Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump’s dirty tricks: Unethical, even illegal campaign tactics are an American tradition

Published

on

Donald Trump pulled some pretty unseemly stunts to win the 2016 United States presidential election.

He threatened to put his opponent, Hillary Clinton, in jail and publicly asked Russia to hack her emails. After Russian operatives did something similar – stealing emails from Democratic National Committee servers – the Trump campaign publicized the hacked emails, which were published on WikiLeaks. Trump aides also met with Russian spies who promised information damaging to Clinton.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some of these activities, which special counsel Robert Mueller uncovered in his 22-month investigation into Trump, may have been illegal.

Other Trump attacks on Clinton were tawdry, unethical and, according to Attorney General William Barr in his May 1 testimony to Congress, technically lawful.

The attacks were, for the Justice Department at least, dirty tricks.

Students of American history – including those who’ve read the college U.S. politics textbook I co-authored – will know that Trump has a lot of company in the dirty tricks department: Elections have always been nasty.

Since the earliest years of the republic, candidates have used deceptive, underhanded and dubiously legal tactics to discredit their opponents.

ADVERTISEMENT

1800: Jefferson vs. Adams

The 1800 race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams was a lowly beginning for the new American democracy.

Jefferson was Adams’ vice president from 1797 to 1801. To defeat his boss without personally maligning the president of the United States, Jefferson let a journalist, James Callender, do his dirty work.

Callender wrote rapidly partisan articles for the Richmond Reporter newspaper and in a self-published 1800 anti-Federalist pamphlet called “The Prospect Before Us.” One of his more creative attacks was to question Adams’ masculinity. He accused Adams of being a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Callender’s anti-Federalist publications during the campaign led to his prosecution under the Sedition Act, according to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. In May 1800, he was sentenced to nine months in jail and a US$200 fine.

This bitter contest between president and vice president occurred because President Adams and Vice President Jefferson came from different political party. Back then, voters picked two candidates for president. The top vote-getter became president, the second-place finisher became vice president.

ADVERTISEMENT

Congress changed this system changed after the dirty 1800 election, passing the 12th Amendment, which established the current running mate system.

1828: Adultery, murder and pimping

That didn’t make electoral politics any kinder. The 1828 race between President John Quincy Adams and the southern statesman Andrew Jackson was the United States’ nastiest and most personal election yet.

Democratic President John Quincy Adams lost badly – but not before he did some serious damage to Jackson’s reputation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Andrew Jackson’s wife, Rachel, was labeled an ‘American Jezebel’ in the 1828 election.
Library of Congress

Adam’s campaign surrogates accused Jackson of murder and spread rumors that Jackson’s wife, Rachel – who had previously been married to another man – had never really divorced.

“As a result,” political commentator Rick Unger wrote in Forbes magazine in 2012, “the Democratic candidate was accused of being an adulterer and running away with another man’s wife, while Mrs. Jackson was labeled a bigamist.”

Jackson’s team retaliated by accusing Adams, a former ambassador to Russia, of having provided Russian Czar Alexander I up with young American virgins for his sexual pleasure.

These tactics probably amounted to criminal defamation. In the United States, it is unlawful to tarnish a person’s reputation by spreading false information. But there is no evidence that either camp sued.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kennedy’s dirty tricks

In the modern era, John F. Kennedy found subtler ways to discredit his opponents.

When running for Congress in 1946, Kennedy’s competitors in the Democratic primary included a Boston city councilman named Joseph Russo. Kennedy’s father, the formidable and ambitious Joseph Kennedy, paid a janitor named Joseph Russo to run for Congress as well.

In the confusion over which Russo was the legitimate politician, votes were split. Kennedy won his seat.

Later, when Kennedy was a presidential candidate in 1960, his aides raised the temperature in the TV studio where he would soon face off against Vice President Richard Nixon in the nation’s first-ever televised debate. The Kennedy campaign knew that Nixon suffered from hyperhidrosis, a medical condition that causes a person to easily sweat.

ADVERTISEMENT

As Nixon perspired and struggled under the bright lights and high heat, Kennedy looked cool, calm and sweat-free.

John F. Kennedy’s team turned up the heat in the TV studio before a televised 1960 debate with Richard Nixon, knowing he would sweat heavily.
AP Images, File

Nixon had been politically pranked before.

Dick Tuck, a notorious Democratic Party trickster, was “known to pose as a fire marshal at Nixon appearances and give reporters low estimates for the size of the crowds,” according to his obituary by Reuters.

Party infighting

As president, Nixon’s team would excel at much dirtier tricks.

To defeat Democrat Hubert Humphrey in the 1972 election, Nixon operatives caused trouble for his campaign in ingenious ways.

ADVERTISEMENT

At a fancy fundraising dinner for Democratic vice presidential candidate Edmund Muskie, Republican tricksters ordered the delivery of $300 in liquor, 200 pizzas and even a couple magicians – much to the dismay of organizers and the shock of the 1,300 very proper attendees.

The dirty tricks tradition continued into the 21st century, sometimes within the same party.

During the 2000 Republican presidential primary, George W. Bush’s campaign strategist Karl Rove spread rumors in South Carolina that John McCain’s adopted Bangladeshi daughter was his “illegitimate black child.”

In 2010, an Arizona Republican political operative named Steve May recruited homeless people to run for several offices on the Green Party ticket, hoping to split the liberal vote. Angry Democrats said that nominating “sham” candidates violated state and federal election laws.

ADVERTISEMENT

That case didn’t go to trial, but some dirty campaign tricks have spurred legal action.

After the Democratic-aligned Alabama lawyer Garve Ivey Jr. in 1998 allegedly paid a call girl to file a false rape claim against the GOP’s candidate for lieutenant governor, Steve Windom, Ivey was charged with criminal defamation, bribery and witness tampering. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $1,000.

While that misdemeanor conviction was later overturned, Ivey was disbarred in 2011 and later jailed on unrelated charges of misusing client funds.

The lesson here?

ADVERTISEMENT

The ethical standard for election campaigns in the United States has always been low. Modern techniques like email hacking may be new, but using surrogates to trash your opponent is an electoral strategy as old as the republic itself.The Conversation

Steffen W. Schmidt, Lucken Endowed Professor of Political Science, Iowa State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘I can’t wait for revenge’: White House aide vows payback over Trump impeachment trial

Published

on

The White House legislative liaison is seeking revenge as President Donald Trump faces an impeachment trial in the Senate.

According to Bloomberg reporter Daniel Flatley, legislative affairs director Eric Ueland walked past a group of reporters at the Capitol and said, "I can't wait for revenge."

White House liaison Eric Ueland just walked by a pen of reporters and said “I can’t wait for the revenge.”

— Daniel Flatley (@DanielPFlatley) January 23, 2020

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trump to issue new rule restricting visas for pregnant women in latest attack on most vulnerable

Published

on

"If you think this won't be used to blatantly discriminate against immigrants based on gender and age, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you."

In the Trump administration's latest effort to restrict travel to the U.S., the U.S. State Department is planning to issue new guidance to consular officers empowering them to refuse visas to pregnant travelers.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Fox News legal analyst shames ‘unworthy’ Republicans who have already decided to acquit Trump

Published

on

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano's latest column explains why President Donald Trump's actions are worthy of impeachment -- and he shames any Republican senators who have already made up their minds.

Napolitano starts by making the case that there is enough evidence to credibly charge the president with crimes, even though Democrats in the House only impeached him for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

"Federal election laws proscribe as criminal the mere solicitation of help for a political campaign from a foreign national or government," he writes. "There is no dispute that Trump did this. In fact, the case for this is stronger now than it was when the House impeached him last year. Since then, more evidence, which Trump tried to suppress, has come to light."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image