On April 29, 1861, James Madison Cutts traveled to Washington, D.C. to join the Union Army and help participate in the defense of the capital. He carried with him a letter for Abraham Lincoln that was from his brother-in-law, Stephen Douglas, the Democratic party nominee who had lost the 1860 presidential election to Lincoln. The letter introduced Cutts to Lincoln, vouched for his trustworthiness, and declared that Cutts could provide Lincoln with valuable information on the state of affairs in Illinois. But the surprising part of the letter, at least to modern readers, is the signature: “I am very respectfully your obedient servant, S.A. Douglas.”

In today’s climate of intense partisan warfare, such a closing statement in a letter to a presidential opponent seems almost im- possible. Sure, there is the traditional phone call from the election loser to the victorious candidate, and Senator John McCain’s concession speech in 2008 was quite conciliatory and effusively congratulated President-elect Barack Obama. But soon after the election, Senator McCain and both political parties resorted to the typical partisan rancor that has permeated our nation’s politics for several years. There is certainly nothing new about divisiveness in American party politics, and a certain level of disagreement and anger is to be expected among America’s representa- tives in Washington, D.C. In many respects, a vociferous debate between the two major parties on policy issues is healthy; it is a sign of a vibrant democracy that entertains opposition and encourages discussion. In recent years, however, the rhetorical battles between politicians and citizens have taken a dangerous turn.

What is currently in vogue in American politics is assaulting not only a political opponent’s stances and policies, but also his or her very legitimacy as an elected representative of the people. Rather than attacking the ideas of the opposing party’s standard-bearer, members of the media and the political elite are attempting to cast opponents as being legally or morally unfit to govern. This trend largely started in the 1990s with Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans’ indictment, and later impeachment, of President Bill Clinton. By focusing the nation’s attention on his sexual indiscretions and lies under oath, they turned the discussion from whether Clinton’s politics were good for America to whether Clinton should be permitted to be America’s executive. These types of attacks continued with the election of President George W. Bush in 2000, an election that was not concretely decided until the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore to stop the recount in Florida. Bumper stickers declaring that Bush was “not my president” abounded as Americans across the country reacted to what they considered a usurpation of the people’s will by the Supreme Court. Once again, the very legitimacy of the president was at stake.

In the last presidential election, issues of President Obama’s legal status played a prominent role. The group of right-wing advocates colloquially known as “birthers” continually argued that Obama must produce a valid Hawaiian birth certificate in order to prove that he was not born in Kenya, and a minority of Republican politicians today continue to question his validity as a citizen. Senator McCain was not immune to such scrutiny, either he was born on an American military base outside of U.S. borders and faced questions about his ability to run for office.

The latest attack on political legitimacy has not focused on the candidates themselves, but rather their sources of funding. In the wake of the Tea Party uprising and relative success in the 2010 midterm elections, a great deal of attention has been paid to the political donations of Charles and David Koch, billionaire brothers with libertarian ideologies who have contributed large quan- tities of money to Republican candidates and political action committees. Much of this attention and criticism has occurred in the media. The New York Times has run a series of articles devoted to the political machinations of the Koch brothers, attempting to expose the Tea Party movement as solely the result of influxes of cash from exceedingly wealthy donors. Most recently, Governor Scott Walker’s actions in Wisconsin have been singled out. Articles such as Paul Krugman’s column “Wisconsin Power Play” in the New York Times on February 20, 2011, as well as a Buffalo Beast reporter’s prank call to Walker pretending to be David Koch, have attempted to portray his anti-labor initiatives as purely the result of big- money politics.

It is certainly true that money has had a larger effect on politics of late, and the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision opened the door for more corporate influence in elections. However, as much as left-wing personalities like Krugman try to dress up their critiques in populist, anti-oligarchic garb, they are more properly viewed in the context of the de-legitimizing tactics of the last two decades. In fact, when liberal activist and billionaire George Soros contributed over 23 million dollars of his money to defeating President Bush in 2004, Krugman defended him rather than railing against the injustice of his exorbitant spending. It is clearly politics, not concern for our democracy, that are driving these criticisms.

Continued focus on our politicians’ legitimacy instead of their policies can be nothing but harmful to the American political atmosphere. Such a conversation discourages compromise and results in all-or-nothing political warfare, with each side convinced that only they truly represent the American people. True respect for the outcome of elections will do a great deal towards healing the partisan divide that ails America today.