The Politics of Personal Attack in 1872
A century and a half ago, a Seattle newspaper reflected on the toxic state of political discourse and the dangerous habit of substituting insults for policy debate.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
We hope that in the next national canvass the Republican party will be the party of reform. Congress will be forced to begin the reforms which have been so long promised. The demand of the honest voters cannot longer be denied, and we trust that the leaders of the Republican party will take the work of reform earnestly in hand. But while this movement for legislative reform should be general, the abuses which characterize political, or rather party, discussions should not be forgotten. No reform can be substantial so long as men attempt to make personal abuse pass for a discussion of principles. Few journals admit the true character of their opponents, and too many editors positively disregard truth and decency in writing down men who hold views different from their own.
Our attention has been called to this subject recently by the manner in which the partisan journals have treated certain men who attempt to lead the party instead of letting the party lead them. This bad practice of trying to excommunicate men who differ in personal preferences or in their views of expediency or of law, has increased within the last year. These men have been called 'demagogues,' 'fools,' 'knaves,' and 'sore heads,' because they hold and express opinions different from those of the President or of ruling politicians who control the patronage. Now, all these men are Republicans who represent the principles of the Republican party with remarkable consistency. The politicians and editors, who prove their own unworthiness by descending to low personalities, cannot show that these leaders have even disregarded the platforms of the party, and the mercenary motives which are recklessly charged upon them are too frivolous to deserve notice.
“No reform can be substantial so long as men attempt to make personal abuse pass for a discussion of principles.”
This 1872 editorial feels like a ghost from our modern news cycle. The fear that political discourse has devolved into 'personal abuse' replacing 'discussion of principles' reminds us that while the technology of the news has changed, the frustration with partisan purity tests and ad hominem attacks is as old as the territory itself.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.