbills."
And, as you can see from this picture, they didn't pull any punches with editorial cartoons.
The Jackson camp didn't exactly pull any punches either. Adams, former ambassador to Russia, was accused of handing over a young servant girl to satisfy the lustful appetite of the Czar and of using public money for purchasing gambling equipment for the White House.
This is only one example. There are many others throughout history. With little effort, they're easily found.
My point is, that in a land of vapid TV programming, National Enquirer journalism, and newspapers written to a 9th grade level, we shouldn't expect anything less. Just like bad television, in my opinion, we've got no one to blame but ourselves
"Whenever a fellow tells me he is bipartisan I know he is going to vote against me."
Harry Truman
Comments:
<< Home
"The best way to hang yourself is not report the full story.:)"
I just KNEW somebody was going to string me up if I didn't get Ole Andy and his era, in there!
And here I dangle.:)
Even from the earliest times, our country has seen some pretty outlandish claims made by campaigns. In fact, politics was considered such a scandalous business that in the earliest elections, the candidates rarely appeared or spoke in their own behalf, leaving the dirty work to campaign committees and aides.
That, and your point about editorials, is true. I was speaking of relatively modern politics, (Dwight D. and forward) and alas...didn't make that clear. I seem to recall two candidates from that era challenging the other to a duel with pistols, but I'm not sure.
what's the average American gonna pay attention to? A realistic discussion on Social Security privatization? A down to earth talk about how to restructure the health system in this country? How about a slimy article on a blow job supposedly received by the next candidate for Senate?
That, I do differ with strongly. While it's distressingly true today, the dumbing down of American Politics, or negative personal trait campaigning, didn't really become a working political weapon until G. H. W. Bush's campaign. Since then, it has only progressed further into the sewer...(; But I also disagree that the American Voter likes negative campaigning. Polls have consistently shown a drop in voter participation, directly correlated with the increase in negative campaigns. They will read the blow job story over the SS story, yes. But when it comes to giving their attention (thus their vote), the remote hits mute when the shit starts flying.
Bill Clinton's first campaign was a good example of that. The Reich Wing tried throwing shit balls of all sizes. It's The Economy, Stupid! carried him through it all unscathed, showing, I think, at least some comprehension on the part of the voter, between crap and positive construction. But that was quite a few years ago too, and the voter has changed his first name to Apathy now. As I type, your statement is 100% true.
I just KNEW somebody was going to string me up if I didn't get Ole Andy and his era, in there!
And here I dangle.:)
Even from the earliest times, our country has seen some pretty outlandish claims made by campaigns. In fact, politics was considered such a scandalous business that in the earliest elections, the candidates rarely appeared or spoke in their own behalf, leaving the dirty work to campaign committees and aides.
That, and your point about editorials, is true. I was speaking of relatively modern politics, (Dwight D. and forward) and alas...didn't make that clear. I seem to recall two candidates from that era challenging the other to a duel with pistols, but I'm not sure.
what's the average American gonna pay attention to? A realistic discussion on Social Security privatization? A down to earth talk about how to restructure the health system in this country? How about a slimy article on a blow job supposedly received by the next candidate for Senate?
That, I do differ with strongly. While it's distressingly true today, the dumbing down of American Politics, or negative personal trait campaigning, didn't really become a working political weapon until G. H. W. Bush's campaign. Since then, it has only progressed further into the sewer...(; But I also disagree that the American Voter likes negative campaigning. Polls have consistently shown a drop in voter participation, directly correlated with the increase in negative campaigns. They will read the blow job story over the SS story, yes. But when it comes to giving their attention (thus their vote), the remote hits mute when the shit starts flying.
Bill Clinton's first campaign was a good example of that. The Reich Wing tried throwing shit balls of all sizes. It's The Economy, Stupid! carried him through it all unscathed, showing, I think, at least some comprehension on the part of the voter, between crap and positive construction. But that was quite a few years ago too, and the voter has changed his first name to Apathy now. As I type, your statement is 100% true.
TUA,
I'll agree with you that, at least for a while, the press did indeed "lay off" of certain aspects of a presidents' life. A very good example of this is President Roosevelt's polio. He was NEVER photographed in his wheelchair, and it was NEVER referred to in the media. The same could be said for President Kennedy's known fondness for a certain blond movie star. It was known, but never directly referred to.
I think all of that changed during Nixon's terms in the white house. He brought meanness and deceit to new levels, and the press eventually began an all out drive to "get to the truth" no matter what, culminating in the famous Watergate scandal. Slowly, since then, it's become open season for both the press, and opposition candidates on the sitting presidents' personal lives. Although we haven't seen much of the twins recently. Maybe the secret service is providing them with a private stash to keep them out of trouble.
Since I reached voting age, I've never missed an election. Not one. Off year or no, I've always tried my best to keep up with the issues, know who my state and federal representatives are, and vote. I've told my sons if I find out they're not voting, I will take them down to Ft. Snelling cemetery, personally show them the graves of the fine men and women who've given their lives for this country, and then will kick their butts all the way back to the polls. That's the way I feel, and I make no apologies for it.
My jaundiced view of the general apathy of the American voter comes from a firm sense of cynicism I've developed as I get older. We usually have a fairly high turnout here in Minnesota, but I see some areas of the country with as little as 20% turnout, and it makes me wonder when someone in the government will make the fateful decision that "Hey, since no one is voting any more anyway.........."
Post a Comment
I'll agree with you that, at least for a while, the press did indeed "lay off" of certain aspects of a presidents' life. A very good example of this is President Roosevelt's polio. He was NEVER photographed in his wheelchair, and it was NEVER referred to in the media. The same could be said for President Kennedy's known fondness for a certain blond movie star. It was known, but never directly referred to.
I think all of that changed during Nixon's terms in the white house. He brought meanness and deceit to new levels, and the press eventually began an all out drive to "get to the truth" no matter what, culminating in the famous Watergate scandal. Slowly, since then, it's become open season for both the press, and opposition candidates on the sitting presidents' personal lives. Although we haven't seen much of the twins recently. Maybe the secret service is providing them with a private stash to keep them out of trouble.
Since I reached voting age, I've never missed an election. Not one. Off year or no, I've always tried my best to keep up with the issues, know who my state and federal representatives are, and vote. I've told my sons if I find out they're not voting, I will take them down to Ft. Snelling cemetery, personally show them the graves of the fine men and women who've given their lives for this country, and then will kick their butts all the way back to the polls. That's the way I feel, and I make no apologies for it.
My jaundiced view of the general apathy of the American voter comes from a firm sense of cynicism I've developed as I get older. We usually have a fairly high turnout here in Minnesota, but I see some areas of the country with as little as 20% turnout, and it makes me wonder when someone in the government will make the fateful decision that "Hey, since no one is voting any more anyway.........."
<< Home
