Getting Sick of Both Parties

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Politics today is not more party-oriented than it used to be, it is more personal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is patently false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to argue with a cogent, well-documented rebuttal like that. You must be on your high school debate team.

[fluxrad]

No. But i don't feel the need to provide evidence for the sky being blue either.

Google for some of the campaign propaganda from the early 1800's and you'll see what I'm talking about (particularly the Jefferson v. Adams.) Also, as I recall the Jackson election was particularly nasty as well as some of the Harding and Coolidge stuff. Though I may be wrong about the last two. My memory of post 1900 elections gets a bit fuzzy.

Coming from a user named benfranklin I'd expect you to know more about early American politics.

[Walter Pullis]

I think that the OP misstates the shift in emphasis. Politics today is not more party-oriented than it used to be, it is more personal. As this post indicates, Truman, Ike, etc., often directed their attacks at the other party rather than discussing issues. What they didn't do is attack one another personally.

Politics has grown increasingly personal and negative. Most people don't even think about issues anymore (assuming they ever did). They just have a knee-jerk reaction against any proposal made by that idiot _________ (fill in the blank).

Perhaps my memory grows dim with age, but I cannot remember anything remotely approaching the degree of personal hated shown by the opposition toward Clinton and George II. Or maybe it is just more public and vocal in a age of increased communication and lessened civility.

The confirmation hearings for John Roberts are a prime example of this. This guy is bullet-proof, and the Dem Senators are really having fits because they can't find anything of substance wrong with him. The only thing wrong with Roberts is that he was nominated by that idiot Bush. And I'd bet a million bucks that if John Roberts had been nominated by Clinton, the GOP members would be going through exactly the same routine.

I can't wait to see which 2 idiots run in 2008. Politics is a better spectator sport than the NFL and pro wrestling rolled into one.




I was the original poster to this thread and agree entirely with this assessment.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Google for some of the campaign propaganda from the early 1800's and you'll see what I'm talking about (particularly the Jefferson v. Adams.) Also, as I recall the Jackson election was particularly nasty as well as some of the Harding and Coolidge stuff. Though I may be wrong about the last two. My memory of post 1900 elections gets a bit fuzzy.



[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty hard to know what you are talking about when you simply state that something is "patently false" with zero explanation or elaboration.

The OP addressed a shift in political tactics since WWII. That's what I, and as far as I could tell, other posters, were discussing.

I suppose the fact that politicians no longer fight duels is evidence of a lessening of personal vitriol, although I think the culture is the worse for that. (It would make much better reality TV than the garbage that is on now.) I stand by my statement that politics has gotten more personal since WWII, as evidenced by GOP attacks on Clinton and current Democrat attempts to show that Bush is retarded and personally responsible for hurricanes, famines, and the common cold.