The country has seen some scurrilous campaigning before, arguably even worse than that of 2016. In each case, the nation and the democratic process survived
n these days after the election, America is still reeling from one of the most bizarre and ferocious campaigns in presidential history. Who can remember such mudslinging? Even if some of it was truth-slinging, it has been, to say the least, a dismaying experience.
However, the country has seen some scurrilous campaigning before, arguably even worse than that of 2016, replete with accusations of personal immorality, criminal conduct, incompetence, and unfitness. In each case, the nation and the democratic process survived. There is reason to believe that they will this time too.
Americans invented the attack ad, but they didn’t invent mudslinging. The credit for that goes to the ancient Romans who were known to advise: Fortiter calumniare, aliquid adhaerebit, “Throw plenty of dirt, and some of it will be sure to stick.”
The term mudslinging came into use only after the Civil War, but the practice was as old as the republic. George Washington was branded a “hypocrite” and “imposter”; Andrew Jackson accused of bigamy; Franklin Roosevelt of being mentally deranged. We’ve chosen here two of the more interesting and significant splatterings, and how the targets responded:
Create a free account to keep reading.
