Historic Interlude -- Guess The Decade
It's pretty common in America, these days, to hear denunciations of various outlets of the media, or even of the media universe as a whole. From a Lefty excoriating Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or just Fox News in general, to a Righty heaping scorn on Rachel Maddow, Arianna Huffington, or even more generically, "the liberal press," you don't have to look too far to find people expressing the opinion that our media conversation is too coarse these days, and that partisan screaming fills the airwaves to our collective degradation. Gauzy memories of some "Golden Age" of media often go hand-in-hand with these statements.
It's all bunkum, of course. America has always enjoyed a rousing good political fight, and our media has almost always reflected this (to their profit). Read the following excerpt, if you have a problem believing this, and see if you can put it in context. When, in other words, was the following written?
When an instrument [the media] so potent is committed to the weak, the ignorant, and the vicious, the most baneful consequences must be anticipated. When men of small talents, of little information, and of less virtue, undertake to be ... directors of public opinion, what must be the result? We may expect to see the frivolity of weakness, the errors and malignity of prejudice, the misrepresentations of party zeal, the most corrupt doctrines in politics and morals, the lacerations of private character, and the polluting language of obscenity and impiety, daily issuing from the press, poisoning the principles, and disturbing the repose of society; giving to the natural and salutary collisions of parties the most brutal violence and ferocity; and, at length, consuming the best feelings and noblest charities of life, in the flame of civil discord.
I'll even make it easier. Try to guess the decade this was written. I'll offer no hints, other than to say it was written in a book on history -- the author had devoted a chapter to the press in America. It could be recent history, and it could be further back.
I'll post the answer in the comments tomorrow, but I am interested to see who even comes close to guessing when this was written. The language is a bit dated (although not much), but with a few minor word and sentence updates, the exact same sentiment could have easily been expressed by anyone looking at the past decade of the American media. OK, that's one hint: it wasn't written about any decade in the twenty-first century, how's that to get you started? [Note: No fair cheating by using Google!]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Well, "the natural and salutary collisions of parties" can't be too early. Until roughly the Jackson era, party wasn't regarded as compatible with the virtue of a Republic.
I'll guess the Gay Nineties.
I googled it. I'll just say that my guess wasn't even close, but the guess I came up with before reading the quote was spot-on. Go with your gut, folks, and you can nail it for real instead of going coulda-woulda-shoulda.
dsws -
It's on Google? I kind of wondered about that. They're hit-or-miss sometimes.
Anyone else? We've got the 1890s so far...
OK, I'll give one hint: the political argument of the day was over big government vs. small government, for the most part. Oh, wait, that's not much of a hint, is it?
Heh.
-CW
hmm, dsws thought jackson era, thought differently and then lamented the change of position. further, CW has been working on a research project involving jackson.
so... 1820's to 1830's?
Just a shot in the dark...
1780
Michale.....
You guys are closer than I would have thought...
If faced with the raw quote, I might have guessed around the "yellow journalism" period, or 1890 to maybe 1920.
The quote is from Rev. Samuel Miller, published in 1803. He was writing a multi-volume tome called "Brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century" (the book I got the quote from lists it from vol. II, but Google says vol. III...). Now, I have to admit my heart goes out to anyone who puts out a multi-volume set with the word "brief" in the title (heh), myself.
He was writing about the media in America, and was most likely influenced mostly by the previous decade, 1790-1800 -- our first decade under the Constitution. The newspapers at this time were far more vicious than either (take your pick) the tabloids or the partisan press of today (say, Fox News, for example). During this decade, the media ran with stories about two major sex scandals (Jefferson/Sally Hemings and Hamilton/Maria Reynolds), and were quickly dividing themselves into Federalist and Republican papers (this is not the modern Republican party, but the "Democratic-Republican" party, I should mention).
This was also the age of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed so the federal government could chuck newspaper editors in jail for commenting on politics. Thankfully, this didn't work, for many reasons. But think for a moment -- would they have passed a law to chuck editors in jail if the editors weren't themselves out on the front lines in the political battles?
Anyway, I've been coming across quotes that set me back during my research -- quotes that make me think "that could easily be said about today" -- and I just thought I'd share this one with everyone.
As a bonus, here's another funny quote for everyone, this one from Alexis de Tocqueville (this one is for LizM, since she'll probably get the biggest laugh out of it):
"To a foreigner, almost all the domestic quarrels of the Americans appear, at first sight, incomprehensible or childish, and one does not know if one ought to pity a people that occupies itself seriously with such trifles or envy it the luck of being able to do so."
Heh.
-CW
dsws thought jackson era, thought differently and then lamented the change of position
I wouldn't have given quite that big a hint. I thought Alien-and-Sedition era, but from my reading of the quote Jackson seemed the earliest possible.
dsws -
The word "partisan" pre-dates the actual party structure (although they spelled it "partizan" back then...).
There weren't true national parties (as we would define such today) until post-Jackson, but there were what I would call "factions" back to the Washington administration. There were lots of them, in fact. Federalists, anti-Federalists, Whigs, (small-r) republicans, (small-d) democrats, "radical" republicans, "quids" (what we'd call "centrists" or "Blue Dogs" or "RINOs" today), and lots of other flavors.
The only time in American history when we really did have only one party was around 1820 (the "Era of Good Feelings"). In 1820, only one major candidate ran for president. This was due to the Federalists' collapse, after they had staked out an anti-1812-war position and (from New England, no less) actually advocated secession.
But then, soon after, Martin Van Buren and Andy Jackson shook everything back up again. And, lo and behold, the two-party system was born.
-CW
CW,
But then, soon after, Martin Van Buren and Andy Jackson shook everything back up again. And, lo and behold, the two-party system was born.
sort-of makes one wonder about the 2-party system. i've thought on more than one occasion that our nation might be better off with a different system, based on state percentages instead of winner-take-all districts. any forward-thinking state could pioneer this change on the state level.
My favorite option is to just do away with gerrymandering and let people register for whatever House seat they want. Then in Massachusetts with nine representatives, for example, a party with 6% support in the electorate could have a registration drive and get all its supporters to register for the same seat, giving them a majority for that seat.
Of course, real voter registration would be less than perfect, but a party with 30% support could certainly get representation in a large state.
I would have the Senate keep single-seat plurality elections, but I would use majority voting for president.
Chris,
"To a foreigner, almost all the domestic quarrels of the Americans appear, at first sight, incomprehensible or childish, and one does not know if one ought to pity a people that occupies itself seriously with such trifles or envy it the luck of being able to do so."
Oh, yes ... that provoked a sheepish chuckle or two but, only in an effort to hide the fact that this quote is more aptly applied to the domestic quarrels of Canadians, throughout our storied history, more than you ever want to know! You can trust me on this.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!