The Submerging Republican Majority

[im10ashus]

By JAMES TRAUB

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Karl Rove, the political mastermind George W. Bush called Boy Genius, was wont to draw an analogy with the election of 1896, in which the Republican William McKinley drubbed William Jennings Bryan. McKinley's election ushered in a 35-year era chiefly characterized by G.O.P. dominance; so, too, Rove argued, would Bush's hasten the progress toward an era of virtual one-party rule. And Rove's bold prediction seemed plausible. Over time, the Republicans have increased their margin in Congress and reversed years of Democratic dominance in statehouses and State Legislatures. The conservative columnist Fred Barnes declared in 2003 that Republicans had attained a state of dominance last seen in the 1920's, the end of the period McKinley ushered in. Realignment, he wrote, "has reached its entrenchment phase."

Or has it? President Bush is now more unpopular than Bill Clinton was at any time in his tenure, while public approval of the G.O.P.-dominated Congress has plummeted to 23 percent, a level last seen in October 1994, the month before the Democrats suffered one of the most humiliating wipeouts in the history of Congressional elections. Many political analysts now say that the Democrats have a real shot at retaking the House of Representatives and an outside chance of winning the Senate too. A great deal can happen between now and November, not to mention between now and 2008, but the Boy Genius certainly looks a lot less brilliant than he did a few years back.

It is not hard to see why Rove fastened on McKinley as Bush's precursor. McKinley was an amiable governor around whom Mark Hanna, the Karl Rove of the day, could raise enormous sums of money from industrial and financial circles. But Rove also insisted on a more far-reaching parallel: with the Civil War a fading memory, the Republicans of 1896 could no longer run as the party of the Union and needed to forge a new politics. McKinley, "the advance agent of prosperity," as he was known, offered himself as a tribune not only of the new business class but also of an emerging industrial society, as against Bryan's appeal to agrarian values and to the dispossessed. McKinley made Republicans the party of the future. And he brought new voting blocs to the Grand Old Party. Rove noted in a 2002 speech that McKinley "attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics" he had inherited by appealing to "Portuguese fishermen and Slovak coal miners and Serbian ironworkers," all of whom he made a very public point of receiving at his Ohio home in the course of his "front-porch campaign."

Rove postulated that Bush, like McKinley, had arrived at a moment when the old politics no longer applied and the new had yet to be formed. By offering himself as a pro-immigrant, pro-growth, "compassionate" conservative, he would attract the new voters of the day, including Hispanic immigrants, as well as workers in the postindustrial economy, while at the same time mobilizing the party's conservative Christian base. He would be the candidate of growth and the future while casting his rival, Al Gore, as the embodiment of an exhausted big-government credo. And this strategy worked: in 2000, Bush made gains among Hispanics and carried 97 of the country's 100 fastest-growing counties. Of course, Gore won the popular vote and, by some accounts, the election. And yet since that time, the Democrats have come to look like the party of the underprivileged and the highly educated and scarcely anyone else.

cont'd...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/magazine/18wwln_idealab.html

[MikeNearMcChord]

1. It should be noted also that one of the reasons McKinley beat

Bryan that bosses would tell their workers if Bryan won, they would lose their jobs, this was an era of the Robber Barrons, and unions were struggling. Only by the assassination of McKinley, would Teddy Roosevelt would begin the process of reining in the barons. Also Hanna unlike Rove was a barron himself, his company M.A. Hanna still is in buisness.

[Odin2005]

2. That, and because Bryan's economic position was insane, anyway.

Inflation may be good for farmers with debts to pay off but it would of been bad for everyone else. Populist types are well know for being economically stupid.

[happyslug]

4. The US Needed Inflation in 1896, and ended up with it.

The Populist and Bryan's plan was to permit the Free Coinage of Silver Dollars. At that time the Silver in a US Coin was worth about 70-80 cents compared to the one Dollar of Gold in a Gold Dollar. Free Minting of Silver would have meet a 2-3 percent inflation which modern Economists consider Good for the Economy (people do NOT want to sell at a lost, thus inflation permits people to have paper "gains" when in real life they lost on the investment, thus a slight 2-3 % inflation rate tends to be good for the economy as a whole).

As to inflation (what the Free Minting of Silver would have done) ALL Bryan and the populists wanted was this 2-3 % in inflation. The farmers had a problem, the prices for the goods was declining while the banks demanded payment based what they farm was worth ten years before (By 1900 prices in the US had reached they lowest level in History do to more than 40 years of DEFLATION).

As to Inflation it Begin to kick in during the election as new Gold mines opened in Australia and South Africa (and Gold was found in Alaska). All this gold introduced into the market lead to the same inflation the free minting of Silver would have done, thus in the 1900 Election Bryan, while still keeping the Free Silver Plank, ran on attacking Imperialism and reforms to restrict the power of Corporations (and in 1908 Bryan main thrust was to restrict the power of Corporations).

The money people at the time attacked the Free Minting of Silver for it promised to shift power to people who were buying things from the people who owned things. The whole story of Economics since 1896 has been the acceptance that healthy economy is NOT dependent on how much people have, but on the number of transactions that occur in that economy. With inflation people do not hold on to items hoping for a higher price, they sell them as soon as possible so they can use the proceeds to buy more and restart the cycle all over again.

Thus Bryan plan was a good plan for his time period, much like the adoption of the Federal Reserve in 1912 has reduced the number of recessions since 1912 (Compared to before 1912) by permitting but controlling the inflation rate. Note the Populist were NOT advocating printing money (which had been done from 1861-till the early 1870s) by Silver which is also a very valuable metal and that value would have acted as a check on inflation (Like how much Dollars the Fed issues restricts inflation today). Conservatives opposed the free minting of Silver for it promised to force them to sell items they wanted to hold for speculative purposes.

[Odin2005]

30. Ah, I stand corrected, thanks.

I didn't know about the deflation part.

[happyslug]

3. Also the GOP CHEATED in 1896 (like 2000 and 2004)

Even H.L. Mencken (Who hated Bryan) pointed out in his "Eulogy" of Bryan that Bryan was cheated out of the Presidency on 1896 (and Hanna is reported to remark during an earlier campaign when his Candidate won and claim he won as the people's choice remarked (paraphrase) "Many a man is at risk to go the Penitentiary to get him elected).

Also remember most cities (With the possible exception of New York City and Tammany hall) were solidly Republican at that time (and would remain so till the Great Depression when most switch to the Democrats). While Bryan backed Unions, the Labor Movement as a whole was Republican at that Time. The Reform movement in the Country came out of the Rural Areas of the Country (Where the majority of People still lived at that time, the first Census that showed more people living in Cities than in the Country was 1920).

The Reform Movement caused a lot of people to shift from the GOP to the Democrats during this period via the populist party. When Third parties are strong in US history, the first effect is of strengthening the Minority party as that party adopts more and more of what the third party stands for. This is what happened in 1896, the Democrats decided to adopt a platform very similar to the Populist and reject the stands of the then SITTING Democratic President Cleveland (Cleveland had been elected on a Civil Service Movement that came out of the GOP but when no GOP candidate would support Civil Service Mark Twain and other GOP reformers back Cleveland, who was a pro-Civil Service Conservative Democrat much like Clinton and the DLC).

The Second effect is that strong Third Parties have two affects in US history is to frighten the Majority Party which demands loyalty to the party. For example once Civil Service had been adopted, the Reform GOPers who had backed Cleveland rejoined the GOP for they did not support the demands for reform as proposed by the Populist (In the South where the Democrats were the stronger party you see the start and most harsh phase of Segregation and Jim Crow Laws all to weaken the Black Vote which till the 1930s was overwhelming Republican).

While the South is a Clearer sign of the Stronger Party demanding greater Loyalty of its members, similar action occurred in the Republican dominated rest of the nation (Including flat out opposition to the Reforms proposed by the Populist and then the Democrats). Bryan ended up being the face of Reform for the next 30 years (one Republican called FDR's New Deal Bryanism without Bryan for he died in 1925). For Example the Steel mills and Coal Mines became more and more under very Strict Police Control during this time period . It is a tossup whether the Coal and Iron Police or the Pinkertons of this time period, 1890-1935) should be called the Greatest American Terror Organization, both leave the Klan handling of the blacks in third Place (and at time all three groups WORKED Together against labor).

In any comparisons you have to adjust for outside factors as outlined above, but once you take into consideration McKinley is a good Choice but more for Bush Sr then Bush Jr. I say this for McKinley was the last Civil War Veteran to be President, as Bush Sr was the last WWII Veteran to be President. Bush Sr Like McKinley wanted to Expand the US, but knew the limits of power (Compare the First Gulf war with the Spanish-American war). Technically the US went to War to "Free" Cuba and we stayed for Decades afterwords, the same with the First GulF War, the US "Freed" Kuwait and then kept bases in Saudi Arabia for over a Decadeaffterward (and only moved them out to move them to Iraq).

Thus Theodore Roosevelt (while an accidental President that the GOP did not really want) can be viewed more like Bill Clinton, a Conservative who sees the need for Reforms. TR like Clinton used American Power peacefully expand US Power (Compare the TR's ending the Russo-Japanese War to Clinton's ending the war in Bosnia). Under Tr the US had long wanted a Canal through Panama, TR forced it through. Under Clinton the US had long wanted a balance budget, and we finally had one.

As you can see Bush one looks like McKinley, Clinton looks like TR and that leave bush Jr to be Taft. Taft was a traditional business Republican who believed in a hands off approach to Business. He continued many off the reforms of TR, but again more to fight off the Reform minded Democrats then actual belief in the Reforms. TR saw this was leading his party to disaster so he made his Bull Moose Party to avert the disaster (The Democrats under Wilson won in 1912). This split is often given as the reason Wilson won in 1912 after Bryan had lost in 1896, 1900 and 1908, but in each of those elections while the Votes for Bryan DECLINED in each election, the votes for the Republican Candi ate declined EVEN MORE (Through the GOP won every election). 1912 is also the start of various wars in the Balkans causing Strain in the Europe drying up Immigrations to the US. This caused Labor to be more secure in their jobs and thus less intimidated by their bosses demand that they vote GOP. Thus the Democrats won in 1912 and 1916 do to circumstances that temporary helped Labor. The period 1912-1919 is the period with the greatest increase in Real Wages Between the Civil War and WWII. As WWI ended the flood gates of Immigration was re-opened, wages fell depression hit (The Depression of 1921) and the GOP was in Complete Control till the disaster of the Great Depression. Only when Labor and the Working Class could go no further down did the working class started to Vote Democratic. With the Victory and the 100 days, Labor and the Working Class was able to stand up to Management and NOT have to listen to what management told them. It is NO accident that the present GOP domination corresponds to a general decline in wages of working class Americans. The GOP ONLY wins if the working class is NOT confident in their keeping their Jobs. The Democrats have to address this general decline in Income for the Working Class, until it is addressed the GOP will stay in Control, like it did from 1896 till 1932 (except 1912-1920 when the working class income did NOT fall).

[BootinUp]

29. M. A. Hanna

merged with Geon in 2000 to form Polyone, but in reality Geon took over control. They were a mining company that shifted over to plastics aquiring many smaller plastics companies in the 80's and 90's.

[long_green]

5. I always thought it was revealing that Rove likened himself

to Hanna. It is as if he was anxious for people to know who had the brains in the outfit.
Hanna's shake down of businessmen for campaign money in 1896 (he outspent Bryan 10 to 1) reminds me of the story of Rove calling up Jack Welch and letting him know just how much GE stood to benefit from a Bush win in 2000.

[Bullshot]

6. Many historians rate McKinley as one of the worst presidents in history.

Harding is considered the worst.

As for the "Republican era of dominance,' look at what that got us. The Great Depression.

Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover were the three presidents who took us to the Great Depression. All three were Republican. All three of those presidents had Republican-controlled Houses and Senates to work with.

If that isn't an indictment against Republican economic policies, I don't know what is.

[TwentyFive]

18. I HATE every GD Republican!! Don't people remember the GREAT DEPRESSION?

Middle class wealth today is being eviserated, yet everybody ignores it. We're losing jobs to other countries, and replacing them with lower paying jobs.

Perhaps people don't feel the affects right away. They stay afloat by working 2 McJobs, using credit cards and borrowing from family members. But, 2+2 will never equal 5. Eventually, the music stops.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Was it at all relevant that women did not have the vote yet?

Exactly what did the "voting public" consist of?

[im10ashus]

8. Very good question.

I hadn't thought of that.

[ginnyinWI]

9. the writer said that McCain is as charismatic as TR??

.....not! :rofl:

[im10ashus]

10. Isn't that a shame.

To wit, they say this:

John McCain could reinvigorate the party should he succeed Bush, just as the equally magnetic Teddy Roosevelt did when he took office following McKinley's assassination in 1901. But even if that happens, McCain's party is likely to be very different from George W. Bush's. Walter Dean Burnham, the political scientist, defined political realignments as America's "surrogate for revolution." It may be that Karl Rove's revolution was one Americans did not want and have now begun to reject.

I don't know whether to join you here :rofl: or to :puke:

[ginnyinWI]

16. I've always thought he reminded me of Eyeore.

[Up2Late]

11. Nice comparison, but just like everything else Rove has done or said...

...it's a False comparison.

It would be a far better comparison to equate McKinley with Reagan, with Grover Cleveland (in his second term) and Jimmy Carter as their lead set-up men, though Carter had to deal with the Runaway inflation caused by Nixon and the Vietnam War, instead of a Depression that was still a lingering effect of the Civil War, among other things.

Extending the comparison further, Bush 1 to Taft, then Wilson to Clinton, which brings up to a better, and more appropriate comparison, Warren Gamaliel Harding to George Walker Bush.

Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897 ---------- James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981
William McKinley, 1897-1901 ---------- Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909 -------- Reagan (2nd term)
William Howard Taft, 1909-1913 ------- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921 ----------- William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923 --- George Walker Bush, 2001-

History repeating? I'd say.

[dennisnyc]

24. so, who will play Coolidge?

[Up2Late]

28. I hope the comparison can end at Harding=Bush*

Their are too many variables for 2008 to make any predictions now.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. President Carter doesn't deserve to be compared to Cleveland

Cleveland was a strike-buster who was every bit as bad as the GOP. And how is Reagan anything like Teddy Roosevelt?

[Up2Late]

27. I'm not comparing the actual Persons, I'm comparing the challenges...

...and situations they found themselves and the state of the country when they began their terms.

The economy was very screwed up (in a Depression) by the previous President's policies for Cleveland second term, in the same way that Nixon/Ford handed Carter (Carter didn't create the run-away inflation that he had to deal with, that was Nixon's fault), and I don't know if you remember this, but Reagan's 2nd term was very different (policy wise) than his first, so much so, they should almost be treated as different Presidencies. Bush 41 did nothing more the "stay the course" set by the Reagan Administration.

That all I'm saying, I'm not comparing individual policy decisions.

[Demeter]

12. Why Anyone, Republican or Democrat Would Want a Repeat of Those 30 Years

is beyond me. The GOP drove the country into the ground. It took two World Wars, a Great Depression and a Baby Boom to create some kind of balance, and between Reagan and the Bush boys, we've been hanging by toenails ever since. Greed isn't everything, and the sooner the greedy learn that, the better off we all will be.

[im10ashus]

13. Succinct and to the point.

I like that.

:hi:

[Demeter]

15. Why Thank You!

A reader of discernment is a joy forever.

[PATRICK]

21. The power balance dilemma

Those possessed by greed are granted the most power AND respect to handle the whole society. this is human civilization at its dysfunctional best. The greedy are incapable of learning which is why, like a supreme athlete who is programmed never to quit, they run their own business suicidally into the ground.

The uncomfortable alternative is a responsible society where the most elect the best to handle civil society administration and look to scientists, visionaries and the most talented generous people to progress to the future. Moral and intellectual fitness to run a society is simply not in much of the corporate politicians who seem reluctant and grumpy and even nervous when trying actually to do the job. On a certain level is a guilt and resentment in the knowledge they shouldn't even be there in this unnatural position. Drunken looting, like barbarians in a seized culture, seems part of this psychological bewilderment, worsened by the incongruous lies they have to tell people they themselves are forced to believe.

A bit deeper though, much of the business of government IS business and poets like W.B. Yeats in the birth of his nation soured on service for THAT reason. The people attracted to government "service" or have something functional to offer show it is not just barbarians at the gate but a long history that needs to be examined. research and reevaluation does not effect change very quickly though, as anyone who stumbles upon the dead obvious dangers of corporate media or modern election fraud know. can't stop the horror show. Can't effect deep change. Not on a dime, not even when a specific crime or threat has been revealed.

Like nomads of the past wandering from one burnt out civilization to another we are running out of time and room for the seesaw of political rhythm methods. Even stability in this mess can destabilize our precarious hold on existence. A sign when things have gotten VERY bad is when the answers appear necessarily radical and continuance is simply suicidal denial. And the Democrats do appear poised to take the least advantage of dire necessity and avoid the desperation of radical measures already perversely abused by the destructive power of RW madness.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Because the 20's were bitchin'!

:eyes:

[bread_and_roses]

17. I begin to seriously wonder if the real power $ structure hasn't decided

that, once again, it's time to turn to the Democrats to clean up the mess and quiet the populace? If the excesses of the Pretend President and his merry band of Looters have made them nervous that:
1. The ever-increasing debt burden will have a deletrious effect at some point on their profits or, even worse,
2. the ever-falling wages, ever-increasing State tax burden, ever-less-comprehensive and more expensive health care, ever-more-outsourced jobs, and ever-more death and destruction in Iraq will wake US citizens up to the fact that the Corporations and their slavish minions in Congress will NEVER be their friends? Will never work for them? Will ALWAYS screw them at the prospect of a few $ more in their bloated coffers.

I wonder if they havn't decided it's time to bring in a Centrist, Corporate Friendly Democrat to impose enough Fiscal and Foreign Policy sanity to be able to throw a few more scraps to the wage-slaves, re-awaken the hope that they, too, can be the "rich" someday - or at least have a few years of secure retirement - and so quiet the beast before the rumblings get too loud?

[bleever]

19. Great article, great responses. K&R.

[PATRICK]

20. I thought so

We have better historians on DU with better, less facile judgments that can be debated. But who is writing the breezy article that seems a bit wistful for DLC and McCain days with a soupcon of history and a dash of theory?

The current level of such "expert" retrospectives is sadly lacking the depth of DUers like HappySlug or Arendt and many others. It is also plain that the GOP had well branded Populism in tis day as Liberalism is today. A new Populism, not much different really than the old can be much broader because the GOP has adopted true and provable fiscal cannibalism that benefits plainly few and destroys the future in a wave of atavistic fear.

Maybe the writers should put a little less distance and perspective on these surface analogies and study up more and then look hard in the mirror. And what does centrism mean other than prosperity and hope? There seems to be some vast presumption it means a whole lot else. That whole lot else in fact belongs mostly to the values of populism.

[Mrspeeker]

22. If you rig the election system

You can so called "WIN" every office!

Thats Carl Rove and The GOP did!

Beats the heck out of actually running a real election where you might lose!

[kestrel91316]

23. I'm SOOOOOOO glad the Republicans have brought us a rerun of

the 1920's!!! NOT.

I have a faint recollection of it ending rather badly in 1929.

[catD]

26. It's all about the media.

An attacking conservative media (and attack conservative politicians) versus the passive liberals they pay to represent the liberal side, and a number of passive Dems in Congress like Gephardt who cared more about their own planned presidential try than in supporting Gore.

Democrats weren't team players. They weren't aggressive at going after their opponents, instead they sat their weakly and meekly swatting away defensively as a bunch of lies were leveled at them.

We need to gain control of some portion of the media (not to make up lies like the Repubs do, but to get something more distinctly 'fair and balanced,' and we need to vote liberal Dems in who care more about their ideology than about getting re-elected.

We may also need to look into the way ethics in the media and ownership of the media is arranged.