Trivial Matters Important to U.S. Elections
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, HistoryIn a great column for the Boston Phoenix, Steven Stark comments on some pundits’ growing concerns that what should be an election about Big Issues is devolving into an election about more trivial matters. Stark puts the whole matter in historical context:
[I]t’s rather un-American to have an election that focuses on the “big issues.”
It helps to remember that this is the nation that chose in 1884 between the competing slogans of “Ma, ma, where’s my Pa?” (attacking Grover Cleveland for fathering an illegitimate child) and “Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the state of Maine.” (When Cleveland won, his supporters sang, “Hurray for Maria! Hurray for the kid! I voted for Cleveland and I’m damned glad I did.”)
What was an issue in the campaign of 1860 – one that should have focused on the “big issues” like no other? It was how ugly Abraham Lincoln was, with one paper describing him as “a horrid looking wretch . . . a cross between the nutmeg dealer, the horse swapper, and the night man.”
As to elections that have focused on other trivialities, Paul F. Boller’s Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington to George W. Bush and a number of similar works have recounted how political enemies went after Andrew Jackson’s wife, FDR’s dog, Martin Van Buren’s clothes, and James Fremont’s drinking habits. Thomas Jefferson’s failure to fight in the Revolution was a big issue in 1800, and one Connecticut paper warned that, if he was elected, “murder, robbery and rape, adultery and incest will all be openly taught and practiced.”
Stark goes on to point out:
Why can’t we have a “civilized” discussion of the issues? Part of it is because the voters are smarter than that. They know that politicians will say pretty much anything to get elected, and they also know that no one can foresee the issues a president will have to confront. So, they focus on what some critics might call “small issues” but others might define as the key issue of “character,” since in the end, that’s what really counts.
Isn’t that true? I mean, George Bush promised to be a uniter and he promoted a foreign policy with a significant isolationist bent. How’d that turn out? Maybe we shouldn’t have brushed off as “trivial†the stories about his reckless streak and management failures. Just like it became profoundly clear that Bill Clinton’s philandering was indeed more than just a trivial matter.
So, maybe there is something important to be gleaned from stories about John McCain’s temper or Barack Obama’s perceived elitism. Obviously the big issues are still the most important but, as Stark duly notes, our nation has been using triviality as a part of the election process for almost our entire existence. All-in-all, I’d say we’ve managed to do pretty well for ourselves.
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, History. 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.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
“our nation has been using triviality as a part of the election process for almost our entire existence. All-in-all, I’d say we’ve managed to do pretty well for ourselves”
I disagree. I think this is the crap that keeps us way behind Europe in terms of social & economic progress.
Loved this post!
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
ASC,
Great post – always enjoy the historical perspective. The previous comment brings to mind Englands political option: They can, at any time, bring to the floor a vote of No Confidence and kick the bloke out. How nice!
I especially like your final point about politicians saying one thing to get elected and doing the exact opposite once in office. This is what I both like and dislike about J. McCain. He often says what he really thinks and backs it up with actions, like the immigration bill he sponsored that got him in so much trouble. But he feels so strongly about issues that I don’t trust his ‘meeting them half way’ promise, which is an important characteristic he offers to many moderates.
The dig about the ‘percieved elitism’ trait of Obama’s is perplexing. Where he comes from, what he stands for and why he swears he’s in the race to start with is so contrary to any elitist tag. I just don’t get how that one statement he made – that one word even- will stick with him to his detriment.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
A couple of weeks ago on the Volokh blog there was a short series of posts about voter ignorance and how it impacted political campaigns. (Here’s one of those posts, with links to the others in the series.) One of the main points made was that staying adequately informed to make a sound rational decision would be a full-time job, and thus entirely impractical for most people. Furthermore, most voters are well aware that their own individual vote is highly unlikely to influence the outcome of an election.
With these things in mind, it’s no wonder, and maybe even just as well, that our votes so often turn on trivial matters.