Hyperpartisanship and Deamonization of Regional Experts

[MattC86]

With respect, I'm not sure all of this is necessarily unprecedented "hyperpartisanship."

In the 19th century, there was a phrase "raising the bloody rag," referring to attacks on a candidate's patriotism. In many ways (The classic example is currently eluding me), this is not anything new. When you consider that a losing candidate is willing to do anything in the immediate run-up to an election, the demonization of regional experts like Khalidi doesn't appear particularly unique in American history.

Is the American political climate more poisonously partisan than in recent memory? Quite possibly. Are the election partisan politics currently seen a new feature of politics? Probably not.

Regards,

Matt

[Schmedlap]

While partisanship has clearly played a huge role in this election (how many Senators won elections just because voters were punishing the other party?), I don't see this particular issue as partisanship. It is just politically-oriented discourse (emotional appeal) that is intended to influence how people look at certain candidates; personal attacks. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

When someone's view of how we conduct the war is based first on their party affiliation and second upon which alternatives advocated by their party are best (rather than which alternatives among all available are best, regardless of party endorsement) - then that is partisanship. And one can see it plainly by visiting MoveOn or FreeRepublic. The demonization of folks associated with candidates is the result of candidate versus candidate shenanigans, not the standard party versus party circus. It is a campaign tactic, (i.e. Barack Obama hangs out with terrorists and people who do not view the world as we do -OR- John McCain is the right-hand man of the evil George Bush). Partisanship would be "vote for me because I'm a member of the X Party."