The unsavory history of American campaign rhetoric
Calumny and political cheap shots are nothing new in 2024. In fact, they are an American tradition dating all the way back to the Founding Fathers.
Preface: In the hours following Saturday’s attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, both sides acted appropriately. President Biden strongly condemned the shooting, calling it “sick” and saying that “there’s no place for this kind of violence in America.” Good. For his part, former President Trump released a statement thanking the Secret Service and law enforcement officials for saving his life and expressing condolences for an innocent bystander at the rally who had been killed. Also good.
But …
Call me cynical, but I’m under no illusion that this “taking the temperature down” admonition will change either campaign’s willingness to say anything to win. On the contrary, I’d wager that within a fortnight partisans and poltroons on both sides will resume blaming the other for the current political climate.
About 90 minutes after Trump was nearly killed in Pennsylvania, Dmitri Mehlhorn, a Democratic strategist in northern Virginia who advises Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman, emailed journalists, suggesting the shooting might have been “staged.” This way, Mehlhorn said, “Trump could get the photos and benefit from the backlash.” He even alluded to it being a Russian-aided plot!
Melhorn’s suggestion was amplified by tens of thousands of wackadoodles on social media and continues to spread at this very moment. Meanwhile, extremist loons from the other side were concocting theories of “setup” by the Deep State, or some other dark sinister force, before the blood dried in bleachers in Butler, Pennsylvania.
This kind of rhetorical sewage is nothing new. It’s an American tradition, and has been around since our birth as a nation; it just spreads a lot faster today. The nastiness most often is propagated by the politicians themselves and curated by the “Who, us?” commentariat in legacy media, cable news and social media. To my mind, these are not just “persons of interest.” They are the real perps.
But I digress.
Below is a brief history of unseemly political campaign rhetoric dating back to the Founding Fathers. It was originally written and published nearly two years ago.
It is even more relevant today.
(Originally published September 14, 2022)
It is almost election time. The air is choked with partisan punditry, pandering and posturing. Firey campaign rhetoric, ad hominems and sandbox droppings are as American as apple pie .... just not as palatable. And much more dangerous. We might just zip past the metaphor of “shooting the messenger” and actually do it.
But first, a little background. American politics has always been a mud pit. Just as the Founding Fathers brought forth a new nation, conceived in liberty, they also were sniping at each other like the Lannisters and Starks.
In 1804, standing Vice President Aaron Burr took umbrage at criticism from fellow Federalist and banking rival Alexander Hamilton. It seems Burr, a Revolutionary War hero, blamed Hamilton for losing his bid to become governor of New York. 1
They decided to settle things like gentlemen … on July 11, 1804, they pointed flintlock English dueling pistols at each other from 20 paces and fired. Funny how that turned out. Burr won the duel, placing a deadly lead ball into Hamilton’s abdomen. But it was Hamilton who ended up on the $10 bill.
Today’s campaigns are not lethal (from my original article, but that’s kinda changed, hasn’t it?), but still are as nasty as a litter box. Research shows that most Americans have a distaste for negative spots. The problem is, they work. Campaign consultants work overtime to identify what issue or political flaw will sting the hardest. 2
Americans are, after all, visceral voters.
The Appeal Ads: “Fighting for you”
Still present, however, are appeal ads, where candidates are cast in a favorable light and explain why they’re fighting for you. (Reminder: What were Trump’s first words after part of his ear was blown off seconds earlier?)
Unfortunately, they’re fomenting an atmosphere eerily close to Burr and Hamilton.
Most of these ads are visually driven with templated themes: candidates are framed as the family-friendly, working-class hero with a “roll-up-your-sleeves” persona. (Remember Beto O’Rourke?)
Typically they have shopworn optics. The candidate walks and talks with the common folk, explaining, gesturing, listening intently, and nodding his/her head in affirmation. These ads are crafted to appeal to a diverse electorate. So they include people of all ages, colors and ethnicities. All are focused on and attentive to the candidate.
And there’s more head nodding. An American flag usually floats nearby.
Notice how every candidate today is “fighting for you?” Especially if you are in the ‘working class.' “Fighting,” of course, is usually metaphoric.3 But it is reassuring to know your candidate is dukes-up in heading for D.C. or statehouses across the country.
Attack Ads
We’re all familiar with them … the ominous voice-overs assailing opponents with messages that touch the right bias buttons.
If the candidate is Republican, we are warned the Democrat opponent a) caused inflation, b) wants to take away your freedoms, c) spends recklessly, d) indoctrinates your children at public schools, or e) is soft on crime. The ad may reference socialism and hating America. Some have a strong MAGA vibe, depending on how closely allied the candidate is to the former president.
If the candidate is a Democrat, the message is clear. “Save Democracy!” is the rallying cry for 2022 (and now 2024). The Republican opponent either a) is an authoritarian, b) hates women, the rainbow coalition and minorities, c) wants to eviscerate your voting rights, and d) doesn’t care about the poor and marginalized. There are open accusations of “fascism” and “Hitler.”
Whatever the political bent, attack ads have a few things in common.
They are hewn to the fleeting national attention span and current news cycle
They are not burdened by fact or truth.
Intellectually, they appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Are openly supported by partisan media.
American Tradition: A History of Slinging Poop
Tom Hollihan/USC Annenberg Media and Politics Professor:
“Politics has always been a blood sport in the United States. The odds of having a campaign and not having a lot of personal invectives thrown about were really pretty rare.”
Pre-technology, campaigning was done through pamphlets, stump speeches, cartoons and newspaper editorials. Here’s a quick walk through the colorful past of presidential campaigns …
John Adams vs. Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton, who later got the short end of the duel with Burr, was born out of wedlock. A strong-minded and quarrelsome man, Hamilton had many political opponents. Many made sure to remind the world of the circumstances of his birth. Foremost among them was presidential candidate John Adams, who despised Hamilton.
Adams had a special expression for Hamilton: A "bastard brat of a Scotch peddler.”
Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson
Adams, the second president, was a Boston lawyer known as a principled but prickly man. Perhaps he had a Napoleon complex.4
Adams and his contemporary, Thomas Jefferson, the gentleman farmer from Virginia and author of the Declaration of Independence, were opponents in the 1796 presidential campaign. They had been friends for almost three decades. This contest, however, found the fathers holding knives to each other’s throats.
They sparred mostly through pamphleteering. Jefferson's supporters repeatedly called Adams a monarchist -- absolutely the worst thing you could say about someone back then, especially since it wasn't true.
Adams supporters called Jefferson an atheist -- also not true. One of the more vitriolic charges was leveled at Adams after Jefferson allegedly hired journalist James Thomson Callender to write unpleasant things about the Boston lawyer. Callender set to his task with gusto, calling Adams “a hideous hermaphroditical character” who had “neither the force and firmness of a man, not the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
Andrew Jackson: War Hero, “Murderer” and bastard child
Andrew Jackson, known as “Old Hickory,” was America’s 7th president (1829-1837). He was also called many other less flattering things, including "murderer" and “terrorist.” Jackson’s mother was accused of being a "prostitute” (see below) and his wife an "adulteress.”
Jackson was a war hero5, and was never one to back down from a scrap.
According to historians, Jackson participated in more than 100 duels but killed only one man, Charles Dickinson, in 1806.6 Jackson was badly wounded in that duel. He also was the first president who faced an assassination attempt and now appears on our $20 bill.
The Cincinnati Gazette published an article during the 1828 presidential campaign that alleged some nasty things about the future 7th president’s mother:
"General Jackson’s mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"
Pierce the Pimp
Pimp is not a new word; it has been used in English since at least the 15th century to refer to a person who facilitates liaisons with a prostitute. It has never been used in polite society.
So there was a certain degree of astonishment when, in 1855, Kenneth Rayner (a former Congressman from North Carolina) gave a speech in which he referred to President Franklin Pierce as one such creature:
“The minions of power are watching you, to be turned out by the Pimp of the White House if you refuse to sustain him. A man sunk so low we can hardly hate. We have nothing but disgust, pity, and contempt.” —The Weekly Standard [Raleigh, NC], July 4 1855
U.S. Grant: War Hero … and “drunken trouser-maker?”
The Detroit Free Press, late in 1868, headlined a story about Civil War hero and presidential candidate Ulysses S. Grant, whom it accused of "leading radicals."
Standard fare today. But the volleys fired by the Free Press’s editors included “Grant is a man of vile habits and of no ideas” … “a twaddler and trimmer” … “The nation owes it to its self-respect to tolerate imbecility in politics no longer” … “Grant is as brainless as his saddle.”
That Grant was fond of imbibing is accepted as a historical fact. But some carried it to an extreme. The Cincinnati Enquirer, in 1866, gave an account of a citizen at a meeting who alleged that Grant was nothing more than “a drunken trouser-maker.”
Drunken has survived to this day as a pejorative; trouser-maker, regrettably, has not.
Grover Cleveland: A “moral leper”
The only president to serve two non-consecutive terms (1884-88, 1892-1896), Cleveland survived a series of vicious attacks. In the 1884 campaign, Republicans skewered Cleveland, a Democrat, calling him a "lecherous beast" and a "moral leper" because he had once fathered a bastard child.
That resulted in the infamous GOP chant "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" to which Cleveland supporters responded, "Gone to the White House, ha ha ha!"
The Daisy Commercial
In 1964, nasty rhetoric took on a fever pitch with the infamous "Daisy commercial." The Lyndon Johnson campaign suggested that GOP candidate Barry Goldwater could not be trusted with nuclear football.
Hollihan: “The Daisy Commercial was probably the most savagely negative ad up until that time because it essentially made the argument that if you don't vote to re-elect President Johnson and you vote for Goldwater, you're essentially voting for nuclear war.”
2022: Election Shenanigans
(Note: Dated as of 2022 but still applies today)
The 2022 Primaries and Midterms have been ugly on steroids.
Why? One reason: Super PAC money. Never before has so much money from rich donors been available to target everything from congressional races to abortion legislation. Super PACs have, in effect, become shadow political parties.
Often the same consultants who are advising a campaign are also consulting with a Super PAC, and sometimes they're all done out of the same office suite.
This political shell game is played out by both parties.
It has been reported that the GOP has been “lawyering up” in many states in anticipation of closely contested elections. If the GOP candidate loses, it is expected the results will be immediately challenged as fraudulent. Republicans are kinda well-known for this Machiavellian tactic and appear to be preparing to do it again in 2024.
Not to be outdone, the Democratic National Committee engaged in a highly questionable strategy in the primaries. The Washington Post reported Democrats spent “tens of millions of dollars” across nine states amplifying far-right Republican candidates who questioned or denied the validity of the 2020 election. In other words, they supported Republican candidates they knew would lose to sap some of the support for viable candidates.
The DNC spent $34.5 million in Illinois alone in using this dodgy tactic.
All the while claiming to help “Save Democracy.”
##
Jim Geschke was inducted into the Marquis Who’s Who Registry in 2021.
Burr ran for the governorship of New York when it became apparent that President Thomas Jefferson would drop him from the ticket.
Both major political parties meticulously use polls, political trends, focus groups and databases to craft their messages to highly parsed demographics. Campaign advertising has true political “science” that encompasses the highest technologies to the lowest analog messaging (i.e. snail mail).
Congressional representatives have engaged in physical combat. The most notable came during a legislative session in 1856. South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks entered the chamber and beat Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner over the head with his cane over a debate about slavery.
History often depicts Napoleon Bonaparte, the reigning Emporer of France at the turn of the century, as a short man. History isn’t fair to either man. Like Adams, Bonaparte stood 5-foot-7, average or even above average for men in the 19th century.
Jackson was the American general in the famous Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812
Dueling in the 19th century was more a test of honor than marksmanship. Often opponents would fire into the air, or purposely miss, a practice known as “deloping.” They also selected “seconds,” people to accompany them to the duels to certify that it was conducted legitimately and to make sure it was reported accurately — but seconds also found themselves acting as peacemakers as a last-ditch effort.