Skip to main content

A history lesson for some of our friends...

... who seem to believe that no-holds barred political campaigning was invented during the reign of Bushco:

There was, of course, the infamous Coffin Handbill used by thoughtful proto-progressive John Quincy Adams against Andew Jackson in 1828:



Designed by Charles Hammond, who was not officially part of the Adams re-election campaign (call it plausible deniability), it was never disowned by the incumbent, and was in fact featured at his rallies, along with the oft-repeated charge that Andrew Jackson's wife was a mulatto prostitute.

Some of our readers might be old enough (and, I guess, lucky enough, given that it ran only once) to remember that infamous Daisy ad that LBJ ran against Barry Goldwater, intimating that the GOP candidate had a hankering to start a thermonuclear war:



Naturally, some bruising political ads are intramural rather than inter-party:



Of course there's also this little number:



I realize that some of our readers (hello, A1) would be quite all right with playing the moral equivalence game that puts Dubya on the same scale with the man who not only committed genocide, but started a war that killed over 125 million people in six years....

... and that partly explains this pseudo-historical treatment by a wannabe scholar who is actually nothing more than a political propagandist:



In the grand scheme of things, Wanda Sykes, David Feherty, Rush Limbaugh, and even Al Frankenare symptoms rather than causes.

Symptoms of what? A healthy if often unlovely democracy that persists in spite of supposedly high-minded attempts to censor it.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve,
It greives me to see you write such a word, you more than most, knowing full well that we do not live in a democracy, you who fight so well for the minority. You and I disagree on many things, and you make me question my libertarian beleiefs, in that I may not be libertarian enough. Discourse is a great institution in our society, but I for one loath the thought of a true democracy, as did those who drafted that document that replaced the Articles.

Marsh Fox
Marsh,
Remember this, please: when you write literally thousands of words per day (as I do here and in my job), it often strains reality to put that much stress on any one--I could have said "democratic process"--but I didn't...

Oh well
G Rex said…
Ma, ma, where's my pa?
Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!
Delaware Watch said…
"I realize that some of our readers (hello, A1) would be quite all right with playing the moral equivalence game that puts Dubya on the same scale with the man who not only committed genocide, but started a war that killed over 125 million people in six years...."

Moral equivalence has a numerical value? Since when?
Moral equivalence has a numerical value? Since when?Moral equivalence, I think, definitely does have a scale value. Plotting the intentional destruction of entire races of people is different from starting a limited war.

Is there an exact number (Bush would have equaled Hitler if Hitler had only killed 300,000 Jews?)? Absolutely not. But all it tells me if someone can equate Bush with Hitler or the GOP with the Nazis is that they do not have a very firm grasp on the history of the world between 1933-1945.
Anonymous said…
Steve,
I stand corrected, you are quite right, however, it also occured to me that quite a few of your fellow bloggers on the left and right would do well to read history in raw form. I seem to remember that Lincoln's campaigns were fairly ugly too, and I would have to agree that the ugliness that persued Jackson sent his poor wife to the grave. Mass media just makes this whole damn sham of a representative government seem meaner uglier these days. Oh, those guys on the left, guess they don't have a problem with what Sherman did huh? Oh, wait, the victors write the history don't they?
Marsh Fox

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...