A civil tongue
Listen to reasonable voices
Because we are bombarded with 24-hour news about the latest political affairs, we think each reported activity is fresh and up-todate. The actual events may be current, but the nature of those political happenings is certainly not new. Campaigning for political office has a history of being vitriolic and antagonistic.
We look to Roman history as the beginning of citizen involvement in government and to the writings of Cicero, Roman statesman and academic. He is said to have tried in vain to uphold the principles upon which the Roman Republic was founded, but was unable to stave off the crises that eventually led to creation of the Roman Empire.
Cicero wrote a treatise on campaigning in which he advises to remind crowds of what scoundrels your opponents are and smear these men at every opportunity. He was brilliant and successful, a member of nobility, active in Roman politics. He is said to have written what translates to “Little Handbook on Electioneering.” It could be used as a guide for many of the campaigns we see today in U.S. politics.
Such advice as “A candidate must be a chameleon, adapting to each person he meets, changing his expression and speech as necessary” is not dated in the least. He gives guidance on attracting close aides and followers who can assist a candidate in promoting his political agenda. He addresses the well-worn adage, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer,” by categorizing those enemies in this way: Those you have harmed by standing up for your friends, those who dislike you without good cause, and friends of your rivals. He advises winning them over with kindness and concern, proving a generous and benevolent nature. Of course, this translates to political favors once elected to office.
Most important, however, was Cicero’s final, most critical aspect of campaigning: “Promise them anything. Put on a good show—dignified but full of color and spectacle that appeals so much to crowds.” He was eventually beheaded for his outspoken opposition to power.
When the first debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden aired, I listened to the first few minutes, realized I would not learn anything new, then went for an extended evening walk. While walking, I listened to the audiobook of David McCullough’s “John Adams,” which included excerpts from Adams’ diaries.
It was an unexpected surprise that, as I walked, I heard John Adams describe the final evening debate in Philadelphia regarding withdrawal from the yoke of Britain and beginning the actions leading to independence. After months of discussion, this final gathering of important American British subjects listened to the reasoning of a prominent New Englander who debated on the side of finding a peaceful political and economic solution, not risking the opposition of a superior British army for the sake of trying to establish a new nation.
After hearing reviews and excerpts of the Biden-Trump debate, I reflected on Adams’ respectful comments on the conduct of his debate opponent: eloquent, well-reasoned and dynamic in preparation of his assertions. It was a totally civil, though at times heated, debate about the critical actions that could result in a protracted war and possibly the formation of a new nation.
The competition between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson involved accusations and insults which might be amusing today, but caused great furor then. At the beginning of our nation, even the most respectable politicians were not immune. There are many more instances through the decades, such as the campaign which pitted Union Army Gen. Ulysses Grant against newspaper publisher Horace Greeley. This brought print campaigns to a new level of voter interest across the country. The gloves were off.
With today’s constant news coverage about every aspect of political life, why do we seem unable to carry out civil conversations about the issues that face our nation? The reason may be that such reasonable conversations do not embolden the devisive punditry that sells massive amounts of advertising. The amount of money spent on campaign advertising in this election could be a healthy installment to solve our country’s economic problems. The process of listening to reasonable voices, deciding upon a candidate who deserves our vote, then privately exercising our voting privilege, may have been lost.
Congressional processes have now been pulled into the realm of political harangue. The nomination process for Supreme Court justices has become so acrimonious as to be embarrassing. Those of us who can remember the Watergate hearings can recall an intense but civil hearing led by two prominent senators of opposing parties. I cannot remember their insulting each other on the panel or to the press.
Many of us have closed our ears. We are exhausted with the acrimony of campaigns in our supposedly civilized society. The one thing that we are in danger of losing is not just the election of good candidates, but the traditional civil discourse about the issues that should matter most to us as a citizens of our county, state and nation.
Let us each be the citizen who has contemplated our choice, undeterred and unintimidated by the now well-entrenched vitriol of political campaigning. From Roman times to today, voting is a privilege that should not be tarnished by what others wish us to think, but reinforced by what we know is right.