I would love to hear from people about what you are reading that relates to California politics and public policy issues. I am going to share some insights from the reading I do in my spare time, in the hopes that others will feel inspired to also share what they have read.
This summer I have read two books on American political history topics. Neither book is about California, though I find them especially relevant to the ideas I wish to cover in my blog. In Part I will discuss A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan by Michael Kazin (Anchor Books, 2006). In Part II I will discuss Nothing to Fear: FDR’s Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America by Adam Cohen (Penguin Books, 2009).
Part I: The Life of Bryan
Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan (Anchor Books, 2006)
Though William Jennings Bryan was the most popular Democratic leader of the late 1800s and early 1900s, little has been written about him in recent times. Kazin’s portrait of Bryan as a Christian liberal is particularly welcome to today’s activists who seek to show how progressive policies are rooted in traditional American values.
Bryan earned a place in the history textbooks as an advocate for “free silver” and other “Populist” causes in his campaign for the presidency in 1896. In his famous “Cross of Gold” speech to the Democratic Convention, he urged America to get off the gold standard and resume the coinage of silver in order to increase the money supply. Beyond that, little is remembered of Bryan except for the very last act of his career, in 1925, when he spoke out against the theory of evolution in the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial”.
Kazin offers a fresh perspective on Bryan. He shows how Bryan helped transform the Democratic Party from a loose collection of state parties, with a limited vision of the government, into a strong national party advocating the use of federal power to help working people and farmers. Bryan advocated lowering tariffs, breaking up monopolies, and regulating banks. He strongly supported the right of workers to organize and strike. He opposed US imperialism in the Philippines.
Bryan saw every major issue as part of an epic battle between the power of money and greed and the virtues of hard working people. During the depression of the 1890s farmers could not get a decent price for their crops. “Free silver” became a rallying cry for people who wanted to expand the money supply in order to bring prices back up. The country never adopted free silver. As the economy improved and inflation returned, Bryan and his followers moved on to other issues.
Bryan approached imperialism, trusts, and the tariff with the same religious fervor he had devoted to silver, often using Biblical references to make his points. Today, most people would not think of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as having Biblical significance. To Bryan, and to millions of Americans, it did.
In addition to religion, Bryan also used literary and historical references to develop his speeches and writings. Bryan was popular not only because of the political points he was making, but perhaps even more so because millions of Americans found his presentation stimulating and enriching.
Bryan became the most important leader of the Democratic Party through his three presidential races, his work on the party’s platform committee, his oratory on the Chautauqua lecture circuit, and a vast network of allies and admirers, aided by his wife Mary and his brother Charles. The main organ of his movement was a weekly magazine called The Commoner.
His influence reached a peak in 1912 when he helped Woodrow Wilson gain the presidency. Bryan was appointed Secretary of State, but his major influence was on domestic policy. Until I read Kazin’s book I did not realize how big a role Bryan played in the creation of lasting institutions such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve Board.
Readers will find much to relate to in Bryan, and also much that will seem strange. If you look at a map of the states he won in 1896 it mostly corresponds with the states that Democrats tend to lose in today’s world.
In 1896 Bryan was a relatively unknown former Congressman from Nebraska. He won the nominations of both the Democratic Party and the Populist Party and came very close to winning the presidency. His votes came mainly from the South and states west of the Mississippi. However, he spent most of his time campaigning in the upper Midwest and Northeastern states. In three campaigns for the presidency Bryan never won a major industrial state. However, he did help make the Democratic Party stronger and more clearly progressive in those areas.
I tend to think Bryan was more influential than the men who defeated him for the presidency, William McKinley (1896 and 1900) and William Howard Taft (1908). For his impact on politics, Bryan is comparable to Theodore Roosevelt, who was on the Republican ticket with McKinley in 1900.
Kazin adds a great deal to our understanding of Bryan with an examination of the people who actively supported him. Though Bryan never won a national election, he received far more mail than any other political leader of his era. Bryan was best known as an advocate for small farmers and working class people. However, the bulk of his fan mail came from professional people and small business owners.
Bryan was also well known for positions that would be considered conservative today. Bryan believed the Bible was the primary guide for civilization, and he saw Darwin’s theory of evolution as a threat to the good society that liberal Christians were working toward. He served as prosecutor in the famous trial in which a high school biology teacher named John Scopes was found guilty of teaching the theory.
Bryan also became one of the nation’s leading advocates of Prohibition. Though prohibition might be considered a “conservative” cause today, Kazin shows it in its proper historical context. Bryan and many others were advocating using the power of the federal government to correct a major social problem. In that sense, Prohibition was profoundly progressive.
Kazin notes that Bryan came out for Prohibition at the same time he started speaking out for woman suffrage. Today many people do not realize how prohibition and woman suffrage were connected. Like most Christians of the era, the Bryans believed that women were the stronger sex, morally speaking. They believed that if women gained the right to vote they would use the power to make American a more virtuous and more peaceful society.
More than any other individual, Bryan moved the Democratic Party into the twentieth century. On the issue of race, however, he never got beyond the prevailing attitudes of his era. Bryan said very little about the civil rights of African Americans and maintained close ties to some of the most racist politicians. It is interesting that Bryan did much to make working class Jews a key part of the Democratic Party, yet he made almost no effort to connect with African Americans. Bryan gained the support of W.E.B. Du Bois in his 1908 campaign; however, it appears that Du Bois was voting Democratic that year to show his disgust with the Republicans for backing away from their earlier support for civil rights.
Kazin left no stone unturned in his research. He must have read hundreds of letters and articles written by Bryan followers as well as critics. The greatest strength of the book is in the way Kazin portrays not just a man but a movement.
I particularly liked this excerpt Kazin included from a poem written by a Bryan admirer inspired by the 1896 campaign:
O man bowed down by labor!
O woman young, yet old!
O heart oppressed in the toilers’ breast
And crushed in the weight of gold!
Keep on with your weary battle
Against triumphant might;
No question is ever settled
Until it is settled right.
I get a great deal of insight from books like Kazin’s. Byan, Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt were all part of a generation, born around the time of the Civil War, who shaped the “Progressive Era” of the early twentieth century. In my next review I will discuss a younger generation of leaders, the men and women who shaped the New Deal of the 1930s.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Reflections on the Primary Election--the last of its kind
On June 8 Californians made a huge change in our election system. With the passage of Proposition 14, we did away with the partisan primary system for state and federal offices, with the exception of President. In future elections we will have a primary election in which all candidates are on the same ballot; the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election.
Most political activists--whether they be Republicans or Democrats--wanted to keep the partisan primary system. Fifteen years ago I would have agreed, but I think the recent history of California shows that partisan primaries are no longer helpful.
In the past twenty years the two major parties have become more ideologically distinct. The Democrats have become more liberal and the Republicans have become more conservative. At the same time, the number of people who do not identify with either party continues to grow. Even many people who belong to a political party do not identify strongly with a party.
In the recent race for Governor we saw two Republican candidates, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, compete to win the support of Republicans. They spent a combined total of about one hundred million dollars in the primary, appealing to the conservative side of the electorate. Jerry Brown had no serious opposition for the Democratic nomination, so he chose to save his money rather than spend it on advertising in the primary.
Many voters would have appreciated the opportunity to compare all three candidates in the primary. If voters could choose among all three candidates the political discussion would be much different. Whitman and Poizner would very likely have found it worth their while to appeal to voters in the middle, and perhaps even liberals, rather than simply battling for the conservative vote. Brown would have had to compete with both of them. In general, I believe the new system will encourage candidates to appeal to a wider base of voters.
Starting in 2012, the November elections will also be different in many cases. In areas that are strongly Republican or strongly Democratic, it is likely that the top two candidates could be from the same political party. Some people think this is a terrible thing. I disagree. If a district chooses two candidates from the same political party, the voters in the other party could choose the one they find more reasonable.
With the new system, candidates of both parties will be forced to appeal to a wider base of voters. This will make it easier for our leaders to work together to pass a budget and try to solve the major problems we have in our state. Equally important, the growing number of voters who do not identify with a political party will have a more meaningful role in the political process.
When I think about the huge challenges we face as a state, such as finding a stable funding base for education, converting to a green economy, and promoting middle class jobs, I do not see any way we can accomplish these goals in the political system as it exists. I welcome the change. As a progressive, I voted for Proposition 14 because I think there is more to politics than simply supporting people I agree with. I want to encourage leaders of all types to actually focus on getting something done. I also see lasting change happening only when a large majority of the voters are engaged in the process.
Most political activists--whether they be Republicans or Democrats--wanted to keep the partisan primary system. Fifteen years ago I would have agreed, but I think the recent history of California shows that partisan primaries are no longer helpful.
In the past twenty years the two major parties have become more ideologically distinct. The Democrats have become more liberal and the Republicans have become more conservative. At the same time, the number of people who do not identify with either party continues to grow. Even many people who belong to a political party do not identify strongly with a party.
In the recent race for Governor we saw two Republican candidates, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, compete to win the support of Republicans. They spent a combined total of about one hundred million dollars in the primary, appealing to the conservative side of the electorate. Jerry Brown had no serious opposition for the Democratic nomination, so he chose to save his money rather than spend it on advertising in the primary.
Many voters would have appreciated the opportunity to compare all three candidates in the primary. If voters could choose among all three candidates the political discussion would be much different. Whitman and Poizner would very likely have found it worth their while to appeal to voters in the middle, and perhaps even liberals, rather than simply battling for the conservative vote. Brown would have had to compete with both of them. In general, I believe the new system will encourage candidates to appeal to a wider base of voters.
Starting in 2012, the November elections will also be different in many cases. In areas that are strongly Republican or strongly Democratic, it is likely that the top two candidates could be from the same political party. Some people think this is a terrible thing. I disagree. If a district chooses two candidates from the same political party, the voters in the other party could choose the one they find more reasonable.
With the new system, candidates of both parties will be forced to appeal to a wider base of voters. This will make it easier for our leaders to work together to pass a budget and try to solve the major problems we have in our state. Equally important, the growing number of voters who do not identify with a political party will have a more meaningful role in the political process.
When I think about the huge challenges we face as a state, such as finding a stable funding base for education, converting to a green economy, and promoting middle class jobs, I do not see any way we can accomplish these goals in the political system as it exists. I welcome the change. As a progressive, I voted for Proposition 14 because I think there is more to politics than simply supporting people I agree with. I want to encourage leaders of all types to actually focus on getting something done. I also see lasting change happening only when a large majority of the voters are engaged in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)