Thems Fightin' Words Nowadays

Could you imagine if a politician said what John Adams said? I refer to that nice little bit about how Democracy tricks people, kidnaps them, imprisons them in a brothel, drugs and rapes them, all in an attempt to steal their virtue: "Democracy is Lovelace and the people are Clarissa." Wow. Now most people (and by most people I mean the average person incapable of independent thought who takes everything at face value and blows everything out of proportion)—if they even understood the reference—would freak out: "What? Democracy is bad? Roar, I'm mad. Huff. Puff. Huff and Puff!" I know that much has been said about the common misconception that the United States is a Democracy, so I will avoid repeating the discussion here. What I want to draw attention to is the strong allusion that Adams draws. I struggle to even try to find a contemporary example to substitute for Lovelace and Clarissa that won't get me in trouble, but I think the point is not lost in the original. How carefully would a politician have to word such an allusion today? In our reading throughout this semester, I constantly compared our current moment with the Early Republic and found so many strong connections. There were similarities that we have often discussed in class, but this is one different that I find curious. How much would a current politician have to preface a statement like that? Perhaps one would explain the differences between a Democracy and a Republic, then rattle off a list of focus-group-tested disclaimers that establish the "American-ness" of the politician, followed by an explanation of Clarissa (the audience is most certainly lost at this point, unless the politician has a staff that is able to conjure up a more contemporary example), and finally the bomb is dropped. Unfortunately, all that careful planning is moot since the sound bite that gets played over and over is (and used in opposition ads): "Democracy is Lovelace and the people are Clarissa." No disclaimers this time.