ASHINGTON — The 2004 presidential campaign has opened with a snarl.Posted on 03/13/2004 9:47:10 AM PST by billorites
ASHINGTON — The 2004 presidential campaign has opened with a snarl.
President Bush and Senator John Kerry, two gentlemen from Yale, wasted no time attacking each other eight months before the election. Last week alone, Mr. Kerry called Republicans "crooked" and "lying" in off-the-cuff comments, then refused to apologize to what he called a "Republican attack squad." Mr. Bush accused Mr. Kerry of trying to "gut" American intelligence services, and he authorized a television ad charging that Mr. Kerry "would raise taxes by at least $900 billion" and weaken national defense. Mr. Kerry fired back with an ad asserting that he had never called for such a thing and wanted to cut taxes for the middle class.
"Doesn't America deserve more from its president than misleading negative ads?" the announcer intoned.
Probably not, at least if history is any guide. Washington's 2004 political class may be deploring the nasty tone of the fledgling campaign and wondering what awful things Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry will be saying about each other come October, but historians remain unimpressed. Negative campaigns are American.
While voters may complain that every campaign seems the most negative ever, contrarians say they serve a useful purpose. In a democracy with a free press and a robust public debate, attacks can be informative and compelling enough to make voters pay attention.
Politics have always been a spectator sport in the United States. As at football games, it is not enough to root for your own team. You have to denigrate the other.
In addition, the country has always been divided by race, region, economics and class, leading to vitriol between the two men representing each side of the divide.
That said, for all the debate about whether Mr. Bush has diminished himself by going negative so early, the Bush-Kerry matchup has not been particularly negative, at least not yet, by historical standards. More important, their attacks have been about substance that voters can learn from, like national security and taxes.
"People have not begun to sling mud," said Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "So far it's amateur hour - no illegitimate children yet."
Mr. Mead was referring to the mother of all negative campaigns, the 1884 race between Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine, a Republican senator from Maine. The race is perhaps best known for the attack line "Ma! Ma! Where's my Pa?" which Republicans chanted at Cleveland, who while mayor of Buffalo had an illicit relationship with a widow who bore him a child. Democrats had a response: "Gone to the White House. Ha! Ha! Ha!"
Historians say Cleveland probably would have lost had it come out closer to Election Day. As it was, Democrats had time to fight back. They painted Blaine as a corrupt businessman who ended a letter with the instructions, "burn this." But it became public, and Democrats broke into song:
"Blaine! Blaine! James G. Blaine!
The con-ti-nen-tal liar from the state of Maine."
One of the nastiest campaigns was one of the first. In the election of 1800, Vice President Thomas Jefferson was tarred as an agent of the French Revolution, while President John Adams was decried as a monarchist; after Jefferson won, his enemies spread the story that he had a slave mistress, Sally Hemings.
Generally, the campaigns of the 19th century were meaner than the ones today, in large part because the newspapers of the era took sides and were often subsidized by the political parties. "There was almost no restraint on what could be said in the partisan press," said Bruce J. Schulman, a professor of history and American studies at Boston University. "Party organizations were much stronger, and the partisan attachment of voters was much more loyal. Politics then was not about trying to convert voters based on issues. There were more or less no swing voters. It was all about getting your army of voters to the polls."
But the 20th century had its low moments, too, like the 1948 race between Thomas E. Dewey and the incumbent Harry S. Truman. An Oct. 26 headline in The New York Times captures the campaign's tenor: "President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascists' Tool."
Truman's victory gave credence to successive generations of political consultants who say negative campaigning, as much as voters malign it, works.
"There's generally a very small group of undecided voters, and many of them tend to have murky party loyalties, and they respond to negative advertising," said Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist who advised Representative Richard A. Gephardt before he dropped out of this year's presidential race. "A lot of times voters are undecided because they're not paying a lot of attention. They're cynical by nature, and they're more likely to believe negative information than positive information."
Madison Avenue tends to agree. "People want something emotional and dramatic," said Jerry Della Femina, the adman. "You can say, 'I'm a nice person' just so many times. After a while you turn and say, 'The other guy's a louse.' People would like to think that they are thoughtful and not swayed by negative advertising, but the fact is, they are. We're verbally aggressive. It's the American way. If it wasn't this way, we wouldn't have hockey."
While other countries have negative political races, none are remotely as long as those in the United States, the birthplace of Bill Clinton and the permanent campaign. These marathons, along with modern communications, tend to make the campaigns seem even nastier than they are, particularly to masochists willing to subject themselves to the 24-hour invective available on cable television and the Internet.
Another factor is the nature of the presidency itself, which gives to a single person the powers of head of government and head of state. "So he not only has a political function but also a lot of symbolic functions that in other systems is shared out," said David M. Kennedy, a professor of history at Stanford. "The question of presidential character just looms larger because of this symbolic freight we've invested in the president.''
The 19th century notwithstanding, Mr. Kennedy predicted that the 2004 race might be one for the annals of viciousness. "This could very well be one of the most eye-gouging, nose-biting, no-holds-barred donnybrooks we've seen in a century,'' he said."
Historians say that the nation will survive the dirt-shoveling of this election, just as it has the others. "It's part of the process," Mr. Schulman said. "Oddly enough, the vitriolic and bitter character of American political elections is a sign of just how much agreement on the fundamentals of politics and public life there is. There's never an impending revolution."
L
And if you can't think of anything to write once you're at the NY Times, plagiarize!
Let's compare and contrast. Kerry's attacks are strictly ad hominem. He calls his opponents crooked and lying, but supplies no reasons or evidence. He is merely slinging insults around and refusing to apologize for it. Not presidential.
Bush accurately describes Kerry's votes to cut Intelligence budgets. Bush also has concrete figures on Kerry's tax plan. The numbers might be debateable, but Bush is correct when he says Kerry plans to raise taxes. Lastly, Bush reminds the voters of Kerry's many, many votes against any weapon system that will strength the US military. This is important to point out, because we are currently enagaged in a war in which we need the weapon systems that Kerry tried to stop.
One of these guys is being a jerk. One is being a leader. 33% of the public thinks slinging insults and baseles accusations is a sign of leadership.
The only thing thats changed is now , in addition to the fishwraps, we have TV and radio shilling for the 'Rats in 90% of the cases.
Thought it was particularly ironic that the Slime mentioned the partisan press of the 19th century, as if it didn't exist anymore. Perhaps the've hired Jason back as editor.
Substitute "media" for "president". There are times while watching Dan, Tom, or Peter when I believe they must be under prescription medication to keep a straight face while they "report" the news. One requires prescription medication to sit there and listen to it.
Generally, the campaigns of the 19th century were meaner than the ones today, in large part because the newspapers of the era took sides and were often subsidized by the political parties.
I wonder how then and now compare and it wasn't true then, like now, where candidates must be referred to as "he whose name cannot be spoken," during certain periods of the lunar year.
This statement is half-true -- Bush has focused on substance, while Kerry and his minions call Bush a draft deserter and a crook!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.