X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:06:25 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Observations on "mudslinging" ...

Date: 05 Sep 1992 19:19:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject: RE: Rights, and other comments ...

(Two preceding paragraphs deleted).

>Well, I know that as for "mudslinging," Val can probably remember
>campaigns with more mud slung than even the 1988 campaign which was
>supposed to be so dirty. I sort of think that there used to be a
>convention against humungous debts that, for all the pork-
>barrel/constituent service of the old days, they never really
>crossed. I guess I don't see that we've gotten any worse, not
>counting the fact that my children (assuming I have any) will be
>paying for the 1980s and 90s.

Well, in my lifetime, both the 1960 and 1964 campaigns were bitter
and vicious, and though I was only one at the time, the 1948 election
where Democrats split into three "factions, all of which ran
candidates for President, may have been one of the most vicious in
the period after World War II.

But, in just this century, the 1912 election was not polite, and much
harsh was said about Teddy Roosevelt in that campaign. All the FDR
campaigns produced dreadful slurs being slung about, most unfounded.
Harding reportedly had a mistress, which Cleveland in the 1880's also
was bedevilled with, and illegitimate issue, spread far and wide in
the papers of the day. Andrew Johnson was described as an idiot
drunkard, Ulysses S. Grant was potrayed in 1868 as a boozer, Andrew
Jackson's campaigns were besmirched with the vile attacks on his wife
for probably having married Jackson while technically still married
to another man. Aaron Burr and Tom Jefferson were both part and
parcel of scurrilous attacks on each other in the campaign of 1800.
Lincoln in 1860 was portrayed in the papers as a baboon.

I would suggest that most campaigns have an amount of dirt in them,
it's the apparent nature of the human animal to root out the dangers
they perceieve in their leaders, and trumpet them throughout the
land. If you can stand your candidate after that level of exposure,
that person is a survivor, and you vote for them. Like others, I
wish that more of the folks I know who are competent would try their
hand at leadership.

I recall during the term limit's discussion that this was one of my
philosophical arguments about the political structure of this
country. Up to perhaps Eisenhower's time, political office could be
a sinecure, but often gifted citizens rose within the process, served
a few terms, and made way for others. The citizen-politician, serving
for a period of limited terms, seems more desirable than the
careerists, who would appear in a muddle of security and indecision.

I believe change has to occur from the bottom. Folks have to come
together on what they believe the philosophy and positions of a third
or fourth party ought to hold, and create that movement. That, too,
has occurred here before - the Know Nothings, the Populists, the
Progressives, the American Party of George Wallace. I suggest that
three or four "parties" might serve better than the current two.
Ideology needs better representation. But, term limits, public
financing (you are allowed to check off, and designate, up to $20 on
your tax return to the completely publicly financed election process
at the Federal level), changes in terms are necessary reforms, it
seems to me. What's gathered by a certain cut-off date
every four years is what gets spent - no more, no less.

But, I'd try to ram through Congress and the states a change in the
term of Congress to four years, limit on terms to six, or four in the
Senate, or any combination up to 24 years, excluding the Presidency.
(I'd love to see a one term at a time of six year's Presidency,
wherein a person could run again only if they sat out a term, and
they got 10% of the signatures of voters in the last election to
agree to put them back on a ballot again). I'd adopt the English
system of limiting time of election and the amount of TV time in
elections. Unlike the GOP, I do not agree that Congress and the
Presidency need be controlled by the same party, historically this
has rarely occurred. It allows for not only "gridlock," (which may be
politically healthy on occasion), but for a "body of opposition" to a
headstrong executive, which has been marked by four strong Republican
wielders of executive power - Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush (with both
Ford and Bush heavy users of the Presidential veto) - and one strong
Democrat (Johnson), one weak Democrat (Carter), and one symbolic
Democrat (Kennedy) since 1960. The counter-weight of Congress versus
President is more useful than harmful, it would seem.

(Sentence deleted)

>Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet

>We have to do more than just elect a new president if we truly want
>to change this country. --Vice President Dan Quayle

This is probably true. What is hard for me to accept is that probably
none of the reforms I outlined will occur, and this at a time when
the citizenry COULD be re-engaged into the process by creating a
fairer, more participatory process that excited them into believing
that they mattered to the health of the political entity known as the
United States. I'd want to see the most participate, not the least,
as has been the trend since at least 1972. A last thought - D.C.
ought to be a state, maybe Puerto Rico, American Samoa too. I often
wonder if California broke into North California and South California
if the two constituencies might be better served.

(Disclaimer removed)

In closing, I expect to be lambasted heavily for some of this. But, I
suggest to all of you, a dialogue on what might happen MIGHT produce
results one day, so it seemed worth the effort to me to spark some
conversation on some of these issues.

VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU