Remember when presidential elections used to be relatively civil affairs? When you felt like the country was still going to be in responsible, adult hands, no matter who won?
Not lately. Not in a while.
I cast my first presidential ballot for Jimmy Carter in 1976, but I had no major fear of where Gerald Ford might steer the country. The guy who beat Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan, was not my cup of tea, to say the least, nor was he in 1984, when he crushed the overmatched Walter Mondale. But I questioned Reagan’s politics, not his motivations.
And when George “Not W” Bush beat Michael Dukakis in 1988, I thought, OK. I can live with this guy and hope to beat him in 1992. Which happened with Bill Clinton. And if Clinton had lost to Bob Dole in 1996, I could have lived with that guy, too. War hero and a true patriot, unlike the clowns who claim the title now.
A slight detour popped up in 2000 when the Supreme Court decided that an accurate recount of Florida votes wasn’t really necessary, and George “Yes, W” Bush Electoral-Colleged his way past the eminently preferable Al Gore.
I blame Tennessee more than Florida for that outcome, by the way. So much for favorite-son loyalty.
John Kerry was better than Bush in 2004, too, as I think history has borne out. But we survived, and that probably helped pave the way for Barack Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012.
But guess what? We’d have been all right with John McCain or Mitt Romney. There, I said it.
Then came 2016. And 2020. And 2024. Democrats have nominated three different people in that time, some of whom I liked more than others, but all well within an acceptable range of sanity. And Republicans have nominated the same guy each time. Who is not.
There’s a reason many people have considered these past three elections as existential tests for the Republic.
As a result, many of us have been particularly prickly with those in the other camp, and quick to turn any issue into a Red/Blue debate. Here’s an example: The other day I posted a lament about my alma mater’s recent football fortunes.
The very first comment hijacked it into the presidential politics realm. And then two other friends on opposite sides – two strangers to each other, mind you – traded barbs.
And that’s where we are these days. Each side trying to “own” the other. With predictable results.
A few years back a friend from high school explained the reasoning for his Red vote. He favors a strong military and robust police efforts against crime, he told me, and opposes abortion.
Which is all well and good, but any Republican presidential nominee could pretty much deliver on those issues. It puzzled me why my friend – or anyone – would support a deeply flawed, uniquely unqualified human being to represent his values.
I’m similarly vexed as to why evangelical Christians would adopt as their political messiah a man whose entire life has been pretty much the antithesis of Christ’s teachings.
Some of my friends have found the divide too deep and too broad to bridge. Just the other day, one posted on Facebook inviting people to unfriend him if they’re supporting what he – quite reasonably – considers fascism.
Another friend finds himself on the outs with basically his entire graduating class from high school.
I haven’t gone that far. I’m not going to end any yearslong relationships over political differences – even differences as gaping as we have now.
But the whole situation has definitely drained the political process of any notion of joy.
It’s been replaced by dread. And, given how the animosities now play out from top to bottom of the November ballot, I can’t help wondering whether there will be any improvement in my lifetime.
Meanwhile, all we can do is vote. If Jimmy Carter can manage it at 100, surely we can. See you at the polls.
Joe Rogers is a former writer for The Tennessean and editor for The New York Times. He is retired and living in Nashville. He can be reached at jrogink@gmail.com