Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Todd]

I think the gaffe this is closest to is the "people clinging to their guns and religion" gaffe from 2008, and that still gets mentioned here or there by partisans.

I don't disagree, but how many votes did Obama lose in 2008, how many will he lose this year, and will it have a material impact on the election?  The same question can be asked about Romney's verbal boo-boos. 

The Republicans put up a weak field this year, and Romney was able to outlast them.  Of the alternatives, I think Huntsman would have handled the campaign better, but he's even richer, so that would have helped Barry.  Imagine the gaffes had Perry or Bachmann, or heaven help everyone, Paul got the nod.  Or Gingrich.  (But then, he's in a class of his own.)

2016 is only four years away.

[CaughtintheGaze]

2016 is only four years away.

Forever the optimist.

[Florestan]

It's those damned Founding Father's again! 

Well, let's hear them then...

George Washington:

    Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

    The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.

    Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

John Adams:

The proposition, that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties, is not true; they are the worst conceivable; they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body.

There never was yet a people who must not have somebody or something to represent the dignity of the state, the majesty of the people, call it what you will — a doge, an avoyer, an archon, a president, a consul, a syndic; this becomes at once an object of ambition and dispute, and, in time, of division, faction, sedition, and rebellion.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.

Alexander Hamilton:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulged, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.

The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world to the sole disposal of a magistrate, created and circumstanced, as would be a President of the United States.

[Todd]

Adams' and Hamilton's passages simply reinforce why constitutional government is preferable. 

As to Washington's Farewell Address, well, that's more Hamilton's doing, and it must be placed in the context of the time, when factional political fighting was rife and intense.   A cynic may come away with a different interpretation of what Hamilton and Washington were doing in your selected passages.

(Generally, it is good form to include ellipses when pulling chunks out of an address.)

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, let's hear them then...

Well, they don't specifically address why they would allow stupid and/or ignorant people to vote though. That's all I'M on about. The idea that I went through a year of research and soul-searching to arrive at my final choice, and the nose-picker next to me voted for Michelle Bachmann because, on reflection, she has a nice ass, is all that I can handle at my age.   

[Todd]

Well, they don't specifically address why they would allow stupid and/or ignorant people to vote though.

The franchise was rather restricted in the 18th Century, with white, property-owning men really the only ones who could vote, with some exceptions in some states.  Perhaps the assumption was that these men were all learned and disinterested.  (This site offers a concise summary.)  Expanding the franchise was good, in my estimation.

[Sergeant Rock]

Well, they don't specifically address why they would allow stupid and/or ignorant people to vote though. That's all I'M on about. The idea that I went through a year of research and soul-searching to arrive at my final choice, and the nose-picker next to me voted for Michelle Bachmann because, on reflection, she has a nice ass, is all that I can handle at my age.   

That's why I've never voted. I know only too well how easily I'm swayed by a fine ass.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

That's why I've never voted. I know only too well how easily I'm swayed by a fine ass.

Sarge

Enjoying the Leningrad, Sarge? ; )

[Karl Henning]

Separately:

http://www.youtube.com/v/bQu2SVFF-cU

[Karl Henning]

Dave! Remember this gem?

http://www.youtube.com/v/8qRZvlZZ0DY

[Florestan]

Adams' and Hamilton's passages simply reinforce why constitutional government is preferable.

I agree but any contemporary politician who would base his preference for constitutional government on their ideas will commit suicide. 

As to Washington's Farewell Address, well, that's more Hamilton's doing, and it must be placed in the context of the time, when factional political fighting was rife and intense. 

As different from today, when politics is all about universal, serene, peaceful trans-partisan brotherhood... 

(Generally, it is good form to include ellipses when pulling chunks out of an address.)

The admonition would have been de rigueur had I written a scholarly essay. You're way too pedant. 

Well, they don't specifically address why they would allow stupid and/or ignorant people to vote though. That's all I'M on about.

Well, they were a product of the Enlightenment and as such they put a strong emphasis on the importance of education for good citizenry; they went out of their ways to warn that an ignorant and/or stupid people was to be feared as much as, nay, even more than, any despotism of the past. Nothing in their writings warrants the idea that they would have been enthusiastic about the unqualified one-man-one-vote principle.

[Karl Henning]

Well, they were a product of the Enlightenment and as such they put a strong emphasis on the importance of education for good citizenry . . . .

Well, we know better! Education is part of the problem!! ; )

[Todd]

As different from today, when politics is all about universal, serene, peaceful trans-partisan brotherhood...

You missed my point.  People often like to point to some of the Founders' opinions on the damaging nature of factions and parties, while ignoring that they themselves were at least as bad as today's politicians, and in some ways worse.  All of the writings are held up as somehow more principled, more timeless than the muck of today, when a lot of it was just more erudite 18th Century muck. 

Nothing in their writings warrants the idea that they would have been enthusiastic about the unqualified one-man-one-vote principle.

Especially considering that a good number of them owned slaves.

[Brian]

Dave! Remember this gem?

http://www.youtube.com/v/8qRZvlZZ0DY

That might be the weirdest campaign-related video I have ever seen. Aside from Mike Gravel's ad where he throws a boulder into a lake.

[DavidW]

That might be the weirdest campaign-related video I have ever seen. Aside from Mike Gravel's ad where he throws a boulder into a lake.

btw did you see that recent cracked article about the strangest campaign ads?

[Brian]

btw did you see that recent cracked article about the strangest campaign ads?

Yes! That's how I found out about the Mike Gravel ad. I thought his "give peace a chance" was strange enough, but noooo!

[eyeresist]

"47% of the [American] people believe they are victims"?

When everybody knows the 1% are the greatest victims of all! (From hearing them complain privately at fundraisers, anyway.)

I think this is an example of general inability to imagine what it might be like to be somebody else.

[Florestan]

Well, we know better! Education is part of the problem!! ; )

[Florestan]

People often like to point to some of the Founders' opinions on the damaging nature of factions and parties, while ignoring that they themselves were at least as bad as today's politicians, and in some ways worse.

Obviously they were no gods; they had flaws and sins just like any other human being. Yet it would be interesting to qualify your statement by showing some instances in which they were worse than today's politicians.

Especially considering that a good number of them owned slaves.

Their low esteem of the ignorant and stupid extended to a good deal of whites as well.

[Luke]

I don't even tend to read this thread, but - Florestan, I am deeply, deeply sorry, but I just couldn't resist:

...You're way too pedant.  ...

I think you mean pedantic

Please forgive me