This is the season for “stump speeches.”
The term “Stump speech” refers to the often raucous speech delivered by a politician
running for office. The term came into usage in the 19th century, when such speeches were
often made by the candidates as he on a stood tree stumps to allow himself to be seen and
heard, in an era before the voice could be amplified electronically.
The Historians, Morison and Commanger, in The Growth of the American
Republic, v. 1, wrote of President Lincoln’s successor, President Andrew Johnson, as follows:
“In the 1866 campaigning Republicans brandished reports of such atrocities
to warn that the South was robbing [the people of the North] of their hard-
won victory at war. ... Johnson [advocating Lincoln’s policy of tolerant
Reconstruction] warned of the consequences of the Republican policy [of
“Radical Reconstruction’]; “Southerners, he said, ‘cannot be treated as
subjugated people or vassal colonies, without a germ of hatred being introduced,
which will some day or other though the time may be distant, develop into
mischief of the most serious character.’ ”
Morison and Commanger then wrote something that has stuck with me since
the day I read it at Notre Dame.
“Johnson proved to be an inept campaigner. He seemed incapable of
advocating a policy of tolerance in a tolerant manner, and his ... stumping
tour of the Middle West, became in many an exercise in vituperation.
“I would ask you ,” the President shouted on 3 September 1866 in
Cleveland, “Why not hang Thad Stevens and Wendell Phillips?” [Radical
Republican leaders].” Johnson was, said [Secretary of State] Seward, the
“best stump speaker in the country,” but as Secretary [of the Navy] Wells
shrewdly remarked, “the President should not be a stump speaker.””
So what is legitimate in a “stump speech” delivered by candidate for the office of
the Presidency? At what point does a presidential candidate demean himself and the
office he is seeking? At what point does the candidate appear “un-presidential?”
Many Americans decry “negative campaigning.” But there are two very distinct
varieties of “negative campaigning,” and the line between them, is a very bright line. So,
is it wrong to paint your opponent as “un-Presidential?” “Dishonest?” “Stupid?” “Ineffective?”
Is it wrong to label his policies or his positions as “ineffective?” “Wasteful?” “Cronyism?”
“Marxist?” “Predatory Capitalism?”
The answer is simple. If the allegations are truthful, then “going negative” serves a
legitimate public purpose. If the candidate is a tax cheat, a philander, a communist flying
under false colors, or a thief, the public needs to be told. If the allegations are baseless,
the “negative campaigning” becomes a lie and it is impermissible.
The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees free speech, and it guarantees
first and foremost political speech. If the voters are to intelligently select the best candidates,
and vote correctly on the issues, nothing is more important than that the candidates and their
supporters tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
In 21st century America the issues are complex. Candidates like Ronald Reagan and
Bill Clinton has a way of making the hard stuff understandable to the voters. When a candidate
tells the truth and makes the hard stuff understandable, he does the voters a great service. If he
lies or indulges in half-truths, he obfuscates the issues, confuses the voters and undermines the
proper workings of democracy.
My mother despised liar. She frequently told me that if you tell one lie, you will have
to tell another and another to cover it up.
I am not so naive as to believe a President must always tell the truth. In war-time, no
president in his right mind would tell the enemy our battle plans. But in matters of domestic
politics - such as, which plan is best calculated to save Medicare and/or Social Security - there is
no reason to lie, unless the candidate is putting party over country. But any candidate,
Republican or Democrat, that does that is unworthy of high office and public trust. Indeed,
why would any reasonable voter trust a liar? Why would a Republican trust a Republican liar?
Why would a Democrat trust a Democrat liar?
What I am suggesting is that there is no way to fix the present mess if the American
people continue to put people in high office who don’t tell the truth. I want a President who
puts forth a coherent plan, and who means what he says and says what he means. If we continue
to elect politicians who continue to “bribe us” with government largess to get our votes,
we will go the way of Europe. We will not have to have a candidate “push us off a cliff;” we
will eventually walk off under our own power in pursuit of the next handout.
Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment