A Historical Perspective On The Continuing Edwards/Coulter Clash
By 2008Central.net | Related entries in 2008 Election, NewsAppearing on CBS’ “Early Show,” Elizabeth Edwards repeated her call for civility:
…the candidate’s wife said it didn’t used to be all right for people to “call names, to say these hateful kind of things.” Edwards said as a parent, she doesn’t think it should be allowed to happen now.
Ann Coulter and the Edwards’ have repeatedly clashed this election cycle. The initial clash came back in March, when Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot” while speaking at CPAC, however tensions escalated last week when Elizabeth Edwards confronted Ann Coulter on MSNBC’s Hardball in order to respond to comments she had made earlier in the week.
Elizabeth Edwards is right to call for increased civility in politics and to request that all refrain from pointless ad hominem attacks. However, her reasoning is simply wrong; the reason why we should avoid personal attacks has nothing to do with history. Take a look at some of the attacks that took place in past elections…
Election of 1800: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) vs. John Adams (Federalist)
- Federalist papers claimed that electing Thomas Jefferson would lead to the “teaching of murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest.”
Election of 1828: Andrew Jackson (Jacksonian Democrat) vs. John Quincy Adams (National Republican)
- Adams attacked Jackson’s marriage, accusing him of living in sin with his wife Rachel, because Rachel’s divorce from her prior marriage had not been finalized when Andrew Jackson married her. Jackson’s wife was referred to as an “American Jezebel” and was branded as a convicted adulteress. Adams sent out pamphlets that asked, “Ought a convicted adulteress and her paramour husband to be placed in the highest offices of this free and christian land?” Rachel Jackson was also called a “strumpet” and a “whore” in some papers covering the election.
- Jackson was accused of being a murderer among other unpleasant things.
- Adams was accused of providing the Russian Czar with American virgins to serve as his servants while Adams was Minister to Russia.
Election of 1848: Zachary Taylor (Whigs) vs. Lewis Cass (Democrats) vs. John Parker Hale (Free Soil)
- Democrats attacked Taylor for being uneducated, mean and greedy.
- Whigs attacked Cass for being a liar.
Election of 1884: James Blaine (Republicans) vs. Grover Cleveland (Democrats)
- Taking a swipe at the supporters of Cleveland, Blaine’s campaign spokesman said: “We are Republicans, and don’t propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been rum, Romanism, and rebellion.”
- Cleveland was accused of having a child out of wedlock, abandoning that child at an orphanage and then placing the mother of that child into an asylum.
Election of 1920: Warren G. Harding (Republicans) vs. James Cox (Democrats)
- Harding was erronously accused of having African-American ancestry.
Election of 1964: Lydon B. Johnson (Democrats) vs. Barry Goldwater (Republicans)
- Johnson accused Goldwater of having ties to the Ku Klux Klan.
I could carry on and demonstrate how plenty of presidential elections in American history resulted in mudslinging, personal attacks, libel/slander and absurd accusations. As an American, it’s not something that I’m proud of. I wish…
Continued at 2008Central.net…
This entry was posted on Friday, July 6th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 6th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Ann Coulter should stop the ad Hominum attacks. But, it would also be nice if John and Elizabeth would cease their nauseating Argumentum ad Misericordiam reasoning. You might as well call this the Jonabeth Edwards Campaign. Then again, we have been using the term Billery Clinton for a while now.
It’s not fair, poor Rudy has an ex-wife who starred in the Vagina Monologues. Was he just not listening? Was there no “dialogue”?
As Dylan said, “Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right…”
Is this the best that we as a country can do?
July 6th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I have followed politics seriously since 1960. I have seen some outrageous things, but never until GWB et al came on the scene have I witnessed such pure hatred and venom from the so-called ‘conservatives’ as they define themselves today.
I always considered myself as conservative but have little in common with those who define themselves that way today – and would be considered ‘liberal’ by their standards. The neocons of today are what used to be considered the ‘radical right’ of yesteryear. In fact there is very little difference between them and Fascists – even though they take umbrage at the suggestion.
.
July 7th, 2007 at 10:30 am
There is entirely too much hate, invective, and ad hominem attacks in U.S. politics.
There are issues worth debating, no matter which side of the political divide one finds oneself. Unfortunately, these issues are not in the forefront of the political debate.
It’s up to the voters to demand better of their elected politicians, those who are running for election, and the political pundits.
With all my love,
Aunty Em
July 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“Clearly, it has nothing to do with living up to standards of discourse set by previous presidential campaigns..” – 2Central.net
Yup. I had a very similar post using similar examples a few months ago when we had another dust-up in the MSM about incivility in political discourse. Civility in presidential campaigns borders on being an un-American activity.
My tongue-in-cheek conclusion then: