Code Won't Stop Political Insults

By CHARLES M. GUTHRIE

Of the editorial page staff
Published by the StarTribune

September 9, 1962

   A FAIR campaign practices code has been subscribed to by the national chairmen of both parties. This is supposed to insure high level politics from now until the November election, with all insults being on a lofty moral plane.

   The code is not new nor is it likely to be completely effective, judging by past campaigns. This is as much the fault of the voter as the candidate. Emotional thrusts get more cheers than dispassionate discussion of the issues. Appeals to prejudice are more moving than delineations of our national destiny and responsibility.

   WHAT'S NEEDED, for a campaign code to be effective, is a thoughtful, informed and rational electorate able to distinguish substance from chaff. But people are funny. They are more readily stirred by dog ordinances and daylight saving than by arguments for good government and education.

   Back in our nation's infancy politics was pretty much the monopoly of the aristocrats. It was engaged in, for the most part, by men of culture, wealth and distinction. George Washington set the general tone and the five chief executives who followed after him bore the stamp of gentry.

   THEN the common man began to feel his oats and things changed. Andrew Jackson, that avid protagonist of the spoils system, who would have scorned a fair campaign code as strictly for sissies, got into the White House.

   Jackson was a doughty and forceful president but a rough and tumble scrapper of humble birth and do-it-yourself education. He was impetuous, Ill tempered and unforgiving and carried scars from a couple of duels to prove it. He defeated John Quincy Adams in 1828, gaining revenge for a defeat four years earlier when he thought Adams and Henry Clay had conspired to gyp him out of the big prize.

   He beat Adams by constantly pounding this good man over the head with charges of corruption. This technique was then, and continues to be, quite effective, deplore it though we may as low-down politics.

   Harry Truman, an assiduous student of history, must have picked up a few pointers from Jackson and, though his "give 'em hell" philosophy has grown wearisome, he can hardly be blamed for clinging to it after the miracle of 1948 when he trounced Dewey.

   A CANDIDATE can cut up an opponent quite effectively, however, without coming close to vilification. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had a feel for politics unequaled
in our time, could demolish a rival with a deft mixture of wit, sarcasm and humor.

   A mere statement of fact can be telling. Edward J. McCormack Jr., candidate for the Democratic senatorial nomination in Massachusetts, fed Teddy Kennedy some harsh medicine in their first debate when he pointed out that his opponent lacked experience and said his candidacy would be a joke if he weren't the President's brother.

   The fair campaign code is highly motivated and perhaps moderating. The general electorate is more refined and less eager for raw meat than in Andy Jackson's time. But under the campaign heat those involved will lapse into occasional billingsgate and it's probably only charitable to dismiss a slip or two. Just so they don't throw the real issues overboard.

Copyright 2016 StarTribune. Republished here with the permission of the StarTribune. No further republication or redistribution is permitted without the express approval of the StarTribune.