In the media
driven world of political sectarianism and or cultism, it’s really tempting to
reflect back to the wisdom of George Washington. In his farewell address, at
the completion of his second term, Washington voiced several concerns. Elected, as he was,
unanimously, he had seen the nation slide from a post war (relative) unanimity
of political thought into the beginnings of more divisive elements in national
political philosophies. His successor, John Adams, a Federalist, already
elected, was saddled with a Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, with whom he had
serious differences of opinion in many areas. Jefferson, having resigned as
Washington’s Secretary of State, was a Democratic-Republican
(essentially an Anti-Federalist), which
put his viewpoint squarely in opposition to Adams’ Federalist outlook.
In the speech, Washington said, among
other things: “Let me now take a more
comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful
effects of the spirit of party generally” …. “It exists under different shapes
in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in
those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly
their worst enemy.” ….. “ The alternate domination of one faction
over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension,
which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid
enormities, is itself a frightful despotism”…... this leads at length to a more formal and
permanent despotism.” ….. “It serves always to distract the public
councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with
ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part
against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”
“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks
upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of
liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a
monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon
the spirit of party. There being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to
be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be
quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame,
lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
Unfortunately, by the time Washington delivered
the speech, the horse was gone and the barn was aflame. Partisan squabbling
between the two increased during the Adams presidency (1796-1800) with Jefferson
spending most of his time at Monticello, vice Philadelphia ( the US Capital
until 1800).
Although there is
a tendency to relegate nasty campaign tactics to the modern media driven
period, the campaign for President in 1799 was an early harbinger of just how
dirty partisan politics can be. As is the case today, the primary issues
driving the spitefulness were legitimate differences
of political philosophy, but tainted by personal animosity. Lest we think there
was a more genteel approach during this early period, here are some quotes
related to the candidates, spread by their opponents:
Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a
"hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and
firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
In riposte, Adams’ supporters responded with this
description of Jefferson: "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the
son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
Not surprisingly,
race and/or sexuality had a place in the bile spewed by both sides. This should
sound familiar, as little has changed on that score.
As some have today,
Jefferson hired flacks to run a “news” paper, (reminiscent of Faux News??) which
was, in actuality, a propaganda sheet paid by the candidate to smear his
opponents and their supporters. While Adams was a bit more genteel, refusing to
personally engage in mud-slinging, he made few attempts to curb it, and after
his defeat, attempted to pack the court system with federalist judges who, he
hoped would thwart Jefferson’s legal attempts to alter existing structures. Jefferson’s
ultimate victory, in what some historians have called the “Revolution of 1800”
established not only a new standard for partisan sniping, but to the surprise
of most European powers and some Americans, it also showed that there can be a
smooth transition of power even with major partisan differences. How little we’ve
changed!
As we “progressed?”
dirty politics did too. Andrew Jackson, running in 1823, faced slurs such as: "General
Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the
British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had
several children, of which number General Jackson is one!" Of
course, given Jackson’s foul temper (he once killed a man in a duel!), we may
be grateful he didn’t simply shoot his opponents.
Central to at
least many of the smears over the years have been accusations regarding
condition of birth, ethnicity, and loyalties. Following the Civil War, and
through the 20th century, such issues assumed a relatively distant
backseat to larger and much more relevant matters. World Wars, civil/social
reforms, Business/Labor/Government relations and Soviet vs. US world aims for
world dominance became huge campaign issues, and the personal sniping, while ever
present, seemed a distant background whisper. Even Warren Harding’s open relationship
with his mistress Nan Britton, seemed a backseat to tariffs, “a good five cent
cigar,” and Teapot Dome.
2007, however, and the nomination
of Barack Obama, saw a reawakening of this seamier side of politics. We were treated to
the imbecility of those such as Orly
Taitz and Donald Trump, with the “birther” movement, as well as those who questioned the
religious affiliations of candidate Obama. Those who hadn’t given a rat’s ass
that Ronald Reagan was relatively irreligious or that Billy Graham, that counselor
to Presidents, was revealed by the Nixon
tapes to be a racist anti-Semite, were flummoxed, not by any overt act of
candidate Obama, but simply by his name! The fact that his racial heritage is
mixed was, of course, the true subtext for all the hoo-hah. In the absolute
absence of any significant reason other than ethnicity, every association was
called into question. If candidate Obama
even happened to be in the same place at the same time as a “bad” guy, he was a
bosom pal. Orly Tait and others, aided by a flood of bigots, began to manufacture
claims of faked passports, Social Security numbers, birth certificates, etc.,
all with the intent of derailing Obama’s quest for the White House.
The election victory and
inauguration of 2008 failed to dampen the ardor of those whose bigotry couldn’t
accommodate a mixed race president. Ms. Taitz, temporarily deterred by a
$20,000 fine for just one of many frivolous lawsuits, continues her diatribes,
having branched out from the original “birther” scam to other claims such as:
A
number of homosexuals from Obama's former church have died mysteriously. Obama has dozens of Social Security numbers,
and his passport is inaccurate. Taitz claims that a person who was cooperating
with the FBI in connection with Obama's passport died mysteriously, "shot
in the head". A Kenyan birth certificate with the name
"Barack Obama" is authentic.
Obama's first act as President
was to donate money to Hamas, which she claims will be used to build Qassam
rockets. Obama is having the Federal
Emergency Management Agency build internment camps for "Anti-Obama
dissidents.” Osama bin Laden was killed years ago, with his
body kept on ice, and the announcement of his death was timed to divert
attention from an upcoming court case she is litigating challenging Obama's
citizenship.
The best example of Taitz’s lunacy and
hatred may be this, however: regarding the Sandy Hook shooting : " Adam Lanza was drugged
and hypnotized by his “handlers” to make him into a killing machine as an
excuse as the regime is itching to take all means of self defense from the
populace before the economic collapse?"
Why, one might ask, is this woman
so anti-Obama? It turns out there is a reasonable and plausible (at least in light
of her mental status) explanation. Orly Taitz
is, by birth, an Israeli citizen and ardent supporter of the nation of her birth.
Good! It seems she also despises any inference that Israel may be, in any part,
co-responsible for Israel’s enmity with its neighbors. A more even handed outlook (stated as part of general
pre-election platform stance) regarding what has been an almost slavish
willingness to support any and all, or at least most, Israeli actions in the
region, was simply unacceptable to Ms. Tait. Regardless of one’s personal
feelings regarding US support for Israel, it remains indisputable that some of
our difficulties in the Mideast stem from our 60 years of unilateral support
for that nation. Any modification of this relationship is, of course, anathema to
Ms Taitz.
What is more interesting to me is
that the entire “birther” movement is blind to several interesting facts: Two candidates, one past and another seeking
nomination, have hugely more controversial issues regarding citizenship and
eligibility to be president.
The first was John McCain. In the most
detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president,
a law professor at the University of Arizona (Mr. McCain’s home state, by the
way) concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor
the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the
constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”
The analysis, by
Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked
in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred
citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904,
and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law
came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born
citizen.
The
second case, even more interesting, because of his frequent vocal attacks on the sitting President,
is Senator Ted Cruz. One does NOT automatically become a U.S. citizen at birth
because one's parent, or parents, are U.S. citizens! In addition to that, one
needs to show that the parent or parents meet strictly defined requirements
regarding age and time of residence in the United States.
The
Unites States is actually much more generous than most countries in according
citizenship. But it always has had strict rules that require some kind of close
ties to the country in order to gain citizenship. Under the nationality law in
effect at the time of Ted Cruz's birth in Canada in December 1970 (the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, part of Title 8 of the U.S. Code), in
order for Ted Cruz's mother to automatically confer citizenship on him at
birth, these requirements need to have been met: For persons born between
December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all
of the following are true:
1.
The
person's parents were married at the time of birth ( AND) 2. One of the person's parents was a U.S.
citizen when the person was born ( AND) 3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in
the United States before the child's birth; (AND) 4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the
United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
There
are two problems for Senator Cruz about which, which interestingly enough,
neither he, nor Orly Taitz, (or Donald trump, for that matter) have had anything
to say. First, Ted Cruz
, even though he has stated his intent to change it, is still a Canadian by birth,
and as of this writing, hasn’t renounced
his citizenship, a simple process requiring a 12 question form and a statement
of desire to renounce. . Secondly, and of much more significance, is the apparent refusal
by the Cruz camp to produce his mother’s birth certificate, and papers proving
she met the requirements (3) and (4)
above. No one knows (or will tell ).
Meanwhile,
President Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, ergo a “natural born citizen” as
defined in the US constitution, continues being the subject of the chain e-mails,
and conspiracy theorists, most seemingly centered around the circumstances of
his birth and his ethnicity. Go figure!
No comments:
Post a Comment