White-hot free speech is nothing new

A popular myth that has arisen in recent years — and been intensified by the rhetoric over the recent shooting in Tucson — is that somehow politics is more polarized or more heated these days than it was in times past.

That such a notion could gain any credence, especially among the so-called educated class of writers and national leaders, is astounding.

In my research into the political climate of first the 1960s and then the 1930s, I have seen indisputable evidence that American politics has long been vociferous, personal and hard-hitting.

The Literary Digest in a report on its presidential poll of 1932 had this to say:

“The campaign has plunged into its bare-knuckle stage — the crisis of that quadrennial fever which disrupts American life, and throws the best of neighbors into a cat-and-dog feud until the passing of election day releases them from the spell and allows them to see what jolly good fellows they’ve been shaking their fists at.

“This fever now seems to be raging according to the best traditions. No more front-porch stuff. Vigorous campaign touring by both candidates and their oratorical aids. Slathers of rhetoric leaping out of the nation’s radio sets. Everybody hot and bothered. Parliamentary amenities put aside. Attack, counter-attack. Irritability. Censure. Sarcasm. Whispering campaigns. Nerves on edge. The country itself on edge. We are at the ticklish stage in this campaign.”

Don’t forget, that was before Franklin Roosevelt had been elected and before the New Deal had even been announced. But yet, there was plenty of heated rhetoric, irritability and “attack, counter-attack.” And trust me, despite the editorialist’s expectation that the political rhetoric would settle down after the 1932 election, it didn’t. Rather, it just got worse as the Great Depression dragged on and as FDR revamped the entire U.S. economy.

Nor do we need to stop our historical survey in the 1930s. Vitriol and white gasoline have been a part of political rhetoric from the first. Is it not still taught that one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, died in a duel with Aaron Burr over longstanding political grievances? And what about the portraits of Abraham Lincoln as a monkey that were featured in newspapers across the entire nation, north and south.

Listen, for instance, to this 1864 plea in the Allen County Democrat newspaper of Lima, Ohio:

“Democrats, with a conscription of a most odious character menacing the people, do not lower your standard one inch or abate your opposition to the measures of this infamous and detestable administration one jot.”

On the front page of the Mountain Democrat from Placerville, Calif., in the same year appeared this snippet: “What bigotry and blindness it was for the heathens to throw themselves under the car of Juggernaut to be crushed to appease the wrath of their false gods. And in this enlightened day, what folly it is  for the American people to offer themselves as sacrifices to promote the ambition of Lincoln.”

These are examples picked at random of the kind of attacks that have been part and parcel of American politics from the beginning. You can find similar attacks on Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and George W. Bush. The fact that such attacks continue to be made against President Obama is neither a sign of racism nor of radicalism, but of the same old “cat-and-dog feud” that cannot help but be waged by free men and women in defense of their liberty.

In a recent column, I quoted former Sen. James A. Reed referring to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and other policies as “the conspiracies of domestic traitors.”

That’s pretty strong language, but what made it rather extraordinary from our perspective is not its intensity, but that Reed, like Roosevelt, was a Democrat. I might venture that all the talk we hear of how “polarized” the political climate is today is because, in former times, it was principle that guided rhetoric rather than partisan loyalty.

Can you think of any Democrat today who is willing to publicly rail against his party’s “big government” policies? Montana’s Sen. Jon Tester fashions himself as an independent Democrat, for instance, but it seems like the only time he is independent is when his vote isn’t needed to push forward the progressive agenda.

That kind of timidity wasn’t seen in the 1930s. Real debate, uncleansed by political correctness, was the standard. President Roosevelt was attacked from within his own party vociferously, and in no uncertain terms. But he and his advisers could give as good as they got.

When Sen. Huey Long of Louisiana mounted a credible third-party bid from the left-wing of the Democratic Party on FDR in 1935, Roosevelt and his Cabinet and advisers attacked Long’s “share-the-wealth” agenda before finally co-opting it as their own.

Numerous advisers of the president such as Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, the administrator of the National Recovery Administration, Postmaster General (and old political hand) Jim Farley, and Sen. Harry Byrd were loosed by FDR to denounce Long.

Byrd called Long a “supreme demagogue” and said, “He has made himself dictator of his state.” Johnson said Long was a preacher of “destruction” and that “Hitler couldn’t hold a candle to Huey in the art of the old Barnum ballyhoo.”

Six months later, Huey Long was assassinated by a lone gunman. To this day, no one has blamed either Harry Byrd, Gen. Johnson or FDR for the killing. By the same token, it is wrong to blame anyone but the gunmen and their accomplices for modern assassinations. Strong speech may be “irritating,” as the Literary Digest suggested back in 1932. It may even be offensive, but it is not murder — it is rather the basis of all our civil liberties.

Do not think that the King of England approved of being called a tyrant in 1776. Do not think that Lincoln approved of being called a tyrant in 1864. Do not think George Bush approved of being called a usurper when he was declared the winner of the 2000 presidential election. Do not think President Obama approved of being called a usurper in 2008 when his birth status was questioned.

But do not imagine an America where we cannot speak our minds. Do not imagine an America where political speech has to be politically correct speech before it can be heard. And do not imagine an America where you and I have to agree with each other all the time.

That is not America. That is the end of America.