Elections: Slander, Hijinks... & Perspective

Beldar, a notorious solicitor and participant in unpublicized hortatory activities, has a tongue-in-cheek post that's worth a read in these hyper-partisan times. An excerpt:

"What's more, his daughter Alex is a self-admitted practicing thespian, and has even accepted money for public performances of such acts! Indeed, you can purchase videos of her public exhibitions of thespianism on certain internet websites, which modesty forbids me to link."

There's a serious subtext to this, and it sits in an historical reminder of elections and political games that my American friends might benefit from. So set a spell and let me tell you a funny story about George Smathers and the 1950 Florida Democratic Primary for the Senate, a story that Beldar links to at the end of his spoof post. Let's get a good look at some real political hijinks... and maybe get a bit of perspective on the current election, too:

Nohlgren's friendly media retrospective on George Smathers has some useful background to that era, especially re: the beginnings of the Cold War as an election issue. But his media puff-piece omits some of the best parts, as well as some racial aspects that deserve exposure to the light of day.

So let's talk about that 1950 primary campaign's tactics, as described by Chris Matthews in his fine book (fine for people of any political persuasion, I might add) Hardball. Aside from the usual registration tactics etc. common to that era...

"Absurd but sinister-sounding charges - "Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert!" Pepper has a sister who was once a thespian!" "Pepper practiced celibacy before his marriage!" - were pumped into the cracker back-country.

Which is pretty damn funny, actually. Smathers denies these accounts, but Matthews got the story from Pepper. Personally, I'm inclined to believe Pepper. Especially given Matthews' note on what happened next:

"...In the south at the time, there existed an ultimate weapon - and it was only a question of when and how it would be armed and used.

One night in Leesburg, after the Senator had completed a speech and was stepping down from an outdoor platform... he was approached by a man who reached out to clasp his hand. The picture filled a half page in the next day's Orlando Sentinel, for the man was black. In segregationist Florida, the picture of a major white politician glad-handing for black support was a political death warrant. "That hurt," Pepper recalls. Only later would affadavits confirm that the man, a janitor at a local theater, had been paid to stand there, grab the Senator's hand when he came down, and "hold it until the light flashes."

By the way, the guy Smathers did this to? The same guy whose Senate campaign Samthers managed in 1938. The same guy who helped him become Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District afterward. The same guy who helped him get a deferment from the Marines in 1945, with WW2 raging and talk in the air about invading Japan, by getting Smathers a position as an assistant to Attorney General Tom Clark (Smathers reportedly begged for 3 weeks to get that one). Same guy who Pepper helped in 1946, when Smathers successfully ran for a seat in Congress.

Remember, this was not even a general election - though winning the primary meant winning that election. This was an intra-party fight. Welcome to politics in the real world.

Unlike Matthews, I think Smathers was right to publicly lambaste Pepper's pro-Soviet politics. He certainly wasn't right to do any of the things I've cited above, though it didn't seem to hurt his subsequent career any. He went on to become a powerful Democratic Senator, won every election he was ever ran in, then made a bundle as a lobbyist. (And politicians wonder why they're mistrusted as a class?)

Which brings me to perspective time.

First, it's important to set the record straight on Smathers - who was still a disloyal, backstabbing racial demagogue and cheat, regardless of whether he was right on any given issue. His characterization as some kind of civil rights hero in the 2003 Nohlgren puff-piece was simply nauseating. I trust that's fixed now.

Second, there's Smathers' success and the nature of politics as actually practiced.

I've done a round-up of some of the funny goings-on this election, and UPI's Peter Roff was reporting on looming problems back in 2002. There are some serious issues here. But as Debbye of An American in T.O. points out, Smathers is hardly alone when you look at American history and yet the Republic survived. It's worth standing up to, yes - but it isn't Armageddon, or a slide toward Hitler's Germany, or anything like that.

Armed Liberal can tell some personal stories about what electoral politics is really like, and so can I. Smathers is a fairly extreme example, but frankly it's a rare election of any sort that doesn't have some chicanery and chiseling in it. Churchill knew that, and it probably helped prompt his famous quip that democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the otherts.

The reason it's better is simple: democracy tends to self-correct. If its correction mechanisms (a media that will report abuses fairly, citizen outrage and consequences, prosecution when warranted) work, electoral systems will get better. If they don't work or don't exist, however, things will deteriorate and we'll all have a big problem to deal with sooner or later.

If you're a citizen of your democracy, you're part of that correction mechanism. To function well in that role and discharge your duties well, you need only 3 things:

1. A set of real standards for political behaviour.
2. That will influence your vote.
3. A bit of perspective on how the system works in practice, so you understand what's "noise" and what's serous enough to deserve the attention and effort of a public policy fix, public pressure, or even a change in your vote.

Personally, I buy Frank Herbert's dictum of "it is not that power corrupts, but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." And those searching for a meaning they lack elsewhere. And various other less noble reasons. They'll be part of the process, too, right beside those who are moved to participate by better impulses - and so we have to design systems that expect them.

This principle becomes even more relevant in hyper-partisan times, where the perceived stakes and hence tempatations are higher.

At a macro policy level, for instance, the authentication requirements for voting are likely to tighten over time given current issues re: "phantom voter" fraud and lax controls. We can also expect close scrutiny of any authentication systems that are used, in order to avoid new kinds of fraud. It will be rancorous, tedious, and sometimes invective-laced. It will be partisan. It will look (and often feel) like a divisive policy and implementation quagmire. Despite that outward appearance, however, referring back to the underlying principle of expecting the corruptible tells us that this process will probably constitute progress toward a system with the least total disenfranchisement (adding 5,000 phony votes disenfranchises 5,000 of your opponents supporters, after all, who just had their votes fraudulently cancelled out).

How to stay sane during this kind of process, and avoid exploding head syndrome?

Start by remembering that the comparison here isn't perfection, but a situation limited by human nature, history and reality on the ground. We need to keep that in mind, and act firmly without losing it or adding to partisan rancor. And sometimes, we need to take deep breaths and just resolve to do better next time, realizing that effective legislative change is slow and usually takes a couple of go-arounds to get right.

At an individual level, meanwhile, we should always count on the fact that some folks will behave down to expectations in every campaign. No-one has a monopoly on idiots and dysfunctionals, and politics attracts more than its fair share of both. The fact that your political opponents have some of these folks on board doesn't make them all evil - it just means that idiots exist, and stuff happens.

The line is drawn around a climate of incitement, however. Or organized violence, intimidation, vandalism, etc. Or a marked preponderance of acts targeting one side. Or any acts involving guns. It's a different kettle of fish if we're seeing any of that, and a serious political issue.

Should the macro and individual level perspective described above blunt outrage at lesser abuses? No. Abuses of any sort are still wrong - and the stakes are indeed higher in America for 2004 and beyond. We need to stand firm, and publicize wrongdoing, and ensure there are consequences - without making it into some armageddon issue unless it crosses lines that place it well beyond what I'd call "normal idiocy."

for my American friends...

I think of the divisions in the American Republic, and the near certainty that whomever wins in 2004 will lack legitimacy in the eyes of about 1/3 of the country. Glenn Reynolds has ponted out the religious underpinnings on both sides of American politics; now add a combination of boomer narcissism, a media that doesn't reflect American society and is increasingly distrusted as a result, looming generational conflicts over issues like the Social Security ponzi scheme, and a genuine existential threat from global mega-terrorism to stoke the fires. That, plus advanced polling methods and weaknesses in America's electoral system, will all combine to make the situation worse rather than better in the years ahead.

Which is precisely why that balancing helping of perspective is so important. Now, more than ever.

Think this is the dirtiest election ever in America? Think again. You've had much worse, and you probably have worse to come. In your darker moments, remember that America has survived worse, and remember too how far it has come. Remember some of that 'worse' specifically, and laugh a little at the funny parts. It helps.

Then keep pushing for intelligent change.