Listen to “A Nasty Election!” on Spreaker.
The election would change the country — depending on perspective — for better or worse.
The right to property was said to be in jeopardy. Adultery, murder, even incest supposedly stood to become standard practice. Bibles would be burned. Sexual scandal loomed. Greater war powers and monarchical dictatorship were said to be at hand. Rumors swirled of foreign governments secretly controlling a presidential candidate. Add accusations of mental instability, charges of godlessness, and warnings that the republic itself was at stake.
This was the election of 1800: John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson, with Jefferson eventually claiming victory. Historians often call it the Revolution of 1800 — a label marking the first peaceful transfer of power between rival political parties in the United States.
There is nothing new under the sun. Politics was a nasty game from the start. Technology has changed, but the tricks of the trade have not.
Adams did not personally speak ill of Jefferson, nor Jefferson of Adams. Why risk being tagged? Their allies and party newspapers handled that work — some so openly partisan it was hard to tell where the party ended and the publication began. Pamphlets were the mailers of the day. And just as candidates now have social media influencers – even on a local level – eager to carry attacks, surrogates took to the stump back then.
Although the candidates often did not engage in the mudslinging directly, neither did they stop it or publicly condemn it. Sound familiar? How many candidates — those who benefit from certain PACs quick to toss half-truths into campaign commercials like candy at a parade — have stepped forward to say enough? Few, if any, in a way visible enough to matter.
And some of the messaging is just as outrageous as was spouted in 1800. One need only open the mailbox to see it or visit social media. Wrong then, wrong now, disappointing we haven’t grown.
As the election approaches, consider the following: Which candidates are being supported by out-of-state PACs? Is the money traceable to a person or is it first laundered by a “non-profit” organization? Why are those groups supporting these candidates? Why are candidates willing to remain quiet? As State Senator Tom Takubo noted on Talkline Thursday, what do these organizations want for their money? What’s the ROI?
Yes, it is work — a lot of work on the backs of voters to follow it all and gain a greater understanding before pulling a lever. But, the republic is a continuing experiment, one that only works if citizens understand their role as indispensable to success. It’s more than voting. Minus a curious and active electorate – one that separates spin from truth – America does not work. The same goes for West Virginia.
Sadly as Hoppy Kercheval points out, it’s clear enough people either don’t understand their role, or are unwilling to undertake it.
And in an era when more money than ever is being pumped into primary legislative races, that is a signal the public’s wisdom — its participative discernment — is needed more than ever.