The election of 1800 was the first partisan election in the United States, and the actors involved were out for blood. Dirty tricks, vitriolic publications, sex, scandal and personal vendettas – the politics of 1800 read like a telenovela, and the lessons learned are timeless.

1. Spread Your Ideas, Not Your Seed

Sexual exploits are too juicy for the gossip-mongers to overlook, and no matter the century, politicians never seem to learn. James Callendar (the Perez Hilton of his day) broke the story of Alexander Hamilton’s extramarital affair with Maria Reynolds in 1797. The hush-money Hamilton had paid to prevent his wife from learning about it did not prevent his lover’s cuckolded husband from divulging the secret. But the most shocking part of the story is that Hamilton published a pamphlet confessing to the affair.

Marias, Marilyns and Monicas will always make for juicy gossip, but if you can't keep your own marriage together, Politicians, don't preach about the "sanctity" of the institution.

drawing by Renee Maria, deviantArt

2. If Your Economy Depends on Immigrants, Don't Start Rounding up the Brown Folk

In the 1800's the brown folk were the Irish. Capitalizing on a deep resentment of the Naturalization and Alien Acts passed by the Adams administration, campaigners rallied support for the Republican party in New York’s immigrant communities.  Without the votes from the sixth and seventh wards of Manhattan, the poorest, darkest, most linguistically diverse and densely populated districts of the city, the Republicans would not have won in New York and Jefferson would not have won nationally.

Today, Patrick, Peter and Pedro, as equal citizens, both have one vote, so be careful whose cousin is being kicked out of the country.

 

3.Don't Put People in Jail for Speaking Freely, Especially if it's Your Ego at Stake

Vermont Congressman Matthew Lyon, who served a jail sentence for sedition in 1798 after printing that President Adams had an "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice,” ended up casting one of the deciding votes for Jefferson in the election of 1800. Thanks to his conviction under the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lyon was made a free-speech martyr and influential member of the Republican party which was promising a restoration of civil liberties. Lesson learned, Presidential Candidates. Respect the Constitution and, every once in a while, eat a slice of humble pie.

4. If Your Opponent Calls You an Infidel, Keep Your Mouth Shut

Considered a Deist, Jefferson believed in God the Creator, but denied the divinity of Jesus. He beautifully reconciled the need for keeping religion out of politics by writing that he trusted “the sufficiency of human reason for the care of human affairs.” When attacked as an infidel during the election campaign, Jefferson responded by not responding. He was progressive in his religious beliefs, even by today’s standards, and Jefferson’s opponents merely succeeded in painting themselves as frenzied witch-hunters by ranting about heresy. By not engaging in religious debate with his critics, Jefferson proved that there need not be a religious test for public office. For all Candidates, including you Mr. President, history might persuade you not to bring your private beliefs about God into the conversation about public service.

5. Don't Expect the Press to be Objective

Before super PACs and campaign staffers there were the newspapers. Not only were the journals partisan, but they were expected to be. In fact, the exponentially growing number of publications was largely responsible for getting local populations fired up and ready to vote. At least people cared. And in the end, isn’t it better to be honest about bias? If readers don’t expect the press to be objective, perhaps they will be more likely to look to multiple sources of information and talk politics with their neighbors. The press will always retain bias, so, Candidates, what will you do to encourage voters to think for themselves?

6. If Your Platform is Freedom and Equality, Don't Own Slaves (or be a Kazillionaire)

Did Jefferson, a slave-owning plantation owner, really expect to ride the rhetoric of freedom into the presidency without being challenged by black Americans? Gabriel’s insurrection, a slave-led rebellion in Virginia, certainly made Jefferson face his demons. It was a political and human rights conundrum that ended with 29 men hanged to appease southern plantation owners and the rest pardoned to appease northern abolitionists. The hypocrisy of Jefferson’s feelings toward slavery extended to every aspect of his life. He was known as a staunch opponent of the institution, writing that slavery was an “abominable crime”, yet he owned slaves all his life (one of whom was his mistress), and even in death did not free them. History has forgiven Jefferson his hypocrisy, but will the 99% forgive Romney his income tax rate? One thing is for certain, he can’t redeem himself by telling voters that he doesn’t care about the poor.

7. Don't Pretend to Be Stupid, Even When Your Opponent Picks on You for Being Too Smart

Jefferson was criticized for having studied philosophy and science. Philosophers, it was argued, were undignified and whimsical, and science was a discipline never to be mingled with government. Of course, Jefferson made no secret of his passion for knowledge, and in the end the voters were unpersuaded by Federalist anti-intellectualism. That result isn't surprising given the record of our Founding Fathers as thinkers and innovators, demonstrated best by Benjamin Franklin with his kite, key and lightning. As President, Jefferson's thirst for knowledge gave us the amazing adventures of Lewis and Clark (who he sent on America’s first transcontinental expedition in 1804). Perhaps, after all, there is a place in the public imagination for a colony on the moon.

8. The Enemy Probably Isn't Going to Chop Off Your Head

So don’t try to scare people into voting for you. According to the Federalists, the terrorists of the era were the French (and they were chopping off a lot of heads). But the public was smart enough to figure out that, despite a lot of propaganda describing the Republican party as Jacobin terrorists, Jefferson and his peers were unlikely to start setting up guillotines in the public squares. It would be decidedly difficult to use fear-based propaganda against the President who got Bin Laden, and so far nobody seems to be trying. Let's keep it that way.

9. If Your Party Leader Calls You Disgusting, You Are Probably Doomed

Alexander Hamilton did everything in his power to sabotage fellow Federalist President Adams, who he considered to be a traitor to the party for signing a peace agreement with France. In an infamous publication that was ultimately more damaging to Hamilton’s own reputation (the public viewed his rants as those of a nut job), he described the “disgusting egotism, the distempered jealousy, and the ungovernable indiscretion” of Adams. Hamilton succeeded in dividing the party, which cost the Federalists the election. Candidates beware, your constituents are not the only people who matter.

10. Don't Sling Too Much Mud, Your Opponent Might Shoot You

Really, it happened. Vice-presidential candidate from New York Aaron Burr and High Federalist conservative Alexander Hamilton became mortal enemies (quite literally) during the 1800 election. The bad blood between them never abated, and in 1804 Burr fatally wounded Hamilton in a duel. I can’t see any of our 2012 candidates drawing a weapon, but then again, it's an ugly, ugly campaign season.

Sometimes it is just better to reach across the aisle. Jefferson and Adams both lived long lives, and in the end they resumed their friendship through correspondence and - to a point - reconciled their political differences. Jefferson and Adams both died at their homes on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

written by Jennifer, The Nakedist

 
Last Wednesday night NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly was interviewed by NY1 where he gave a seemingly reasonable response to rising criticism of the department’s “stop and frisk” policy, suggesting that elected officials should be talking more about the crime problem and less about the police who are trying to prevent crime. But there is one outstanding flaw in the Commissioner’s argument: the assumption that crime can and should be condemned in the same way that unpopular police tactics are condemned. It’s apples and oranges.
 
We have a criminal justice system, and employing it is the means by which we condemn crime. Every time a person is arrested, tried and incarcerated our society is addressing and deterring criminal behavior. Our elected officials discuss it every time they make certain activities punishable by law. If we feel that our local governments are not doing enough to address the problem, then we elect different officials who will.
 
The police department is a another story. It is a powerful government body whose officers are allowed to carry guns and use force. We do not elect police officers, there is no term limit for Commissioner Kelly, and we cannot impeach him. What we can do is talk about NYPD policies that we don’t Like, especially when those policies may be violating our Constitutional rights.
 
In this light, the Commissioner’s rhetoric is much harder to swallow. There is an entire system of physical and legal force directed at crime in NYC. In contrast, the best way to confront unpopular (and possibly unconstitutional) police tactics, is with the democratic traditions of free speech, free press and community deliberation.
 
 
 
 

written by Jennifer, The Nakedist

On Marriage.

 
Marriage. Like all words, it is an arrangement of letters and sounds that represent more than their constitutive syllables (mare-ij). It is a word layered with social implications: a signifier of legal status, a marker of emotional attachment, a tool for moral-makers. But words and the concepts they represent do not belong to people, ideologies, points in time or places in the world. Words cannot be held hostage by a particular church or monopolized by a particular political party.

Contrary to what proponents of a “traditional” definition of marriage dictate, the word is not Biblical in either age or meaning. Marriage has a fairly unremarkable etymology. It appears first in 13th century Middle English as mariage, derived from the Old French marier, which in turn is derived from the Latin word maritare (to provide with a husband or wife). Likewise, the word matrimony is derived from a Latin combination of mater (mother) and monimum (action). Any Biblical references to marriage were, of course, translated from the original Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Koine Greek.
 
English translations of the Old Testament use the word marriage in place of a number of different concepts expressed in very different Hebrew language. For example, Exodus 21:3 is translated in English Bibles as “If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.” But the literal translation of the Hebrew would look more like “If in single of him he is coming, in single of him he shall go further: if possessor of woman he and she goes forth woman of him with him.” Here, a description of a particular relationship – or rather – ownership of a woman by a man, is labeled many centuries later in English as marriage. In Psalms 78:63, the literal translation of the Hebrew “choice young men of him she devoured fire and virgins of him not they were praised” is translated into English as “the fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given to marriage.”
 
Translations are always an interesting place to look when issues are locked at the intersection of language, meaning and politics. The role of translations here is not to tell the story of how marriage as a concept has evolved, but rather to remind us that the language we use today and the words we will use tomorrow are not inherently tied to a static idea or institution. Words are chosen in translation across languages, time, ideologies and space.
 
Opponents of marriage equality who base their position on a “traditional” definition will continue to argue that, despite the etymology of the word, it is the concept that is traditional, sacred, and defined as a union between one man and one woman. To that I say, religions and private individuals are free to limit their personal blessing to heterosexual unions. But no person or institution is free to claim sole-proprietorship of the word marriage. Neither words nor love can be owned by anyone.
 
 
 
 

written by Jennifer, The Nakedist

 
 

]]>

A Complete Stop

by J. Spinazzola

 
You’ll notice young men raising bottles. Never mind where they found the bottles. Glass, rag, gasoline all can be had. If you have seen the old reels, you know what comes next. To flick a lighter produces pyrotechnics of a primitive sort. Urban fireworks. The reason you signed up for the tour. The Inner City. Friends back home can only imagine.
 
If a body catches fire, you will smell his flesh through the air conditioning system. Never again will you feel so alive. The smoke in our single malt pairs well. Ice provided.
 
Every luxury is available down to your leather seat. Cowhide a rare offering these days. Each choice you’ve made, each step in your career and portfolio of investments, has earned you the right to observe man on the edge.
 
Forearm muscles stretched to throw a punch were not chiseled in a fitness center, but developed carrying furniture when the work was available as hotels were rising. Up and down stairs. Wouldn’t want these young men in your elevators. Neither would we.
 
Occasionally a girl will enter the scene. Not unusual during a housing crisis. The streets become home to many types. Blondes are particularly tragic to witness. May remind you of a granddaughter back home. Don’t let that interfere with the pleasure of urgency. The way he’ll approach her. A blade, perhaps intended for him, slicing past his ear: hard to keep track of the action as we take a corner. A live digital feed will allow you to follow objects in the rear. Zoom in as he takes the blond girl close. Rubber bullets fired from above, the sound on the roof of the limousine like hail. Every security detail provided.
 
Don’t let that fool you. Tempted as they kiss. To unfasten your belt, open the door. And step out. The way he kisses her reminding you of something you left behind. We’ve all left something behind, but a mouth does not make for time travel. Other mouths will be ready when you return to the hotel. Wait until we’ve made a complete stop. Secured in the underground parking of the hotel tower. The lights will go dim until the limousine has been thoroughly searched. Scanned for foreign devices.
 
You’ll want to emerge slowly, the intensity of experience overwhelming like sea legs after a cruise. When you enter the lobby, avoid discussing pedestrian tours with the concierge. For a price such things can be arranged, but better to wait until morning. After clearing your mind on blondes of our own.
 
By morning the one you watched in the street will be dead: the boy on his knees, tear gas taking him in and out of view. From his lack of attention, the next blade will not go wide.
 
Continental breakfast will be served in the lobby. Hot breakfast offered from the sky room. Weather permitting, views provided.
 
 

J. Spinazzola is a writer and former attorney. His short stories have appeared in Boston Literary Magazine, Charlotte Viewpoint, Full of Crow, Metazen, The Molotov Cocktail, and Stymie: A Journal of Sport & Literature.

Politics, New York, Arts, Opinions, Reviews and Fiction all welcome!

 
* 300-1000 words
* Must not have been previously published, online or in print
* All content must be original and submitted by author
* Must relate to Politics, New York, Civic Engagement, or all three
* Author Bio and Links published with article
* Include “Submission” in subject heading
* Attach article to email as Word document
 

Please get in touch with us by email.
 
contact@thenakedist.com

The Conviction of Charles Taylor:
 
Why Accountability is a Big Deal

 
There are times when the extensive system of UN-backed international criminal tribunals (ICTs) seems like an excessively funded alphabet soup of toothless, idealist-driven institutions. And then there are moments when the ICTs prove to be makers of a better, more just, world. The conviction of Charles Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone is an historical moment of the latter category.
 

I had the opportunity and the displeasure of seeing Charles Taylor in person at trial: well-dressed, composed, and frustratingly human. He wore glasses and took notes. Taylor, the former President of Liberia helped to orchestrate systematic rape, mutilation, murder, use of child soldiers and sexual slavery during Sierra Leone’s civil war and was convicted on 11 counts of aiding and abetting war crimes.
 
When one sees a person responsible for perpetrating the kinds of acts most of us consider to be thoroughly unhuman, we expect that person to look unhuman. I also attended the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) sentencing of the men responsible for the infamous Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, and there I had a similar feeling of unease. I wanted to see strong, evil-looking and indignant criminals, but instead they were a group of aging and unsteady men, with tearful – not satanic – eyes.
 

Radovan Karadzic on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

The humanity of these criminals does not induce empathy, but instead brings the very legal notion of accountability to a very human and visible place. International criminal justice is not theoretical; the people who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity do not exist in foreign planes of evilness. They are criminals from countries whose domestic courts – for lack of security, resources, or will – cannot hold them accountable. Their crimes are so vast and so gruesome that the world does not want to see them go unpunished so the legacy of Nuremberg – international criminal law – steps in to provide justice. And for the first time in history, with the conviction of Charles Taylor, that legacy is holding a former head of state accountable for his crimes.
 
Thus, weighing the specific costs of the lengthy Charles Taylor trial, against a guilty verdict criticized for omitting the most heinous charges of the indictment, is a misguided exercise. The conviction is bigger than Charles Taylor, bigger than the Special Court, and bigger than Sierra Leone. Holding a head of state accountable has proven a very expensive but immeasurably important step in the process of legitimizing international criminal law and honoring that principle that jurists hold so dear: accountability.
 

Is accountability for one person, who was part of a war that claimed the lives and limbs of thousands, enough?

Child whose left arm was hacked off in Sierra Leone when he was five years old, now playing football with friends near Freetown.

All justice systems try and punish criminals for many reasons – to deter, to rehabilitate, to incapacitate, and to hold criminals accountable for their actions. Will Taylor’s conviction deter other leaders from committing war crimes? Maybe, but as history has shown, maybe not. Will he be rehabilitated? Not likely, and that isn’t the point. He will certainly be incapacitated (put in jail), but at this point, is he really a danger to society? Probably not.That leaves us with accountability, and the question being tossed around post-conviction is, at its core: is accountability for one person, who was part of a war that claimed the lives and limbs of thousands, enough?
 
The answer, in short, is yes. In some cases the costs of an ad-hoc tribunal may be too high to justify the benefits, but not here. Charles Taylor was not following orders, or acting in self-defense, or insane. Holding politically powerful leaders like Taylor accountable for their acts is to take mass crimes committed regionally and place them in a human rather than a geographic context. Crimes against humanity are exactly that – committed by humans against humans, not by “others” against “others”. By backing the Special Court and other tribunals, the international community is accepting this truth and offering a form of accountability that is difficult to value and impossible to measure, but surely worth the cost.
 
 
 
 

written by Jennifer, The Nakedist

 
 

]]>