Dobrer wanted to extract from the Berman-Sherman tussle a wider referendum on the declining politeness
of our nation’s polity – an extrapolation too extreme, in my opinion. No –
today’s politics are not nearly as toxic as Mr. Dobrer contends.
Since the two-party system emerged in the United States
following the Washington Administration (1789-1796), a partisan divide has often
wedged into this country’s political discourse. However, what we consider “toxic”
today is nothing compared to the vitriol of campaigns long gone. During the
election of 1800, diverse slanders exchanged between incumbent John Adams and
his Democratic-Republican Vice President, who was running to unseat him.
Charges of atheism, whoremongering, and outright national betrayal tarred the
landscape. Fast forward a generation, and President Andrew Jackson threatened to
duel anyone who slandered his wife or threatened him, once stepping aside at a
political rally to brandish his pistols in case anyone in the audience wanted
to “start something.”
I still remember from my eighth grade US History book how
the political animosity grew so tense in Washington in the mid-1800s, from the
Mexican-American War to the War Between the States, that Congressmen were
bringing knives and guns to their chambers. In one infamous incident,
Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner railed against the Southern slavocracy
with frequent insults and condescending remarks. The senators whom Sumner
maligned, South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, was not present. Instead, his
nephew Preston Brooks beat him unconscious to the floor of US Senate with a
cane. Sumner went on medical leave for three years. Brooks received censure, acclamation, and
reelection from his constituents.
Let us not forget the Party Machines of the Gilded Age –
between the Civil War and World War I – in which the levers of power belonged
to party bosses in urban areas instead of the men or voters who sent them to
Washington. From Communist red-baiting in the McCarthy era to today, different
interests, whether Tea Partiers or Occupiers to people who just want to occupy
the party in play, and their political pandering and thundering have stirred up
a lot of Sturm und Drang, but nothing
like the salacious slanders or malicious attacks of those previous campaigns.
No – today’s national politics are not nearly as toxic as
Mr. Dobrer contends.
But what is going on in the Berman-Sherman race which has
elicited so much negative mail and petty character attacks and legislative
sniping? Dobrer properly contends that “there is not much substantial
difference between Berman and Sherman.” So, how do these candidates
differentiate themselves? How do they persuade voters? Earlier in the campaign,
Berman and Sherman were frequenting townhalls and pledging to look into local
matters with greater scrutiny. Sherman
and Berman now have to reach out to Republican and Independent voters in order
to get ahead. I believe that despite the unfortunate acrimony which has
developed between the two liberal Democrats, the friction of two Congressman
with so much alike has revealed a lot about the minute distinctions within the
Democratic Party, an issue which voters knew nothing about, plus now they have
to strive harder to get their votes for reelection.
So, I differ with Mr. Dobrer
If the voters in the Valley resent excessive negative ads,
they can plead their case to the candidates. Why not set up this contest
between Howard Berman and Brad Sherman with the remaining undecided voters: Whichever
candidate can refrain from bad-mouthing, name-calling, or instigating with his
opponent, he will in turn command the respect of the remaining undecided and
clinch the election in November. Berman and Sherman do not have to have a “love
fest”, but at least they could avoid the “fist-fight”.
No comments:
Post a Comment