Dirtiest Election Ever: Beyond Obscenity to Articulate a Vision

In the recent “presidential” debate, just when we thought it couldn’t get any lower, sure enough one of the candidates made a vulgar allusion. (Yes, you had to have a dirty mind to catch it.) Of course the media are all atwitter. (Can Twitter be atwitter?) They run the clip over and over, pretending to be offended, but they run it ad nauseam.

So what? Move off the networks and onto the cable channels and the Anglo-Saxonisms flow regularly across the airwaves. But looking back to the really nasty election of 1800 and its parallels with 2016, what is the story when it comes to salty language and attack words? At the time Thomas Jefferson and John Adams faced off in what historians cite as the dirtiest election ever, what was the state of public discourse? In some ways it was as coarse as today.

Today, as in 1800, there were words people thought too rude for public discourse. But behind the scenes? There folks weren't as gentlemanly as we like to think, especially when talking among themselves. Adams’ surrogates claimed Jefferson was an atheist who wanted to turn churches into brothels. Adams’ irascible personality and weight were always fair game for “His Rotundness.” 

George Washington had a towering temper he usually kept in check. When he let it rip he could toss the verbal bombs with the best of them. When delegates to the Constitutional Convention sat with their pipes and port after dinner, they often swapped bawdy stories. One of their favorite games was inventing wilder and wilder sexual puns about Gouverneur Morris' wooden leg and his way with the ladies. James Madison was infamous among his contemporaries for his dirty jokes.

It's true they didn't throw the F-Bomb but they certainly came close. John Adams was no fan of Alexander Hamilton and in an 1806 letter to Benjamin Rush hurled this diatribe against Hamilton for his remarks denigrating George Washington.

Although I read with tranquility and suffered to pass without animadversion in silent contempt the base insinuations of vanity and a hundred lies besides published in a pamphlet against me by an insolent coxcomb who rarely dined in good company, where there was good wine, without getting silly and vaporing about his administration like a young girl about her brilliants and trinkets, yet I lose all patience when I think of a bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar daring to threaten to undeceive the world in their judgment of Washington by writing an history of his battles and campaigns. This creature was in a delirium of ambition; he had been blown up with vanity by the tories, had fixed his eyes on the highest station in America, and he hated every man, young or old, who stood in his way or could in any manner eclipse his laurels or rival his pretensions. . .

Pretty strong stuff...but not as strong as these "gentlemen" wrote under pen names in the popular press skewering one another and accusing one another of the worst intentions and even treason. Generally they lambasted one another with innuendo as well as direct attacks. It can be a delicious pastime to dissect their elaborate language and watch as they slip the verbal knife between the ribs and give a fatal twist.

Today it's so easy go for the obvious obscenity rather than the creative cut. In the 2012 presidential race, George Will wondered why Candidate Mitt Romney was embracing Donald Trump, whom he called a “bloviating ignoramus,” certainly an arcane insult the founders could have appreciated in their own rough and tumble elections.

Is this what we want to hear from our leaders? Has reality become reality TV? Are there any Leadership Lessons in all this? Perhaps a few:

·  Leaders control themselves: George Washington was prickly, thin skinned, and took offence easily. Yet his advice to himself and others was to show restraint of "tongues and pens." He kept his temper in check most of the time. He knew "losing it" on a regular basis causes people to disengage.

·  Leaders cultivate creativity: "Bloviating" is such a yummy word, I'm sure folks scurried to google its meaning (synonym for blow hard.) In our general anti-intellectual climate, leaders encourage their people to think and grow and become more articulate, communicate better for collaboration, without reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

·  Leaders do not condone crudity: Leaders know language can offend like the bawdy stories and sexist remarks disappearing from most workplaces. Leaders insist on better communication not to be "politically correct" but to be inclusive; they need everyone engaged. Leaders foster serious, passionate debate and discussion to unearth the best solutions.

Just because the founding fathers weren't saints doesn't mean we do not honor and respect them. We admire them because, like us, they were all too human, capable of pettiness and backbiting, and sometimes behaving badly. We learn from them precisely because they made mistakes and then triumphed over their human nature.

This doesn’t mean we want this dubious name-calling, sexual-innuendo tradition to continue. When I watch fired-up candidates yelling insults rather than debating issues and policies, I flash on our sons as teenagers sitting on the sofa hurling barbs and punching each other. Normal teenage malarkey...but not the vision of leadership, functioning on the global stage or wrestling with intractable conflicts and seeking resolutions and peace. I hope we deserve better.

Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders showed us real leadership in tough times. They rose above their character defects. Can we do the same as we select a world leader?

* * * * * * * *

What's your idea: Can we joust without bloviating?

* * * * * * *
(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein and Advantage Leadership, Inc.


Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

I started a companion video series during the 2012 elections that holds true today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbcLmL3HuHo 

When did elections become American Idol?

Full disclosure: I love to watch debates - academic or political. I love the give and take. I watched every presidential primary debate this season. (The British call it the silly season with good reason.) I've watched both debates now between the candidates and will be glued to the last two. (Update: the second presidential debate does not change what I've already posted.)

I'm NOT looking for winners and losers. I'm looking for information. I'm not one of those over-hyped "undecided voters." I've made a choice and I don't think a debate will change my mind so I'll take advantage of my state's early voting. However, and this is a big "however," I still want to understand each candidate and party's ideas, desires, plans, history, and more. I never get tired of it. Sometimes I agree with my chosen candidate and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like what he or she says and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I support their compromises and sometimes I don't. I'm not a single-issue voter, and since I cast my first presidential vote in the 60s, I've tried to look at the full package.

So what? I was watching some "news" coverage after the vice presidential debate and they were discussing what was trending on social media during the debate...DURING the debate.

• We are NOT WIRED TO MULTITASK. When we're listening/watching the debate and start texting, tweeting or facebooking, our brain is simply switching back and forth very, very rapidly (below our ability to perceive.) So we're not actually attentive to either.
• Much of the "trending" was about ridiculous topics including one candidate's workout photos and the other's use of words like "malarkey." ????? This is what's important in choosing a person who is "a heartbeat away from the president?" This is the how we choose a potential world leader?

When did the most important political decisions that will affect our lives become American Idol? Are we electing the Debater-in-Chief? Do we expect him or her to go mano a mano with other world leaders on TV to decide the fate of nations? Do we really think the endless dissection of jokes, wise cracks, facial expressions, body language, and zingers is the best way to make this important decision?

What about the Founding Fathers? How would they hold up?

Most wouldn't fare too well based on our pop-idol values.

George Washington hated to speak in public and many of his addresses were simply published and not spoken. He was self-conscious about his lack of formal education among the political elite of the late 18th century. He was intelligent, well-read, and a shrewd politician and judge of people and events but he would have appeared wooden and ill-at-ease in a public debate.

John Adams was scrappy and considered a good trial lawyer and effective legislator in the Continental Conventions. He defended British soldiers successfully after the Boston massacre (which would have been political death in today's world of negative ads.) He was also irritable and irritating and seldom curbed his tongue in his attacks on those who disagreed with him. He didn't play well with others when he disagreed.

Thomas Jefferson wrote soaring prose that still inspires us but he was a horrible speaker. This voice was weak and barely audible when he addressed any gathering and he avoided it whenever possible. He would have delighted in today's campaigns of negativity. Through his support of newspapers and others who he agreed with, he published or caused to be published, scathing attacks on his political enemies. His attacks, through his pal Jemmy Madison, went for the jugular in attempt to destroy Alexander Hamilton, and even George Washington while he served as his Secretary of State.

James (Jemmy) Madison was a masterful debater, although he too did not have a strong voice, and people often complained he was hard to hear in a large room. However, in his long state and federal legislative career and in the Constitutional Convention, he held his own with other more powerful debaters. Most famously, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention to ratify the new U.S. Constitution, he faced off against Patrick Henry. Although Henry brought his A game bombast and withering rhetoric, he turned out to be no match for Madison, an author of the document with intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny and how it had been debated and decided.

Today, we would not select the wooden Washington, the irascible Adams, the weak-voiced Jefferson or the egg-head Madison. We would have preferred the smooth-talking Aaron Burr, who kill Hamilton while still vice president; the pyrotechnic Henry who was an avowed anti-federalist who would have gotten rid of anything but independent, autonomous state governments; the avuncular, always charming and folksy and wily Ben Franklin, who would have only a one-house legislature, removing a critical check on popular passion; and who knows what other folly.

Presidential leadership is not about "optics." Would we elect Lincoln today? Would we elect the very short, "great little Madison?" Would "his rotundness," Adams receive our nod? Would we pick Jefferson who was famous for his slouching posture as well as his weak voice? Sadly, probably not.

I'll continue to enjoy the debates. I'll go to the polls and cast my ballot. But it would be more assuring to me if citizens watched the debates using the active listening techniques I teach managers and executives.

• Quiet your mind and ignore stray thoughts or preparing a response.
• Focus your entire attention on the other person.
• Listen to what he or she is saying and observe the body language and tone.
• Ask questions to make sure you understand the other person and that he or she knows you understand.

Finally, I can't help but quote from that poor debater, Thomas Jefferson:

"A nation that expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization … expects what never was and never will be."

Or maybe from that fierce debater, James Madison:

Liberty & Learning lean on each other for their mutual and surest support.

Please vote...and please, make a rational, informed decision. It ain't American Idol!

*     *     *     *     *     *

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Check out more about the politics of the early republic and today's leaders in Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. http://advantageleadership.com/section/Conventional_Wisdom/17/

5 Criteria to Look for in a Presidential Candidate

It's what the British call the silly season -- elections -- or more precisely the Primaries. If you're like me you've watched debates, stump speeches and interviews. You may have visited websites and blogs and tried to figure out what each candidate is offering. It can still be confusing. When people tell pollsters that they made up their mind as they entered the voting booth, I cringe.

Deciding on a presidential candidate is a privilege of living in a democracy. Over the last few years as I've researched the early American republic and its leaders, I've discovered 5 criteria you should consider when choosing a candidate.

(WARNING: You will have to think and ponder. You will have to examine your own heart and values and beliefs. You may have to make some hard choices.)

1. The candidate must have a Vision -- a big picture of where they want to lead the nation. They must also be able to tell you what they want to see happen by the end of their four year term.

2. The candidate must be able to make that vision a reality. For some candidates this may be done through their experience and based on their track record. For others it may be based on their ability to inspire others to act through their positive persuasive powers.

3. The candidate must have the proven ability to grow, to change and to evolve. They should have demonstrated that they can continue to examine the facts and change their minds in a principled way, based on changes in circumstances. They must be able to admit both mistakes and evolving thinking.

4. The candidate must have "character." They should demonstrate their values in their actions.

5. The candidate must be willing to be the leader of the entire nation and all the people. To quote James Madison in Federalist 10: They are people "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."

Line your favorite candidates up against these criteria. Do they make it on all 5 criteria? Can you say that they make the grade 100%? If not, time to think some more.

Whoever your candidate is, show up and vote. There is an old adage that says people get the government they deserve. I don't necessarily agree with that but if you don't vote, you really can't complain. See you on Primary or Caucus day.