If there were anyway to measure the reciprocal adage, I’d wager that politics do not bring out the worst in people but rather people bring out the worst in politics. Lamenting that the bar of discourse is lower than any Jamaican limbo stick is nothing revolutionary; no more than revolutions themselves anyway. Similarly, calling politicians childish does a grave disservice to the relatively wholesome, or at least banal, insults wielded by actual children. As if it’s a national requirement, campaigns bring out the vapid and sordid efforts of far too many. This tragedy is trumped only by the fact that the worst smears, attacks and lies stick on and sink newcomers and incumbents more times than not, and certainly enough times to make the whole industry of negative campaigning regrettably profitable.
The sheer volume of political gunk is too much to wade through, so in a two-turn twist I’d like to run down the most incredible insults leveled at U.S. Presidents—outside of the campaign trail—by their contemporary critics.
5. Clinton: Murderer?
I’m breaking a personal rule, I know, to tread into the 1990s in a history-oriented post. However, this (first?) Clinton Administration gem is too stunningly ridiculous to pass up in the field of presidential criticisms. Basically, Clintonophobia was the over-arching sense of conservative America feeling President Bill Clinton was not a legitament president because he only won 43% of the vote in 1992, when Republican George Bush had 37% and Ross Perot won 18%--all Perot's supporters theoretically lifted from would-be Bush voters. Regardless, Clinton had arguably unprecedented scrutiny from the moment he finished his Election Night acceptance speech—not helped by the rise in political/editorialized/hackneyed journalism.
The subculture pandering reached a, just flatly silly, low-point when the “Clinton Body Count” started circling journals, websites and early emails. As "investigated," upwards of 40 people died "mysteriously" after having some kind of "connection" with "President" Bill Clinton. Like a political dog-whistle, a bunch of weirdos understood that obviously, or at least possibly, Clinton was having dozens of people whacked in connections with various cover-ups more heinous than U2 spy planes, Watergate or Iran-Contra. Paradoxically, the same people that accused Clinton of orchestrating the most colossal, continuous government/media conspiracy of all-time also accused the President of being ineffectual, incapable and lacking any semblance of political fortitude or mental ability. What I really like best about the Clinton Body Count is the “24”-esque villainy required and how every Drudge reader got to feel like Jack Bauer in a pre-Jack Bauer world.
4. Reagan: Antichrist?
Time and time and time again, the world has shown that the worst thing predictors can do is bet on the San Diego Chargers. The second worst thing they can do is make a prediction with a very specific time-frame. Saying “the world will end” is fair…even obvious. At worst, you won’t be proven wrong. Saying “the world will end this Saturday” makes you look like a moron on Sunday. The exact same carries over for fanatics who predict/hope for the events described in the Bible’s Revelations.
I’m not sure how many people actually believed President Reagan was the Antichrist but even noting “there are a lot of coincidences” is really dumb. His name translates into 666, but so what, that takes a lot of effort to get to that point. Finding coincidences is like cleaning your apartment: it takes effort and time—also, people might like the results, but they don’t really want to help. For Reagan, I don't imagine there were any apologies when the man left office. And while most Republicans were disappointed to see him go, there were also Apocalypse-wishers disappointed that he didn't go out by raining down fire and blood.
As a peculiar epitaph, the term “Antichrist” does not appear in Revelations at all, but rather just the term “the Beast.” I chose to use “Antichrist” in this post because another President--coming up soon!--was commonly referred to as an actual beast and I did not want there to be any stupid, stupid confusion.
3. FDR: Kidnapper?
Franklin D. Roosevelt did as much to expand the powers of the Executive Branch during the 20th Century as any President not named Roosevelt. Obviously, then the man had his share of Depression Era critics—mostly rich people who thought FDR had betrayed them, himself a rich man. Appropriately, and healthily, people questioned his policies. Less appropriately, and far less healthily, people also questioned FDR’s ability to cognitively function. Rumors ran rampant that the President would have unprovoked bursts of laughter and spontaneously talk incoherently. In typical crazy-fashion, the leader of the free world also—again, rumors here—cut paper dolls and required so many psychiatrists that they had to dress like White House servants to quells suspicions. Other even more fantastical accusations included that bars were placed on the White House windows to keep Roosevelt from escaping and that the President was frequently substituted for a look-a-like in some kind "Dave"-type cover up--an accusation that entertained less people than "Dave."
It’s actually rather stupefying that the press so famously refrained from publicizing the President’s, very real, crippling polio condition yet felt free enough to circulate a story that FDR stole stamps from a stamp collector who was visiting the White House. My favorite attack on FDR though has to be nonsensical conspiracy that the man actually orchestrated the kidnapping and death of the Lindbergh baby.
"Great Harding's Ghost, Batman! How will you stop The Penguin this week!?"
2. George Washington: Traitor?
There are a lot people that could be called “traitors” to the United States in our wacky, wacky history. But the first President? The hero of the Revolutionary War? The man who not only brought delegates together to draft the Constitution but than sacrificed all the power he could want when they made him de facto King of America? Incredible as it is to believe, this country did not collectively finish one complete presidential term before lambasting the nation’s leadership and literally requesting Washington’s impeachment, resignation and hanging (in no particular order).
Modern critics have looked back and drafted modern criticism on Washington’s legacy, such as he was a gold-digger, opportunist, lucky gambler, indecisive, racist, atheist, and socialite. However, “traitor to the nation” is one label that has not been resurrected despite its prevalence in the 1790s. Most of the “kingly” insults stemmed from people not remotely agreeing what a President was supposed to be like. “Look at him,” cried critics, “He’s receiving visitors at the Executive Mansion like some kind of king!” “There he goes again, making a speech, like a king!” “What kind of tyrant holds social gatherings while real American are working to feed their families!?!” It would be quite the alternative history if Washington had listened to his critics and just hid behind a title of nothingness like some kind of executive producer for The Simpsons.
1. Lincoln: Monster?
No matter what Abraham Lincoln tried to do for four years, it seemed like half the country hated him. Some called him “tyrannical” and “dumb”—which is standard and uninspired. Other editorials stretched a bit more and called him a drunkard, a smoker and a profanity-laced imbecile with no original thoughts. That the man never really drank, smoked or swore was a moot point to his critics. Also, there was The Baltimore Plot and how Lincoln supposedly dressed like a woman to flee his critics. Others, still, openly derided such iconic speeches as The Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address as empty platitudes, political gibberish or indistinguishable from the soiled toilet paper still stuck to Lincoln's shoe during either speech.
This all though is bested by the incredibly frequent accusations questioning Lincoln’s humanity—not his cruelty, but his actual genetic makeup in an era before common genetic knowledge. Within critical circles, aggravators could not agree if Lincoln was half-baboon or perhaps some other, barely understood creature. Half gorilla? Half ape? Certainly he was some kind of beast with coarse, untamed facial hair marginally masking a face that could neither be properly painted nor described by words. Newspapers calling the Commander in Chief, during wartime, a “zoological curiosity” were devastatingly cruel, unless they somehow meant it as a compliment. Reportedly—and by that I mean “completely bullshit-edly”--, President Lincoln laughed, danced and clapped like an unrestrained monkey when visiting the blood-soaked battlefield at Antietam. These were not clever insults, they were just some unholy mixture of appalling, pointless and ridiculous.
In all these cases, from Reagan being the Antichrist to a psychopathic Lincoln, I think the accusers wanted the accusations to be true—not just because it would validate their voting preferences but because it would necessitate a societal restructuring; and such a restructuring would assuredly benefit those to saw the writing on the proverbial wall. If we were wrong once, how can we ever be sure we were right about anything? We rack our brains to twist the world around us in an effort to validate our perceptions. Thus traces our own sense vanity; most of us are not patriotic or noble, but rather we just want to be right. And that's just wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment