Every four years, the period from the end of August until the general election becomes disgusting. Civility and any semblance of real debate vanish. Innuendo, character assassination, fear-mongering, and half-truths flood the media and even invade what is euphemistically called “Social Media.”

The face-off between Clinton and Trump in 2016 was particularly nasty. As things unfold, the Trump-Biden row promises to become even nastier.

Today’s political rhetoric, though sad, is like two toddlers fighting over a toy compared to some of the donnybrooks of past elections.

The election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson was the first down and dirty fight in presidential history. Although Adams and Jefferson kept themselves above the fray, their henchmen leveled charge after charge at these two men who were once close friends – and who ended their lives as friends after they were reconciled.

In fact, Adams and Jefferson both died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 1826. Jefferson served the pen of the movement for American independence, and Adams became the voice.

But during the 1800 campaign, nastiness was the order of the day. Jefferson adherents accused Adams of wanting to jettison constitutional republican government in favor of something akin to the British monarchy. A Jefferson supporter, James T. Callender, was jailed under the Sedition Act for his scathing pamphlet titled “The Prospect Before Us.” Callender described Adams as a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

Supporters of Adams accused Jefferson of being an atheist. One Massachusetts newspaper contended that if Jefferson rose to the presidency “our churches will be prostrated, and some infamous prostitute, under the title of the Goddess of Reason, will preside in the Sanctuaries now devoted to the worship of the Most High.”

In 1824, the race for U.S. President again ended up in the U.S. House of Representatives. The son of John Adams, John Q. Adams, faced off against Andrew Jackson. John Q. struck what Jackson termed the “corrupt bargain” by gaining support for his election from Henry Clay, Speaker of the House. The election of John Q. Adams set up the acrimonious 1828 rematch between John Q. and Jackson.

In 1828 both sides crossed what most of us would consider the lines of decorum. Jackson’s supporters accused John Q. of being a “pimp.” John Q. supposedly arranged a female consort for the Russian Czar during his time as Minister to Russia. Jackson supporters also contended that John Q. and his wife were “polygamists” because they married before her divorce was finalized. The attacks on Rachel, John Q.’s wife, did not let up until she died of heart failure on Dec. 22, 1828.

John Q. partisans alleged that Jackson’s mother was a prostitute that British sailors had brought over to serve the sexual appetites of the British Navy. They accused Jackson of being a murderer, a traitor, and mentally unstable. The rough-hewn Jackson was also ridiculed for lack of education.

In 1884, Grover Cleveland, who was born out of wedlock, was accused of fathering at least one child outside the bonds of marriage. During the campaign Cleveland faced the slogan, “Ma! Ma! Where’s my Pa?” After his narrow win, Cleveland’s supporters answered the question: “Gone to Washington! Ha! Ha! Ha!”

I would like to live through one election in which candidates focused on their credentials and spent their time setting forth their vision for a better tomorrow. I would like to see genuine debates focused on issues – instead of the “Gotcha!” and one-up man-ship common today.

What voters endure is something more like Reality TV than political discourse. The end result makes us wonder how such scoundrels could ever ascend to high political office. If what candidates and their minions say about the other side is true, then neither candidate deserves anyone’s vote.

What do the current electioneering practices say about candidates and their supporters?

Even worse: What do these practices say about the political appetites of voters?

Looking back through history, I guess political nuts do not fall far from the poison tree.

Mike Parker is a columnist for Neuse News. You can reach him at mparker16@gmail.com.