Rude presidential elections of the past

Vote for Harrison. He's the kind of down to earth guy who you can get drunk with! Also a war hero!

No matter what their politics, most Americans can agree that this years' presidential election has been unusually bitter. The glut of corporate money pouring into political attack adverts has made TV a wasteland of recriminations against one candidate or another.

However, contentious campaigns are hardly new. The so-called "Revolution of 1800" which overthrew John Adams in favor of Thomas Jefferson held nothing back. "Gags, inquisitors and spies" and "hordes of harpies"? "Lordlings" with "gorging jaws"? "Fiery bigots" and "holy laws"? The Democratic Republicans were using these terms to describe the administration of Federalist President Adams. The Sedition and Alien Acts under his administration were thought to erode the liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. In general, Federalist policies favored New England merchants over the small farmers of the west and south-- although most of the prominent Republican leaders were  wealthy Southern planters.

The gloomy night before us lies,
The reign of terror now is o'er;
Its gags, inquisitors and spies,
Its hordes of harpies are no more

Chorus:
Rejoice, Columbia's sons, rejoice
To tyrants never bend the knee
But join with heart and soul and voice
For Jefferson and Liberty.

O'er vast Columbia's varied clime
Her cities, forests, shores and dales;
In riding majesty, sublime,
Immortal liberty prevails.

Hail! long expected glorious day
Illustrious memorable morn:
That freedom's fabric from decay
Secures for millions yet unborn.

No lordling here with gorging jaws.
Shall wring from industry its food;
No fiery bigot's holy laws,
Lay waste our fields and streets in blood.

Here strangers from a thousand shores
Compell'd by tyranny to roam;
Shall find, amidst abundant stores,
A nobler and a happier home.

Let foes to freedom dread the name,
But should they touch the sacred tree
Twice fifty thousand swords would flame,
For Jefferson and Liberty.

William Henry Harrison's campaign for the presidency in 1840 was less rancorous. The Democratic-Republicans were running Martin Van Buren for reelection. They characterized the elderly Whig Harrison as "granny" and one newspaper stated "Give him a barrel of hard cider, and ... a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year ... and ... he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin."

Even though Martin Van Buren came from a poor family, while Harrison was the scion of a wealthy Virginia plantation dynasty, the Whigs turned Democratic condescension into an advantage. They characterized their candidate as a down to earth war veteran, living in a Western log cabin and giving travellers hard cider.

The Whig campaign went so far as to construct log cabins at campaign stops and gave out free drinks to voters. That's right. A presidential campaign gave out free booze. It was a common tactic in early American politics-- see Davy Crockett's political campaigns.

The props of the campaign led in turn to a great song called "Log Cabin and Hard Cider"

Come swell the throng and join the song
Extend the circle wider!
Join the run for Harrison, Log Cabin, and Hard Cider.

With Harrison, our country's won
No treachery can divide her
Thy will be done with Harrison, Log Cabin, and Hard Cider.

Let Calhoun jeer and Benton sneer
Like every such backslider!
The fight was won by Harrison, Log Cabin, and Hard Cider.

To all the world our flag's unfurled
To vict'ry Tipp'll guide her.
Second to none is Harrison, Log Cabin, and Hard Cider!

Of course, another song emerged from the Whig camp: "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" which has somehow indelibly entered the American consciousness even if Harrison himself is only occasionally remembered as the shortest-lived President. A great jab in the song is "Little Van is a used-up man" referring to the incumbent Van Buren.

Just imagine how great American politics could be if we once again made up rude songs about the candidates, and the political parties bought us booze...

Patrick Henry on the Constitution and State’s Rights

Since the Tea Party has tended to use the founding fathers of the United States as the basis (after, perhaps, the Bible) of their ideology, I think its useful to look back to that early period and see, even then, there was serious contention between political activists on what the role of government ought to be. (We should remember as well, that this was before the Industrial Revolution, and even before incorporation laws existed in the states, so America was not only a different society, but there were no corporations for the government to regulate or contend with.)

Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution, on the grounds that it “was as radical a revolution as the one which separated the colonies from Great Britain”. I find it interesting that libertarians and tea partiers oppose a strong centralized government, while at the same time regarding the Constitution as a sacred, unchangeable document. Their counterpart in the 18th Century regarded any central government stronger than a loose Confederation of states to be jeopardizing individual liberties; from these “proto-libertarians” the Constitution was akin to modern notions of the “socialist” Obama government.

[5 June, 1788]

I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts: I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England--a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland--an association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government. We have no detail of those great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this same relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans: It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and an half had adopted it, I would with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.
--Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention

…To Henry I would reply, that the governments of provinces or states are just as apt to curtail individual liberties as a central government. It did, after all, take national legislation in the 20th Century to give equality to people of color and women.

Origin of the term “grey eminence”

From wikipedia.org:
An éminence grise (French for "grey eminence") is a powerful advisor or decision-maker who operates secretly or unofficially. This phrase originally referred to François Leclerc du Tremblay, the right-hand man of Cardinal Richelieu. Leclerc was a Capuchin friar who wore grey, or rather brown, robes. Brown or light brown (now called "beige") was called grey in that era.^{[citation needed]} The phrase "His Eminence" is used to address or reference a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church. Although Leclerc du Tremblay never achieved that rank, it is probable that those around him may have addressed him thus in reference to the considerable influence this "grey friar" held over "his Eminence the Cardinal". Aldous Huxley wrote an English biography of Leclerc entitled Grey Eminence, and there is also an 1873 painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme, "L'Éminence Grise," which depicts him descending the grand staircase of the Palais Cardinal.
A grey eminence may alternatively mean an elderly (grey-haired) individual who is eminent for accomplishments in the past, but today acts as an advisor rather than a principal actor, and may be politically influential as a consequence of his honored status. For example a distingushed retired physics professor; a politician who retired with a good reputation; etc.

Ohio Sovereignty Amendment

Just read about this in my Columbus Dispatch feed. It looks as if a group of teabaggers is trying to get a Amendment to the State Constitution on the ballot, which would implant some of the extreme right wings' ideas into Ohio's Constitution. The gist of it is this:

" Among other things, the Ohio Sovereignty Amendment would allow juries to nullify laws; expand the right to bear arms and maintain militias; permit recall of elected officials by petition signatures alone; ban federal enforcement of laws except through a county sheriff; and require all public school operations through the 12th grade be regulated only at the local district level."

Sounds like typical teabagger lunacy to me, but if they somehow push it through, it could make Ohio into its own breakaway republic, with the county sheriffs ruling over us like a class of petty warlords (see Sheriff Joe Arpaio). If an elected official makes an unpopular decision, or even if they piss off people (read: corporations) who can raise enough money to push through a mass petition, they're kicked out of office. Local schools can teach whatever they want. It also means that at a time when the state's economy isn't doing so great, we'd be cutting ourselves off from Federal aid.

So, basically, there are increasingly vehement groups out there trying to dissolve the governmental structures that hold our society together.

Actually, in following the Dispatch's link to the home page of this movement, I was surprised to find that it in turn is associated with the former Democratic representative Jim Traficant, who has now joined the Tea Party movement. For a definition of the Tea Party movement, see Demagogy.

Spring Ballot Issues

I’ve been seeing a lot of the usual bombardment of political ads for the two issues on the Ohio ballot this Spring. As usual, they all add up to disinformation campaigns aimed at voters. I thought I should dig into both issues even though I’ve voted, because I honestly can’t remember which is which.

Absentee ballots are very handy for this reason, because you can look up candidates and issues on the web while you fill out the ballot. For a reliable source of even handed information on political issues I usually rely of the League of Women Voters. Their guide for this Spring’s primaries can be accessed here. Their opinion on the ballot issues is available here.

Issue 1 will help the states Third Frontier program, an effort to increase Ohio’s competitiveness in advanced industries such as research and development, IT, biomedical, and other cutting edge areas. Of course, isn’t every state trying to attract the next Silicon Valley?

Unfortunately, I don’t think there is enough information out there for voters to determine exactly what they are voting for. Regardless of how much information you access before voting, it’s still important to actually read the wording of the issue on the ballot, much like signing a contract. The full text of both issues can be accessed via the Ohio Secretary of State’s website here.

The meat of Issue 1 this year seems to be raising money via 700 million dollars worth of bonds to fund the Third Frontier program. Those bonds are debt that the state takes on itself. I think its a good idea to invest in the industrial future of Ohio in this way, but we should be wary of accumulating too much debt, which essentially is what bonds are. According to the State of Ohio website that reports on debt and bonds, last year’s principal debt was 8,486,621,212. Of course, not being an accountant I really have no understanding of what a lot of the figures on the official website mean. However, increasing employment and revenue through the Third Frontier should help Ohio’s debt in the long run.

Issue 2 is a lot simpler. It just moves the planned casino from one area in downtown Columbus to the outskirts of the city. I’m not sure whether the casino investors want this or not (I assume they did want to go through with the original plan to build the casino in the heart of the city’ s Arena District). The new site is on a brown field: a former auto parts plant that was torn down recently, in a bad part of Columbus. This reflects the attitude of Columbus towards the Casino, since most people voted against last years’ measure to allow them in the state. Like the city’s horse racing, and its swingers club, casino gambling has been pushed to the unfrequented margins of the city, where the upstanding suburbanites can forget about it.

Health Care Reform

I've been waiting with bated breath to see if the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act would be passed by Congress. It has, and now I won't hold my breath to see how well it is implemented. Actually, it seems to have played into the insurance industry's hands, requiring everybody to buy insurance even though there are no caps on premiums and no national market for insurance that I know of. It does support consumers from some of the abuses foisted upon them by insurance companies in the past. Now I'm really afraid that the disloyal opposition, as the right-wing has become, will begin a last-ditch, state-by-state fight against the Act, or even win next years elections and try to repeal it. One step forward, three steps back.

In the meantime, even though the tea party put up a smokescreen of mass opposition, as time goes on (if things don't change) less and less people will find themselves in a good position with medical coverage, because of the arbitrary association of health care with jobs. Moreover, health insurance companies don't compete with each other nationally like car insurance companies do (I've seldom heard complaints about mandating that!), so there isn't a real market. Moreover, the supply side of health care providers and pharmaceutical companies do not compete on an even playing field, so costs for insurance providers and individual "consumers" are not controlled by any market forces (besides what large-scale employers and insurance groups are able to negotiate through weight of numbers).

I'm not the expert on this issue by any means, but I've personally been hit hard by health care bills despite having supposedly "comprehensive insurance" as a student. So I feel very strongly that something must be done: either create a system of real market competition where patients can select the best value for their money from both insurance plans and health care providers, or socialize everything.

I might add that abortion has been used as a foil to get Christians to oppose reform. But if the reforms fail, abortion will still exist. If on the other hand reform succeeds, it will enable poor people to better get the care they need. You can organize all the Church-led charity and service programs that you want (and you should!) but without large-scale reforms led by the State, inequity in health care will continue to be just another hedge keeping white-collar middle class society insulated from the impoverished masses.

Moreover, I fear that without real reforms, with a shrinking middle class we will eventually have a REAL social and political revolution: the worst fears of tea-baggers will come true.

Utility of Bike Trails

Columbus Dispatch 15 March "Recession put brakes on miles of new bike trails" by Bill Bush.

I would argue that building new bike trails is not only important from a parks and recreation point of view, but that bike trails such as the extensive network along the Olantangy River are good transportation alternatives. 100 years ago it was far more common to see crowds of commuters cycling to work and back. In less than a decade we might see the same thing. Adding bike trails can provide cyclists with more options. However, it is just as important to incorporate cycling into city planning in other ways: places to park and lock bikes can be few and far between: often one is forced to resort to railings, fences, or sign posts. Building hard points for locking bikes should be a standard part of commercial zoning codes, as should incorporating shelter such as roofs to prevent rain and weather from wetting bike seats and rusting chains, shifters and other exposed components. Everyone should remember that barring a really efficient, really cheap development of battery technology for cars we will increasingly be using bikes anyway. When city money goes to build new cycling infrastructure it's an investment in the near future.