Society
Roger L. Simon on pathological politics: “Possibly the primary reason I am no longer an adherent of traditional party politics is that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are dominated by a hatred of the other that seems pathological to me”. Link courtesy of Heretical Ideas.

On a related note, I've been listening to the Books on Tape version of Joseph J. Ellis' Founding Brothers. One of things the book focuses on is the bitter (Ellis calls them "scatalogical") partisan politics of the 1790s, when the two-party system first emerged. Both sides commonly referred to the other as "traitors" to the legacy of the revolution. It's worth noting that getting down and dirty did very little for the participants' reputations; Alexander Hamilton, in particular, lost a good deal of his influence and prestige (as well as seriously damaging the Federalist party) after a vicious attack on John Adams in the election of 1800. Adams had already been suffering from the Republican opposition led by Jefferson, who just happened to also be his Vice President. Yet Adams was the only one of the revolutionary participants able to rise above partisan bickering by concluding an unpopular treaty with France that effectively ended an undeclared state of war in 1799. It doomed his chances of being re-elected in 1800; but it was a brilliant piece of policy-making that allowed the nascent republic to gain a breathing space of a few more years in which to solidify its institutions before engaging a foreign power.

Would any of our leading politicians today sacrifice their careers in order to pass an unpopular but necessary measure?

I've read a number of comments in the last few days that the 2004 campaign will be dirtiest in recent history. The recent sniping at Wesley Clark seems to be a harbinger of things to come. While it may not be as vicious as the 1796 and 1800 elections, the caliber of those engaged can hardly be said to equal the real “Greatest Generation”.