Speaking of Mud-Slinging
The malaise that has characterized the Essay Contest Presidential Election recalls in me bad memories of the contentious and divisive 2004 election. I had a preference for one of the candidates over the other (Mrs. Supreme Aglet and I proudly cast our ballots fo
Of course, there are those who--at election time, or whenever they otherwise have run out of people to blame for their own shortcomings--will refer to one or the other as being "worse than [insert really bad person's name], whose leadership will certainly, undoubtedly, assuredly, without question, mean nothing less than the literal destruction of the United States of America".
Inevitably, the politician in question is either revered or forgotten years after s/he supposedly brought on all that destruction and horrific consequence.
Don't get me wrong; there is no shortage of politicians, past or present, who deserve to be assailed. But realistically, the worst you could say about the majority of candidates who have run for President of the United States (excluding the fringe kooks who purchase live cockroach traps) is that they're political opportunists. Imagine that. A politician being political.
As contentious as the 2004 election was, an audio book I've been enjoying while commuting in my fabulous sports sedan reminds me of several historical references I've picked up over the years in which a presidential election descended into deep division and brought out the freaks, in angry mob form. Many of these elections--and I'm not just talking about Civil War era elections where Americans were unusually urinated at each other--made 2004 look like a love fest.
To wit, in trashing our Presidents and other politicians, people often like to invoke the founding fathers in the context of current issues. "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson must surely be turning over in their graves because of those terrible things that [insert politician's name] is doing".
Bull. For one thing, it's problematic to imply that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would agree on anything. Washington was a Federalist, Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican (the forerunner to the Democratic party). Or, to put it loosely in modern terms, Washington was politically more akin to a big-government elitist while Jefferson was more akin to a small-government populist. The analogy isn't exactly fitting (Washington was hardly an elitist in the negative sense of that term), but it gives you an idea of how far apart they were in the same sense that Howard Dean and Rush Limbaugh aren't quite soul mates.
"He is a liar and a dictator" may sound like the tripe we heard about George W. Bush last year, but this was said of George Washington (yes, that George Washington) and printed in newspapers bankrolled by Thomas Jefferson.
Or how about, "he fools around with women who work for him"? Democrats should embrace this accusation when hurled at Bill Clinton, as this clearly demonstrates something that President Clinton and President Jefferson had in common, (yes, that President Jefferson).
Heck, Presidents who in their day were impugned as war-mongering buffoons (sound familiar?) usually end up in the tiny ranks of Unofficial President All-Stars. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind as one who was regarded by many of his contemporaries as an uncultured backwoodsman, a "gorilla" and a "baboon", (yes, that Abraham Lincoln).
John Adams and FDR also fall into the category of accused war-mongering incompetents. Of course, we now take it for granted that Roosevelt's willingness to take on Germany after being attacked by Japan led to the end of Nazism before it became a global threat. John Adams never even went to war.
I'm old enough to remember how the world literally wasn't going to survive the 1980's because of the war-mongering buffoon who occupied the White House during that stretch. Doomsday scenarios resulting from superpower arrogance were favorite Hollywood themes. The six o-clock news was rife with images of protests in Europe, complete with flag-burning and all kinds of expressions which indicated that maybe, just maybe, they don't like us anymore.
Luckily, I escaped the nuclear bombs. But I lost all those really tight European friends.
Now, this guy Reagan--who I remember vividly as having been accused of being Hitler reincarnate--is today oft-quoted by politicians who wish to advance their career, even Democratic politicians (Reagan was a Republican). JFK, a Democrat and quasi-Bill Clinton of his day, is often a favorite quote medium for Republican politicians whenever s/he wants to score political points, (as I just did by referring to both genders).
Oh my, look at the time. I have to hurry to work and get a report done before certain destruction befalls our nation, and the world of the Supreme Aglet is once again in perfect balance.
[Microsoft ODBC - call failed. Please contact the system administrator. @101#]owever, I didn't think either candidate was half bad, and certainly not all that different from each other in the scheme of things. Actually, I really liked the guy I didn't vote for; I just liked him second-best, and the meanies at the poll station only gave me one ballot card.Of course, there are those who--at election time, or whenever they otherwise have run out of people to blame for their own shortcomings--will refer to one or the other as being "worse than [insert really bad person's name], whose leadership will certainly, undoubtedly, assuredly, without question, mean nothing less than the literal destruction of the United States of America".
Inevitably, the politician in question is either revered or forgotten years after s/he supposedly brought on all that destruction and horrific consequence.
Don't get me wrong; there is no shortage of politicians, past or present, who deserve to be assailed. But realistically, the worst you could say about the majority of candidates who have run for President of the United States (excluding the fringe kooks who purchase live cockroach traps) is that they're political opportunists. Imagine that. A politician being political.
As contentious as the 2004 election was, an audio book I've been enjoying while commuting in my fabulous sports sedan reminds me of several historical references I've picked up over the years in which a presidential election descended into deep division and brought out the freaks, in angry mob form. Many of these elections--and I'm not just talking about Civil War era elections where Americans were unusually urinated at each other--made 2004 look like a love fest.
To wit, in trashing our Presidents and other politicians, people often like to invoke the founding fathers in the context of current issues. "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson must surely be turning over in their graves because of those terrible things that [insert politician's name] is doing".
Bull. For one thing, it's problematic to imply that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would agree on anything. Washington was a Federalist, Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican (the forerunner to the Democratic party). Or, to put it loosely in modern terms, Washington was politically more akin to a big-government elitist while Jefferson was more akin to a small-government populist. The analogy isn't exactly fitting (Washington was hardly an elitist in the negative sense of that term), but it gives you an idea of how far apart they were in the same sense that Howard Dean and Rush Limbaugh aren't quite soul mates.
"He is a liar and a dictator" may sound like the tripe we heard about George W. Bush last year, but this was said of George Washington (yes, that George Washington) and printed in newspapers bankrolled by Thomas Jefferson.
Or how about, "he fools around with women who work for him"? Democrats should embrace this accusation when hurled at Bill Clinton, as this clearly demonstrates something that President Clinton and President Jefferson had in common, (yes, that President Jefferson).
Heck, Presidents who in their day were impugned as war-mongering buffoons (sound familiar?) usually end up in the tiny ranks of Unofficial President All-Stars. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind as one who was regarded by many of his contemporaries as an uncultured backwoodsman, a "gorilla" and a "baboon", (yes, that Abraham Lincoln).
John Adams and FDR also fall into the category of accused war-mongering incompetents. Of course, we now take it for granted that Roosevelt's willingness to take on Germany after being attacked by Japan led to the end of Nazism before it became a global threat. John Adams never even went to war.
I'm old enough to remember how the world literally wasn't going to survive the 1980's because of the war-mongering buffoon who occupied the White House during that stretch. Doomsday scenarios resulting from superpower arrogance were favorite Hollywood themes. The six o-clock news was rife with images of protests in Europe, complete with flag-burning and all kinds of expressions which indicated that maybe, just maybe, they don't like us anymore.
Luckily, I escaped the nuclear bombs. But I lost all those really tight European friends.
Now, this guy Reagan--who I remember vividly as having been accused of being Hitler reincarnate--is today oft-quoted by politicians who wish to advance their career, even Democratic politicians (Reagan was a Republican). JFK, a Democrat and quasi-Bill Clinton of his day, is often a favorite quote medium for Republican politicians whenever s/he wants to score political points, (as I just did by referring to both genders).
Oh my, look at the time. I have to hurry to work and get a report done before certain destruction befalls our nation, and the world of the Supreme Aglet is once again in perfect balance.
posted by The Supreme Aglet at 8:23 AM
<< Home