The 1858 debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas over the issue of slavery were notable for their erudite discussion of an important policy matter. Now we don’t talk about issues, we talk about political viability in terms of how much the candidates have to spend. Ideas? Not so much.
Lincoln v. Douglas – 2020
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
5 Comments. Leave new
End-stage capitalism has its fingermarks all over this. Why do we have crappy news coverage and analysis? Because it’s cheaper to hire four babbling idiots who laugh and cackle on a “panel” than to have two serious journalists really turning the screws. More people watch.
Seriously, watch the coverage for the Iowa caucus and just count how many times whatever panel you’re watching breaks into peals of laughter. Like they’re all nervous as hell about something. I should take anything these morons say seriously? (And Rachel, wipe that shit-eating grin off your face, unless you actually are eating shit. Why? Being wrong is bad. Being wrong and looking in retrospect like an idiot because you had not one jot or tittle of humility or professionalism is even worse.)
The reason journalists used to be neutral? Because no one picks correct 100% of the time. I guessed wrong about RBG dying before the new year. I thought it was a motive for Pelosi’s truly imbecilic impeachment, which is now blowing up in her face like a case of sweaty gelignite strapped to a pack of vibrators turned up to 11. I’m pretty sure I picked right on the impeachment: the dems are already defecting from Pelosi’s camp, and the Republicans have enough votes to basically humilitate Pelosi by turning the entire thing into a farce. And when Trump wins (and in Trumpworld, anything OTHER than him being led out of the Oval Office in handcuffs is a compete vindication and a perfect victory), Pelosi will have lost all credibility.
Know what fair, neutral observers would point out? This is, pretty much to a T, the same dumbth that the Hillary (war criminal) Clinton voters commit when they whinge about how she won the popular vote.
Step through the looking glass. If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College and posted so much as a syllable of complaint, everyone would be crucifying him “for not understanding how this works.” And they’d be right. Sauce for the goose.
If Douglas and Lincoln could see the country today, they would have gone to Ford’s Theater on a double-date murder-suicide pact.
If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College and posted so much as a syllable of complaint, everyone would be crucifying him “for not understanding how this works.”
Maybe a nitpick:
Actually, it would seem Trump fully expected to lose both the electoral college and the popular vote. In face, he already laid the groundwork for his martyrdom/business plan by claiming voter fraud on a massive scale (without evidence of course). I believe he stayed on script and never acknowledged losing the popular vote.
I’m pretty sure the accusations of the Republican contender would have been treated with kid gloves had the electoral coin come up tails.
This reminds me of Winston Churchill’s gracious acceptance of his election loss against the labor party after WWII, when he shocked many observers and magnanimously refrained from instituting a military dictatorship (apparently the default option in the fight for democracy against communism). He even gets to be a close personal friend of the doctor. (Doctor who? Precisely.)
Pecunia non olet, Ted. Who needs a discussion of the issues ?…
Henri
Funnily enough, those words were uttered in the context of instituting a latrine tax, i.e. a policy issue.
It took the Romans several centuries more to perfect panem et circenses whereupon they ditched the trappings of the Republican system altogether. 😉
«It took the Romans several centuries more to perfect panem et circenses whereupon they ditched the trappings of the Republican system altogether.» But the originator of the phrase panem et circenses, Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis, lived only a few decades after the reign of Titus Flavius Sabinus Vespanius, to whom «Pecunia non olet» is attributed. So they were well on the way even by the latter’s time (after all, the Circus Maximus dates to before the establishment of the Republic, which, of course, like the US Republic today, was a plutocracy from its inception)….
Henri