Still the same old "stuff" from McCain headquarters.

:down:
___________________


Barack Obama, is the change that we need. He is the change we WILL have.

:up:

I want to ask a question

the internet age has brought the partisan bitterness and vehemence of American politics to us all, and well, it's a bit surprising.

We are also told that there is a Kulturkampf that's been going on in the US the last 30 years or so, and has been particularly intense the last 15.

So my question is:

do you think that political debate is more bitter etc. than usual in these recent times, or was it ever this way in US politics?

Whenever anyone talks about the bitterness of recent politics, I always go back to the second real election for US President: the campaign of 1800. I say second because the first two 'elections', in 1788 and 1792, were pretty much non-elections. Everyone knew that George Washington was going to be the first president, and everyone wanted it that way. According to the Constitution all electors cast two votes. They couldn't vote twice for the same candidate and the second vote couldn't be for someone from their own state. Every single elector cast one vote for Washington, then carefully cast votes for different people so Washington wouldn't be challenged. John Adams came in a distant second and became the first vice-president.

When Washington stepped down after two terms the first real election took place in 1796. The Federalist party put up John Adams, mainly because their leader, Alexander Hamilton, was pretty much unelectable. The Republicans put up Thomas Jefferson, who had been Washington's first Secretary of State. Each side had other candidates as well, hoping that both of 'their' guys would be elected and they would control the whole thing, but as it turned out Adams won and became the new president, and Jefferson came in second and became vice-president.

Adams and Jefferson had been friends and collaborators on the Declaration of Independence and had both been overseas when the Constitution was written; Adams as ambassador to England and Jefferson as ambassador to France. Unfortunately Hamilton kept working in the background to push his extreme views, which included war with France. During Adams's term America did become embroiled in what was called the 'Quasi-War', with several small naval battles, and the Federalists tried to push Adams into a declared war; but he would have none of it. When he sent three negotiators to France they were met with agents of Foreign Minister Talleyrand. These men were referred to by code letters and instigated what became known as the 'XYZ Affair'. They demanded money from the American agents, and when it got back to the US this resulted in the famous cry "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" Adams managed to defuse the whole thing and end the conflict, but this turned Hamilton against him.

In an effort to end opposition from the Republicans, congress passed what were known as the 'Alien and Sedition Acts', which gave 1) congress the power to expel foreigners (mainly French) in time of war, 2) the president the power to expel any foreigners who spoke openly against the US, even in time of peace, and 3) made it illegal for anyone to speak out against the government. Jefferson worked behind the scenes to get then removed, and the 'Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions' were passed, opposing the new laws. Jefferson even discussed privately the possibility of secession and war, but his old friend James Madison talked him out of it. Jefferson also pushed several test cases by having friendly newspaper publishers speak out against the president, and some of them did indeed land in jail.

All this led to the next election, with Adams and Jefferson once again opposing each other. This time around Hamilton did everything he could to derail both candidates, and it became arguably the bitterest campaign in US history. Republican newspapers described Adams as "weak" and "ineffectual", and accused him of trying to start war with France; when in fact he had done just the opposite. Federalist newspapers said things like "The choice is between God, and a religious president - or Jefferson, and NO GOD!", and "If Jefferson is elected, murder, robbery, rape and incest will be openly taught and practiced!"

Hamilton's antagonism destroyed Adams, and Jefferson won handily. But it didn't end there, because Jefferson and the Republicans' second candidate, Aaron Burr, each got 73 electoral votes, and it came to the House of Representatives to make the final decision. Reasonably Burr should have said that he was only the vice-presidential candidate and that would have been the end of it, but Burr said nothing. Hamilton tried to get his Federalist cohorts in the House to go with Jefferson, but none of them wanted to vote for a true Republican, and Burr would be likely to side with them if elected. It took thirty-six ballots over three days to finally confirm Thomas Jefferson as the third president. While this was going on the Federalists tried to put together a secret committee that would have the power to decide if certain votes were even valid, the purpose being to get rid of both candidtates and put in their own man. Virginia and Pennsylvania both hinted that there might be civil war if anyone but Jefferson or Burr became president.

Burr's reputation among the Republicans was ruined, and he was never again a viable candidate for any office, which ultimately led to the duel in which he shot and killed Hamilton. Jefferson and Adams became bitter enemies for the next fifteen years, until a mutual friend, Doctor William Rush, got them writing to each other again. Abigail Adams never forgave Jefferson for his refusal to support her husband.

This also led to the passage of the 12th Amendment, which changed the rules so electors would now cast one vote for President and one for Vice-President. With Jefferson's backing it was ratified just in time for the 1804 election.

So no, heavy handed and bitterly antagonistic politicking is nothing new in America. You might almost say it's our true national passtime.

Thanks SS, that was interesting:up:

So you have established that it is not new, but has it been constant?

It is the advent of the internet that has created this trend. However, it is not simply limited to political discourse. The internet has given the populace a new forum in which to spew vitriol in volumes not seen before. The anonymous nature of web interaction enables the individual to say things and act in ways that would never be acceptable in a real social setting. Interestingly enough, the instant access to news and information, much of it spun to a political agenda or posted by unreliable sources (FOX News, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Wikipedia, et al) has created a subculture of self-proclaimed experts who will fight to the virtual death to prove themselves correct against all other self-proclaimed experts, using any tactic, slanderous or not, that they feel is advantageous to their supposed cause. Of course, the advocates of the opposing view are just as committed to their side; and so the great gladiator match continues with buckets of vitual blood spilled for no gain on either side, regardless of whether the discussion centers on elections, brands of shoes, or Star Trek captains. You can see it here every day. Still, I would concede that nothing gets the hornet's nest more stirred than the political.

November cannot come fast enough.

Very well said. Anonymity on the Internet is breeding a new generation of rude people who hide behind keyboards saying and doing things no normal person would ever do in real life.

I'm not so sure about that man. I think the number of rude people in real life is greatly increasing at an exponential rate too.

-S

Exactly. People are starting to act like they do on the Internet in real life.

What, exactly is this "real life" I keep hearing about?:hmm:Sounds like an interesting concept:D

A figment of ones imagination! :D

-S

Brother, advocating the assassination of a politcal leader will get you time in the brig: 2 weeks. A repeat will be for life, don't do it. :nope:

*applause*

I would say so, up to a point. Politics in the 20th Century was actually fairly benign, but I may be missing some things; I actually don't study current or recent affairs too much.

I do laugh every time someone goes on about Bush and "lost the popular vote!" In 1824 John Quincy Adams, son of the second president, and war-hero Andrew Jackson ran against each other. Jackson won, but the majority was not a plurality (66% or 2-to-1) so it once again had to be decided in the house. Adams did some clever campaigning among friends in congress, and, in spite of losing both the popular and electoral votes, became the sixth president. Four years later Jackson beat him down hard.

Well done.

We can bitch and whine all we like about the various candidates. Threatening violence against an elected official (or one running for election) is unacceptable.

I don't even think it is funny to joke about it.

Pretty much, yeah. Sometimes it makes the news, sometimes it doesn't, but it's always there.

Do you not remember the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan was either a senile, doddering old fool who couldn't stay awake, or an evil warmonger who was sure to end all life on Earth by starting a nuclear war?