>>>>> I think the vitriol during the Clinton and Bush (43) administrations has been unprecedented.
>>>
>>>I'm all for opposing demonizing - mostly because I find it intellectually lazy.
>>>
>>>But as to unprecedented - for a little perspective
>>>
>>>in 1804 the vice president of the United States killed the former Secretary of the Treasury in a duel
>>>
>>>Jefferson and Adams loathed each other. ( though their friendship was somewhat repaired by correspondence in their later years, when Adams died on July 4, 1826 - yeah, exactly 50 years after the big day - his last words were 'Thomas Jefferson still lives!' - he didn't know TJ had died a few hours before. )
>>>
>>>in 1824 Jackson's followers' favorite campaign song was "John Quincy Adams went a pimping for the czar! "
>>>
>>>in 1856 SC rep Preston Brookes beat Senator Charles Sumner with his cane of the floor of the Senate.
>>>
>>>Lincoln - well, you know about that.
>>>
>>>FDR - the 'traitor to his class'
>>>
>>>JFK - Dallas wasn't the only place or the only time he was in danger.
>>>
>>>LBJ was openly accused of the murder of JFK ( remember McBird ? ) "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today ?"
>>>
>>>Remember the Democratic Convention of 1968?
>>>
>>>Nixon - well that wasn't a real warm and fuzzy time.
>>>
>>>For 50 years the FBI was run by an egomaniacal madman who used blackmail and extortion to manipulate public figures while Mayer Lansky did the same to him.
>>>
>>>I think the public dialog has coursened a bit as people feel like instant experts on politics since they are exposed to increasing sophisticated and polarizing media, and I think the mouth-frothing Bush and Clinton haters have been a little more vocal that was common previously, but I think the republic will survive.
>>>
>>>A McCain / Obama race could do a lot to raise the level of dialog - if neither caves to the loonies on their left and right.
>>>
>>>At least nobody would be able to blame whatever happened on a Bush or a Clinton.
>>>
>>
>>Your examples are good ones. Your third to last paragraph was my point. I certainly didn't mean to suggest politics was all smiles before 1992.
>
>I actually find it encouraging that in 2004, with an unpopular war on and the country apparently polarized, voter turnout was only about 60%. I think this is partially a sign that for most people the most important things in their lives do not involve the government. Maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

If the turnout for primaries so far is any indication, there could be a lot more people than that voting this November.