Mudslinging through the ages

This is a fascinating article that recounts how the mudslinging so apparent in this time's election campaign is actually a time honored tradition in US Presidential elections. I particularly liked Lincoln's comebacks cited at the closing. Apparently, Lincoln had responded to assertions of "Judge Douglas" on several matters, allowing that he was certain Douglas wasn't intending to lie. He also, reportedly, compared Douglas to an "obstinate animal" and added, "I mean no disrespect."

Actually, mudslinging is not so much a US tradition but a general human failing. When you can't win an argument through the force of your logic, resort to undermining your opponents credibility and character. History is replete with examples of tactics that leverage smearing opponents in Britain and France, and in slightly different manifestations in monarchies around the world. And, its not been limited to politics alone. Consider for instance the attacks against Charles Darwin.

Can pastors endorse candidates?

Professor Stanley Fish provides some of the most well reasoned arguments on issues in the press. In this article, he discusses the issue of pastors exhorting their parishioners to vote for one or the other candidate, generally John McCain.

If you missed the issue, here's a brief summary. The current tax code currently disqualifies religious organizations from enjoying a tax exempt status if they "participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." Churches that endorse candidates risk losing their tax exempt status. Several pastors argue that this is a violation of the their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion. So, they have all given vituperative sermons in favor of one of the candidates, usually McCain, and challenged the IRS to take away their tax exempt status.

Prof. Fish argues very effectively that the underlying argument is actually a difference in world views that cannot be resolved through rational argument. You can read his article and see if you agree.

In my view he has overcomplicated it. Tax exempt status is essentially a way of the government giving a handout. It is unclear why religious organizations are exempt in the first place. But, given that they are, if religious organizations were now permitted to take political positions, wouldn't that in effect be a tax subsidy to one side of the political argument? While I am with the pastors that they should have the right to say what they like from the pulpit, I don't see anything in the constitution that tax payers to subsidize such speech. That's the real issue.