Despite what some would have you believe, politics has never been civil. There has always been nasty rhetoric, even in 1828. From the Miller Center there's an excerpt from an article about John Quincy Adams and the 1828 Presidential election, and I quote,
"In the popular press, the rhetorical attacks reached a level of cruelty and misrepresentation not seen since the election of 1796. Jackson was accused of multiple murders, of extreme personal violence, and of having lived in sin with his wife, Rachel. Adams, on the other hand, was attacked for his legalistic attitudes and reportedly for having procured young American virgins for the Russian czar as the primary achievement of his diplomatic career. Adams's critics referred to him as "His Excellency" while Jackson came under attack as an ill-mannered, barely civilized backwoods killer of Indians."
Angry, often untrue rhetoric has always been a part of political discourse. People need to man up, quit their complaining and grow some thicker skin. Hell, Adams was accused of being an adulterer and a pimp for the Russian Czar. That's some juicy stuff!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I believe Jackson was also given to fighting duels over his wife's honor, and he believed the continual attacks on such eventually drove her to an early grave. So in a way I think things might have improved.
Slander and libel were considered lightweight political discourse, with, as Sabra said, the heavy, meaty stuff being settled by men out on a plain.
I dare say we have progressed a spot since then, though at the price of developing our own ruling class...
Post a Comment