Will civility ever return to presidential campaigns?\u00a0 Is it reasonable to hope for respectful debating?\u00a0 Or, are we obliged to accept the mudslinging as a given in politics?\u00a0 What would our founding fathers think if they were to witness one of today’s presidential campaigns?\u00a0 Would they be impressed or would they be embarrassed?\u00a0 Can we ever return to the ethical debating they so prized?\u00a0<\/p>\n
ABC declared 2008 the “dirtiest presidential campaign in history.”\u00a0 With estimates of the cost of this year’s election exceeding $1 billion, will the candidates see a choice other than negative campaigning?\u00a0 There is no second place.\u00a0 “The art is to damage your opponent without getting caught doing it,” said\u00a0Rob Shealy, a campaign strategist who was convicted for violating campaign laws.<\/p>\n
Negative phone calls use questions to coerce opinion.\u00a0 Discussing Obama, the caller says, “He has taken millions from big banking and energy interests that have legislation pending before the Senate.\u00a0 Does this influence your opinion of him?”\u00a0 An Obama supporter claimed the Clintons made divisive comments meant to “suppress the vote, demoralize voters, and distort the record.”\u00a0 President Clinton retaliated claiming the media was “carrying Obama’s water.”\u00a0 Obama sent mailers claiming Clinton’s healthcare plan forced people to sign up, penalized those who did not, and was disingenuous.\u00a0 The Clinton camp responded, characterizing the mailer as “outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois.”<\/p>\n
McCain claimed Romney wanted a firm timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.\u00a0 Romney retaliated saying Ronald Reagan would have found McCain’s tactics “reprehensible.”\u00a0 McCain countered that Romney left Massachusetts with “high taxes and a large debt.”<\/p>\n
The list goes on and on, with the toughest months still ahead.\u00a0 This was just the primaries.\u00a0 Now we enter the general election, when the gloves will come off.\u00a0 And, they will come off.<\/p>\n
How did our founding fathers behave during a presidential election?\u00a0 Our first President, George Washington, stepped down after eight years in office.\u00a0 John Adams, his vice president, became our second President.\u00a0 His campaign for re-election in 1800 shows the behavior of our gentlemen founders while running for office.\u00a0 The primary opponents were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, having decidedly different visions of the role of the federal government.\u00a0\u00a0 Let us read how these gentlemen behaved.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Jefferson’s opponents described him as a “hopeless visionary, a weakling . . . an atheist.”\u00a0 Adams was characterized as a “monarchist, more British than American. \u00a0He was ridiculed as “old, addled, mad, and toothless.”\u00a0 Adams’ supporters distributed a leaflet portraying Jefferson as a “fraud, a cheat, and a coward.”<\/p>\n
Not to be outdone, Jefferson’s campaign countered that Adams was going to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George III, reuniting the United States with the British Empire, allowing his family to become a dynasty.<\/p>\n
The President of Yale University said if Jefferson was elected “the Bible will be burned and our wives and daughters will be the victims of legal prostitution.”<\/p>\n
Adams described John Hamilton, a long time nemesis who liked neither Jefferson nor Adams, as “. . . a man devoid of every moral principle, a bastard . . .”<\/p>\n
The Connecticut Courant warned that if Jefferson was elected, “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced. . .”<\/p>\n
Jefferson’s campaign added to their description of Adams, “fat and toothless,” while Adams claimed, “Mr. Jefferson hates the Constitution.”\u00a0 According to Adams, Jefferson would ruin the financial system, creating bankruptcy and beggary. \u00a0Hamilton said Jefferson secured his estate at Monticello through “robbery and fraud.”<\/p>\n
It seems our modern day politicians are lightweights compared to our founders.\u00a0 In those days, they knew how to play hardball.\u00a0 Most of our modern candidates could neither throw nor take the kinds of punches used during the infancy of our country.\u00a0<\/p>\n
At first blush, this behavior seems inappropriate, unnecessary, and unseemly. \u00a0Shouldn’t this behavior be beneath a presidential candidate?\u00a0 Even so, could it serve a purpose; could it be useful, even needed?\u00a0 We are electing a person to the presidency of the United States of America, to a position that is the most powerful in the world.\u00a0 There are no classes to take, no exams to pass, no vocational training available.\u00a0 They must masterfully deal with allies and adversaries alike.\u00a0 The president must be seasoned in life, stable in adversity, and solid in conviction and principle.<\/p>\n
Might I suggest the presidential campaign is the final seasoning, the final tempering of their character, preparing them for the most difficult job in the world?\u00a0 Might I suggest the unfair statements, the unfair tactics, the lies, the innuendos, the rumors – all are important to the molding of a President.\u00a0 If the process breaks a candidate, could they face a Gorbachov?\u00a0 Would they be able to deal with the complexities of the office if they were unable to navigate through the campaign?\u00a0 Perhaps the fair and the unfair tactics are needed for the final molding, the final seasoning, the final tempering of a president.<\/p>\n
![\"Reblog](\"http:\/\/img.zemanta.com\/reblog_e.png?x-id=19a6fc9b-0a6c-4232-ae91-53146ba5bf48\")
<\/a>