Campaigning days of Jefferson vs. todays campaigns??

Question

how were they different??? and what would jefferson have to say about todays campaigns and the modern public??

Answer 1

One clarification first -- Yes, there was the ideal in the first several decades of our government that, at least for the Presidency, one ought not to campaign for it, but let the people seek the person out to serve. This notion may be due to Washington's attitude -- he really did NOT want to be President but let himself be talked into it...twice! But every Presidential candidate thereafter, though he would not formally campaign for himself, DID take an interest, and ALWAYS had supporters --or even their own political operatives (as Jefferson did)-- willing to take the political heat, while the candidate stayed seemingly above the fray.

So, don't let that notion or practice mislead you!

I suppose there will always be the notion out there that 'it used to be much better/cleaner'. But in this case. . . not hardly!!

"The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton. After a falling out, Callender turned on Jefferson and published attacks on his previous employer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks

Note that in the 1790s each side had its OWN press -- at least there was no pretension of "unbiased journalism"-- specifically set up to advance the agenda of its own party. So, there was on the one side the '(Democratic-)Republican press' acting to support Jeffersonian positions and candidates, including by vilifying political opponents, often with personal slanders. On the other side stood the Federalist newspapers which, under the guidance of Hamilton and those of similar view, attacked Jefferson and company.

Indeed, it was the compilation of Hamilton's attacks on Burr (and perhaps one particularly strong accusation) -- some perhaps true, many very likely made up-- that ultimately led to his duel with Burr when he couldn't or wouldn't retract or apologize for his statements. In fact, in the early decades of the Republic, there were MANY challenges to duels over just such 'campaign tactics' (some of which resulted in an actual fight, others which were diffused before that extreme step was reached). Andrew Jackson never forgave claims made in the press about his wife (esp. since she died before he became President).

In the light of all this rough and tumble --and the fact that the 1790s was just beginning to sort out how people of different political views would argue for their views and against views they honestly believed put our nation in danger -- one can even understand how the "Alien and Sedition Acts" came to be. (The latter could jail people, close the presses, etc. of those who opposed the position of the Administration.)

So, is it better or worse today? Well, certainly not quite so dangerously violent! Nor is most of the press quite so willing to print fabricated attacks. In fact, I suspect that politcal warriors of the early Republic would almost laugh at how readily cries about "negative campaigning", "racism!" are raised over what to them would be relatively mild tactics. Despite the strong rhetoric --and the fact that there is MUCH room for improvement (both by campaigns and by the press)-- we are certainly no worse off, and in many ways far better off than in Jefferson's day.

(Actually, I think the "negative campaign" complaint is very unhelpful, because it fails to distinguish between the sharing of a reasonable interpretation of relevant information --which puts negative light on one's opponent but may be truthful and fair-- and use of innuendo and deception to deliberately MIS-lead people.)

Answer 2

Jefferson was a freedom fighter and promoter for the people by the people and of the people so he would not like today's modern public at all and would probably form an alliance with many who supported his beliefs of Democrat/Republican and start a revolution all over again. He was not a monetary man and yet Hamilton was and they fought about the people (jefferson secretary of state), and the executive branch(hamilton who was in fact the secretary treasurer). Things then were not any different about the fight between the rulers,taxes and the people. But there was a Jefferson who stood up and did what he said he was going to do and therefore we have America today because of his bravery. He was appointed to most offices he held like Congress for instance. The British stepped up their efforts here after Jefferson wrote the Declaration and after being elected twice two be governor he resigned to fight the British and thus we had the Civil War. He certainly had the aid of many, but most of them Federalists, but they had one common denominator and it was for them freedom to get lots of money and for Jefferson it was Freedom period for free enterprise to create a good society of government where people would progress in a natural way, and again money was not on his agenda.. He died broke. He and Ben Franklin are probably the only ones that had the true meaning of freedom in their souls without blemish, for they were scientists and looked to find the answers for man to survive. Visit the sight of monticello and his discoveries of plants and herbs, and the irony of it is he cross bred tea as well. To be real Jefferson in no way wished to be President but when he was France got whooped good for their treachery and fraud, plus we got Louisiana back.

Answer 3

I'm not a McCain for President supporter, but he is a good man-I was concerned about him the other night during the debate. I haven't seen anything about his performance in Wisconsin but I wonder if the campaign trail grind is just exhausting him. I really don't see how any of the candidates can keep it up week after week the way they do. Granted, it is a good test for the stamina that the position will demand, but MAN, talk about stress and being 'on' 24/7. Hope he is OK.

Answer 4

I agree with Sophist, in that there were no campaigns to speak of. The founding fathers were very suspicious of anybody who actually wanted office, because they knew that in time, the office would have great power.
The people who knew that they were being considered, left the debate as to feign un-attachment or un-interest.

Today's campaigns would be looked at as a national embarrassment and socially repugnant, A travesty of the worst kind, when there are people who do not have proper food or shelter!
The mid-term elections ran in excess of $220 MILLION.
That money could have virtually rebuilt all of New Orleans residential properties that were submerged.
By my calculations 220M would build almost 2316 homes and possibly more.

Answer 5

About the same. The campaigns of yesteryear were horrible and the two parties really hammered each other in the newspapers, which were arms of the politicians in many cases. Things are pretty bad today, but the saving grace is that at least things haven't really gotten worse.

Answer 6

In Jefferson's day campaigns were more like debates than anything else. Those of today are like high pressure ad campaigns. Jefferson would have been appalled as would any of the founding fathers. They would have considered them uncouth, barbaric and scurrilous.