Raucous and feud ridden primary campaigns are an American tradition

[ruggerson]

While I respect those that are advocating peace amongst the various camps here, and those who are arguing for only positive words about our capable candidates, I take a slightly different view, which many here may disagree with, but nevertheless...

Historically, in American politics, nasty and divisive primary seasons are a well honored and well honed tradition.

They also serve us well.

In 1952, Taft Republicans were at virtual war with Eisenhower Republicans. Robert Taft had finished in second place four years earlier, and felt entitled to the nomination. and the conservative wing was very resentful of Eisenhower. The nomination came down to the convention that year, and only a last minute switch of delegates from perennial candidate Harold Stassen enabled Eisenhower to take the nomination on the second ballot.

Primary season is also notable for knocking off incumbent Presidents who are dissuaded not to seek reelection. A poor showing in 1952 by Truman in the New Hampshire primary against Estes Kefauver convinced ol' Harry it was time to give up the ghost.

Similarly, in 1968, Gene McCarthy surprised the country by taking a strong second place showing in the New Hampshire primary to then incumbent Lyndon Johnson. Robert Kennedy, who had steadfastly refused to challenge Johnson, saw an opening and launched his own candidacy weeks later. The vitriol between the McCarthy and Kennedy camps was unprecedented, as McCarthy's camp felt that Kennedy was riding in on their anti-war coattails and their success in toppling Johnson.

Johnson withdrew from the race at the end of March and, as we all too well remember, Bobby was shot and killed two months later.

At the convention in Chicago, the Democratic party was so torn that there were riots in the streets and the Chicago police were clubbing the protestors. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, in nominating George McGovern (who was the symbolic stand in for Kennedy) gave a famous nominating speech, which included the line "with George McGovern as President of the United States, we would not have gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago." A riveted nation watched, live, as Mayor Richard Dailey stood up on the floor of the convention and gave Ribicoff the finger. Many television watchers thought they observed him shouting: "Fuck you, you Jew motherfucker!"

Makes this 2008 season seem pretty tame, eh?

Eisenhower won in 1952 and Humphrey lost in 1968. So a divisive primary season is not necessarily a predictor of electoral defeat in the general. We all remember the below the belt tactics that Bush used on McCain in 2000. The Republicans were able to come together enough to steal the election later that fall.

At Democratic Underground, I think we sometimes learn MORE about our own candidates and their adversaries by the tumultuous give and take. I know I have learned things about Joe Biden and John Edwards from their detractors. As long as its relatively honest and fair criticism, with the occasional humorous broadside, I think the tumult, conflict and occasional over the line sparring is extremely healthy. It's healthy both for us and for democracy.

If we don't hold our own candidate's collective feet to the fire, over and over again, trust me, the Republicans will do it for us in spades later in the year.

Whomever we ultimately choose will emerge from this primary season battle scarred a bit, but ready to take on a much larger and much more vicious fight. We, as Democrats, will forget what seem to be current insurmountable divides that separate us currently, because we will again focus on the real enemy: the party that has been very diligently, slowly destroying our nation for the past three decades.

Our candidate will be all the better for having had to deal with the rough and tumble of a brutal primary season. They will be ready to win in November.

And hopefully, we will too.

[babylonsister]

1. Nice. Recommend. BUT!

arguments might be more prevalent with the advent of the internets. Or more people are joined in the argument, or more aware. Seems like.

[ruggerson]

2. True

but I'm not sure that's unhealthy either. The more engaged, the better, I know you believe and I do too. And with more engaged, there will necessarily be more friction and more partisanship. Hopefully, in the long run, it will strengthen us just that much more.