Ed Rasimus wrote:

As I regularly tell students, political questions are complex and
nuanced. They usually exhibit two opposing positions with deeply held
convictions. The hard part is to rise above the pig-wrestling and
listen to the other side's argument, demand that both sides offer fact
and reason, then make objective rather than subjective choices.

Ain't easy.

Has it *ever* actually been that way though?

I'm reading a bio of Ben Franklin (for months now) and am at
the point where he loses his seat in the PA Assembly due to
efforts of "The Proprietors" to oust him.

The Proprietors were basically the Penn family that owned
PA, ran estates there exempt from taxes, etc, etc, etc.

A pamphlet war against Franklin made outrageous claims
(some based on seeds of truth) that put modern political
debate and especially ads to shame.

This sort of character assassination in the guise of
political debate was common political currency from the
founding of the US right up to the late 1800s when electioneering
seemed to become more civil (though still filled with the
smoke filled, back room wheeling and dealing). Washington,
Adams, Jefferson and Jackson seemed especially victimized
by this sort of politically driven, savage personal attack.

Sitting back and coolly considering the evidence for a
decision seems more the realm of scientific method and
even that gets nasty at times.


SMH