Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Presidential election of 1896

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:10 PM
Original message
The Presidential election of 1896
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 12:50 PM by dmesg
Just an historical moment I find interesting and probably relevant to today. Also, the Gilded Age has come up in a few threads I've been in so I wanted to throw in my two cents about this; it may make some of my Ron-Paul-directed comments make more sense since I think he taps into a lot of what Bryan tried to tap into.



Note, incidentally, in this map red represents Democratic and blue represents Republican. Hard to imagine, huh?

The Democratic candidate was William Jennings "Cross of Gold" Bryan, and the Republican candidate was William McKinley.

The nation had just had a financial panic -- a lot of financiers had attempted to finance their investments with variable-interest bonds that had come due, and the market didn't have the liquidity to absorb it (times don't change, do they?). Prior to that had been decades of a "gilded age" in which increasingly powerful corporations had gained enough political power to use the government to crush rivals, organized labor, and international competition; but the panic of 1893 signaled a change in public opinion against unfettered corporate power and specifically against the government aiding corporations like it had been.

It had been a time of conspicuous consumption. New housing developments full of ridiculously large houses were springing up on the outskirts of towns. Wealth had been concentrating at an unprecedented pace. The only actions the government seemed capable of was striking down organized labor and convincing industry to write its own regulations.

Bryan, the pro-farmer and pro-worker Democrat, ended up taking the south, the plains, and the rockies, but it wasn't enough to outweigh McKinley's firm hold on the northeast and midwest.

Despite Bryan's loss, the wind was blowing in his direction. The election inaugurated the so-called "Progressive Era" (this was back when Republicans were the progressives -- Bryant was an unusual Democrat for running as more progressive than the Republican; this was because he finally beat the Grover Cleveland pro-business Democrats in the primary) which changed everything about American business, finance, labor, society, etc. Changes made in this following period include:
1. Women's suffrage
2. Income tax
3. Election of Senators
4. Prohibition

In short, the election inaugurated a time of positive, activist government intervention, because the people were sick of anemic and even counterproductive government action previously.

It also changed a lot of what we think about the parties. This election marked the beginning of the Democratic party as the "more progressive" of the two parties. It also began the change of the idea of "liberal" to mean "populist".

Realigning elections like 1896 often drastically change what the parties stand for. For instance, in 1896 it would be hard to imagine the "wild-eyed, long-haird, radical Kansas Republicans" of 40 years previous, since at that point Kansas Republicans were middle-class, mildly methodist, and socially progressive, something it's nearly impossible to imagine now (or even in 1960).

I wonder, seeing the parties flounder and grasp for a narrative that describes themselves, what the parties will look like after this election...

EDIT: Thanks EstimatedProphet; one day I will remember how to spell Bryan's name right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. An interesting comparison.
Although McKinley is not my idea of a progressive leader. Comparing the Republican party of today with the one that existed back then is well worth the trouble though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. We aren't still fighting the Viet Nam war...
we're still fighting the freakin' Civil War. Go back further in your analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. a good post, though we might want to rethink "prohibition" as an example of positive
government activism -- actually, that (on an otherwise commendable list) strikes me as more of the rightwing-y Nanny Government the "no government" types in fact prefer....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I didn't say "positive changes"; I said "changes"
I also brought it up because I think prohibitionism, be it of liquor, drugs, guns, rap lyrics, or what have you, is a trap we progressives have a history of falling into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. "a time of positive, activist government intervention"
? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Ah, not an unblemished one n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Indeed. And just to be clear again: Good post!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. Boy this is interesting! Thanks for posting it! Recommend!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. primaries were not important back in 1896
Actually Bryan stampeded the convention with his "Cross of Gold" speech it electrified the convention and won the nomination because of it. When the Chicago convention opened there was no united candidate to replace Cleveland at the top of the ticket. At 36 years of age (still the youngest man ever nominated for president) Bryan united the convention with his speech. The "bourbon" democrats or rather the dems who favored Cleveland's conservative policies nominated a ticket led by a former governor of Illinois, John Palmer.

Also the Republicans were not really that progressive--they were the party of the big bankers and industrialists of the East and generally were on the whole as conservative on the money question as Cleveland was. Bryan's nomination did usher in the "progressive era" but it was Theodore Roosevelt, who bucked his party, not William McKinley who was the Republican who was moderately progressive. The Dems then again nominated Bryan in 1900, but went with a "safe and sane" democrat in 1904, Alton Parker, and then returned to Bryan in 1908. Then Woodrow Wilson became the first truly progressive Democratic president in 1912. But by 1920, following the great war, the "progressive era" came to the end and the people wanted a "return to Normalcy" with Harding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Business and banking
primaries were not important back in 1896

True; I said "primaries" because to modern ears that's the nomination process, and if I had said "at the convention" it would have sounded like Bryant hadn't been laying groundwork for that for a year previous.

The "bourbon" democrats or rather the dems who favored Cleveland's conservative policies nominated a ticket led by a former governor of Illinois, John Palmer.

The Bourbon Democrats favored business. The Republicans favored banking and finance. Those two were not considered the same thing like they are now -- even Morgan wanted US Steel so he would be a 'real' businessman. Anyways, the way this interests me regarding today is the way that the Republican party (at least parts of it) represent "old" (pre-NAFTA) business and the DLC part of our party represents "new" (post-NAFTA) business while labor is getting kicked in the teeth by both. (As I attempt to argue in another thread, Shrub is actually a defector in this sense and is a "new business" guy just like the DLC are, much to the chagrin of many Republicans.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. Prohibition was positive? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Prohibition didn't really go into effect until near the end of the progressive era
in 1920 (The Volstead Act was passed in 1919). But actually many key leaders of the progressive movement did favor prohibition including, of course, Bryan. In fact many people in the progressive movement also were strong and devout Christians. Bryan, of course, was a fundamentalist. They thought that alcohol was the cause of many of the problems that the country faced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Sorry, no. Prohibition was part of the same spirit
And it was pretty much the last straw that undid the Progressive Era. It was an overreach, but in character.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Which is why I am very liberal and only moderately progressive.

Though prohibitions are more frequently a rightwing issue. It is no coincidence that the MADD laws came about during the Reagan administration.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
13. William Jennings Bryan
Just sayin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. D'oh. I always do that
I'm not sure why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC