WHERE DID THE PARTY GO?
William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, & the Jeffersonian Legacy
by Jeff Taylor
University of Missouri Press
paper: $19.95
cloth: $44.95
Monday, September 29, 2008
sky is falling
socialism for the rich
corporate state (benevolent fascism)
economic growth
respectability
BRYAN QUOTES:
"If crime is defined as an act the doing of which is prohibited by law, stock speculation cannot be considered criminal, but when the word crime is used in its broader sense to describe an act which offends against morality or the public welfare, it certainly includes that species of gambling upon the market which endangers the community as well as injures the participants. A record of Wall Street's doings for the last week is an indictment against our boasted civilization. That such transactions are allowed is as much a reflection upon the intelligence of the country as it is the conscience of the people. It is little less than amazing that a few men should be permitted to corner the market for their own selfish purposes, beat down the price of one stock and boom the price of another stock, demoralizing business and jeopardizing the interests of all classes of society. . . . How will the historian describe an age in which a petty thief is severely punished while great criminals go unwhipped? It often takes an object lesson to arouse the people to the evils of a bad system and the recent fluctuations in the stock market, costly as they have been, will be cheap if they lead to legislation which will put an end to stock gambling, erroneously described as 'business.'"
--William Jennings Bryan in The Commoner
The Real Bryan, comp. Richard L. Metcalfe (Des Moines: Personal Help Publishing, 1908), 95-
96.
"Ever and anon a crusade against vice is undertaken in New York and other large cities. Attempts are made to close the gambling dens and eloquent sermons are preached in denunciation of games of chance. . . . And yet the ordinary games of chance are innocent amusement in comparison with the greater games played where cliques, corners and false rumors affect the market and drive prices up or down to suit the purpose of those in control. No one will undertake to defend gambling from a moral or an economic standpoint, but why do the crusaders exhaust their energy upon the petty offenders and remain silent in the presence of big gamblers who, besides bringing ruin to thousands, lend a sort of respectability to schemes for obtaining something for nothing? The total amount of money last at the card table, the wheel of fortune and other games which are declared to be illegal is insignificant in comparison with the amount lost in speculation on the boards of trade and stock exchanges. Then, too, in small gambling, the parties to the games and their immediate families are usually the only ones pecuniarily affected, while speculation upon the market injures the producers, consumers and legitimate dealers who try to conduct their business honestly and who themselves do not deal in futures or options."
Bryan in The Commoner
The Commoner Condensed (New York: Abbey Press, 1902), pp. 127-28
"No person or corporation has a natural right to issue money. It is 'an attribute of sovereignty,' and the banks can no more demand as a right the power to supply a currency for the people than they can demand the right to enact laws for the general government of the people. . . . The business of loaning and discounting is not necessarily connected with issuing money, and if the banks join to their legitimate business the issue of paper which is to pass as money, we may rest assured that they will do it for the profit there is in it."
-- Bryan on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1894
The Real Bryan, pp. 240-41
"In his annual report [Treasury] Secretary Gage recommends a great central bank. He says that the existing system does not afford 'the highest assurance of protection' and does not establish 'a bond of cohesion, the power of co-operative action, the ability to co-ordinate for the general good or for mutual defense,' such as would be provided by a central institution with multiplied branches. Those who have carefully observed the part which the banking institutions have played in the politics of the country will obtain a hint of the enormous power a central bank, 'with multiplied branches' would wield when they observe that the promoters of the proposed system believe that between the banks as organized to-day there is no 'bond of cohesion' and no 'power of co-operative action.'"
-- Bryan in The Commoner
The Commoner Condensed, pp. 355-56
"Hon. Lyman J. Gage, formerly secretary of the treasury, but now enjoying a rich banking berth which he earned by turning the treasury department over to Wall street, has recently made a defense of the accumulation of wealth. The occasion was a session of the Bible class of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. . . . [We reply,] There is no criticism of those who really produce something. . . . What society complains of--and justly, too--is that men who do not produce anything--men who add nothing to the world's wealth--saddle the masses and ride them with whip and spur. A great many of Mr. Gage's financial associates have grown rich by means of schemes of exploitation which do not differ in morals from the methods of the highwayman. . . . Mr. Gage by his own official conduct has shown his sympathy with crooked methods of accumulation."
-- Bryan in The Commoner
The Commoner Condensed, volume IV (Lincoln: Woodruff-Collins, 1905), pp. 145-46
"Those who demand the divorcement of the treasury department from Wall street are not the enemies of private property; they simply insist that public property should not be taken for private purposes, and that the functions of government should not become an asset in private business. It ought not to be considered heresy to say that the government should be administered by the people in their own behalf. It ought not to subject one to criticism to declare that the financial system of the government should be made to subserve the interests of the whole people and not be used to advance the interests of a few."
-- Bryan in the Saturday Evening Post, 1905
The Real Bryan, p. 239.
"The defeat of Perry Belmont in a strong democratic district ought to show eastern democrats the folly of nominating for national positions men who are known to antagonize democratic principles. . . . His defeat was well merited and ought to serve as a lesson to those who assume that the voters of the party will vote for any one who may happen to be nominated, even though he be a republican masquerading as a democrat."
-- Bryan in The Commoner
The Commoner Condensed, p. 377.
"Mr. Roosevelt is satisfactory to the moneyed interests, he has secretly pledged his administration to do what the financiers (and they are the trust magnates also) want done. The financiers and the trust magnates, therefore, want Roosevelt to win. However, to remove any uneasiness they would like to nominate Parker in the democratic party and then the financiers and trust magnates could divide up and feel that Wall street interests would be secure no matter which candidate was elected. Can any democrat who has the interests of his party and his country at heart favor the nomination of a candidate who, like Judge Parker, attempts to deceive the public and at the same time gives secret pledges to plutocracy?"
-- Bryan in The Commoner, 1904
The Commoner Condensed, vol. IV, p. 180
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead negotiator for the House Democrats, said that there was no expectation of making anyone smile. “This was never going to be a bill that was going to make people happy,” he said.
Former President Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am no believer in the amalgamation of parties, nor do I consider it as either desirable or useful for the public . . . Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people . . . 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them."
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Hubert Humphrey "approved of continual cooperation between the two major political parties and believed that both parties should be led by centrists of goodwill, so voters would end up with a good candidate regardless of which party they chose to support. This view is unlike the view of Jefferson and Bryan, who maintained that the two parties should be quite distinct to give voters a clear and contrasting choice between liberals and conservatives. Political analyst Kevin Phillips, a present-day Jeffersonian, comments,
'America's political duopoly has another unique characteristic that makes little sense to politicians elsewhere--frequent bipartisanship. Hallowed in the United States, the practice is observed in few other countries, except in wartime, because those party structures pivot on deep philosophic and interest-group differences. . . . [Bipartisanship in the U.S. frequently involves] a suspension of electoral combat to orchestrate some outcome with no great public support but a high priority among key elites. . . . Bipartisanship is too often a failure of the party system--a failure of both political responsibility and of representative government--and not a triumph.'"
"Only seven percent (7%) of voters think the federal government should use taxpayer funds to keep a large financial institution solvent. Sixty-five percent (65%) say let the company file for bankruptcy. These numbers are generally the same across Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters."
"Lawmakers on both extremes of the political spectrum assailed the plan as a massive, poorly conceived bailout."
"In 1944, Senator William Langer (R-ND) asserted that small groups of 'millionaire monopolists, international bankers, or crooks' were selecting the presidential nominees of both the Democratic and Republican parites. In 1951, Congressman Usher Burdick (R-ND) said, 'Both old parties want war and profits and the plain people like you and me have no means of bringing our vote to account. We will have to support one or the other of the great party candidates and when both are against us you can see how powerless we are. . . . Many, if not most, Americans remain Jeffersonian in orientation, but their views are underrepresented in Washington."
"The normal legislative process that should accompany a monumental proposal to bail out Wall Street has been shelved. Yes, shelved! Only a few insiders are doing the dealing. These criminals have so much power they can shut down the normal legislative process of the highest lawmaking body in this land. All the committees that should be scanning every word that is being negotiated have been benched. And that means the American people have been benched. We are constitutionally sworn to protect this country against all enemies foreign and domestic, and yes, my friends, there are enemies. . . . The people who are pushing this bill are the very same one's who are responsible for the implosion on Wall Street. They were fraudulent then; and they are fraudulent now.We should say No to this deal."
-- Associated Press story, September 29, 2008
"With most conservative Jeffersonians being Republicans or ex-Democrats and facing only timid opposition from liberal Jeffersonians within the party, Democratic leaders are under little pressure to return the party to its place of origin. Party electoral self-interest could be an important incentive, but party leaders are players in a bipartisan game rigged so that they reap personal political and economic benefits regardless of the outcome of elections."
socialism for the rich
corporate state (benevolent fascism)
economic growth
respectability
BRYAN QUOTES:
"If crime is defined as an act the doing of which is prohibited by law, stock speculation cannot be considered criminal, but when the word crime is used in its broader sense to describe an act which offends against morality or the public welfare, it certainly includes that species of gambling upon the market which endangers the community as well as injures the participants. A record of Wall Street's doings for the last week is an indictment against our boasted civilization. That such transactions are allowed is as much a reflection upon the intelligence of the country as it is the conscience of the people. It is little less than amazing that a few men should be permitted to corner the market for their own selfish purposes, beat down the price of one stock and boom the price of another stock, demoralizing business and jeopardizing the interests of all classes of society. . . . How will the historian describe an age in which a petty thief is severely punished while great criminals go unwhipped? It often takes an object lesson to arouse the people to the evils of a bad system and the recent fluctuations in the stock market, costly as they have been, will be cheap if they lead to legislation which will put an end to stock gambling, erroneously described as 'business.'"
--William Jennings Bryan in The Commoner
The Real Bryan, comp. Richard L. Metcalfe (Des Moines: Personal Help Publishing, 1908), 95-
96.
"Ever and anon a crusade against vice is undertaken in New York and other large cities. Attempts are made to close the gambling dens and eloquent sermons are preached in denunciation of games of chance. . . . And yet the ordinary games of chance are innocent amusement in comparison with the greater games played where cliques, corners and false rumors affect the market and drive prices up or down to suit the purpose of those in control. No one will undertake to defend gambling from a moral or an economic standpoint, but why do the crusaders exhaust their energy upon the petty offenders and remain silent in the presence of big gamblers who, besides bringing ruin to thousands, lend a sort of respectability to schemes for obtaining something for nothing? The total amount of money last at the card table, the wheel of fortune and other games which are declared to be illegal is insignificant in comparison with the amount lost in speculation on the boards of trade and stock exchanges. Then, too, in small gambling, the parties to the games and their immediate families are usually the only ones pecuniarily affected, while speculation upon the market injures the producers, consumers and legitimate dealers who try to conduct their business honestly and who themselves do not deal in futures or options."
Bryan in The Commoner
The Commoner Condensed (New York: Abbey Press, 1902), pp. 127-28
"No person or corporation has a natural right to issue money. It is 'an attribute of sovereignty,' and the banks can no more demand as a right the power to supply a currency for the people than they can demand the right to enact laws for the general government of the people. . . . The business of loaning and discounting is not necessarily connected with issuing money, and if the banks join to their legitimate business the issue of paper which is to pass as money, we may rest assured that they will do it for the profit there is in it."
-- Bryan on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, 1894
The Real Bryan, pp. 240-41
"In his annual report [Treasury] Secretary Gage recommends a great central bank. He says that the existing system does not afford 'the highest assurance of protection' and does not establish 'a bond of cohesion, the power of co-operative action, the ability to co-ordinate for the general good or for mutual defense,' such as would be provided by a central institution with multiplied branches. Those who have carefully observed the part which the banking institutions have played in the politics of the country will obtain a hint of the enormous power a central bank, 'with multiplied branches' would wield when they observe that the promoters of the proposed system believe that between the banks as organized to-day there is no 'bond of cohesion' and no 'power of co-operative action.'"
-- Bryan in The Commoner
The Commoner Condensed, pp. 355-56
"Hon. Lyman J. Gage, formerly secretary of the treasury, but now enjoying a rich banking berth which he earned by turning the treasury department over to Wall street, has recently made a defense of the accumulation of wealth. The occasion was a session of the Bible class of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. . . . [We reply,] There is no criticism of those who really produce something. . . . What society complains of--and justly, too--is that men who do not produce anything--men who add nothing to the world's wealth--saddle the masses and ride them with whip and spur. A great many of Mr. Gage's financial associates have grown rich by means of schemes of exploitation which do not differ in morals from the methods of the highwayman. . . . Mr. Gage by his own official conduct has shown his sympathy with crooked methods of accumulation."
-- Bryan in The Commoner
The Commoner Condensed, volume IV (Lincoln: Woodruff-Collins, 1905), pp. 145-46
"Those who demand the divorcement of the treasury department from Wall street are not the enemies of private property; they simply insist that public property should not be taken for private purposes, and that the functions of government should not become an asset in private business. It ought not to be considered heresy to say that the government should be administered by the people in their own behalf. It ought not to subject one to criticism to declare that the financial system of the government should be made to subserve the interests of the whole people and not be used to advance the interests of a few."
-- Bryan in the Saturday Evening Post, 1905
The Real Bryan, p. 239.
"The defeat of Perry Belmont in a strong democratic district ought to show eastern democrats the folly of nominating for national positions men who are known to antagonize democratic principles. . . . His defeat was well merited and ought to serve as a lesson to those who assume that the voters of the party will vote for any one who may happen to be nominated, even though he be a republican masquerading as a democrat."
-- Bryan in The Commoner
The Commoner Condensed, p. 377.
"Mr. Roosevelt is satisfactory to the moneyed interests, he has secretly pledged his administration to do what the financiers (and they are the trust magnates also) want done. The financiers and the trust magnates, therefore, want Roosevelt to win. However, to remove any uneasiness they would like to nominate Parker in the democratic party and then the financiers and trust magnates could divide up and feel that Wall street interests would be secure no matter which candidate was elected. Can any democrat who has the interests of his party and his country at heart favor the nomination of a candidate who, like Judge Parker, attempts to deceive the public and at the same time gives secret pledges to plutocracy?"
-- Bryan in The Commoner, 1904
The Commoner Condensed, vol. IV, p. 180
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the lead negotiator for the House Democrats, said that there was no expectation of making anyone smile. “This was never going to be a bill that was going to make people happy,” he said.
-- New York Times online, September 27, 2008
Former President Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am no believer in the amalgamation of parties, nor do I consider it as either desirable or useful for the public . . . Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people . . . 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them."
-- Where Did the Party Go?, page 46
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Hubert Humphrey "approved of continual cooperation between the two major political parties and believed that both parties should be led by centrists of goodwill, so voters would end up with a good candidate regardless of which party they chose to support. This view is unlike the view of Jefferson and Bryan, who maintained that the two parties should be quite distinct to give voters a clear and contrasting choice between liberals and conservatives. Political analyst Kevin Phillips, a present-day Jeffersonian, comments,
'America's political duopoly has another unique characteristic that makes little sense to politicians elsewhere--frequent bipartisanship. Hallowed in the United States, the practice is observed in few other countries, except in wartime, because those party structures pivot on deep philosophic and interest-group differences. . . . [Bipartisanship in the U.S. frequently involves] a suspension of electoral combat to orchestrate some outcome with no great public support but a high priority among key elites. . . . Bipartisanship is too often a failure of the party system--a failure of both political responsibility and of representative government--and not a triumph.'"
-- Where Did the Party Go?, page 86
"Only seven percent (7%) of voters think the federal government should use taxpayer funds to keep a large financial institution solvent. Sixty-five percent (65%) say let the company file for bankruptcy. These numbers are generally the same across Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters."
-- Rasmussen Reports story, September 17, 2008
"Lawmakers on both extremes of the political spectrum assailed the plan as a massive, poorly conceived bailout."
-- Associated Press story, September 23, 2008
"The bill's failure came despite furious personal lobbying by Bush and support from House leaders of both parties. But the legislation was highly unpopular with the public, ideological groups on the left and the right organized against it, and Bush no longer wielded the influence to leverage tough votes. Even pressure in favor of the bill from some of the biggest special interests in Washington, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors, could not sway enough votes."
-- Associated Press story, September 30, 2008
"Political scientist Anthony Downs argues that 'most voters are massed' in the ideological Center rather than on the Left or the Right (An Economic Theory of Democracy). His scale does not take into account the populist and elitist distinction that cuts across liberal and conservative lines. The traditional linear scale does not adequately measure and depict ideology. It may be more useful to think of the Left and the Right as two components of populism, with elitism residing in the Center. The political spectrum may be linear, but it is not a straight line. It is shaped like a horseshoe. We usually think of America and Asia as being quite far apart, but they are actually divided by the narrow Bering Strait. Similarly, Left and Right are located on the ends of the spectrum separated by a relatively small distance containing contentious but secondary issues that divide modern liberals and conservatives. Despite some obvious differences in perspective and emphasis, the populist Left and populist Right are ideological cousins and natural allies in the struggle against the elitist Center. This can most often be seen with overarching issues associated with democracy, community, and foreign policy.
According to Downs's Median Voter Theory, the two major political parties keep moving toward the Center to appeal to the median voter. If we accept the premise that the Center represents the Power Elite, then we can say that someone like David Rockefeller is the median voter. With this version of the Median Voter Theory, the bell curve represents the quantity of wealth and power, not the quantity of voters. The two major parties stay close to the Center not because most voters reside there, but because most of the wealth and power reside there. The quantity of voters and the quantity of money and power are in an inverse relationship. Most citizens cast their vote for one or another of the major parties despite the parties' centrism, not because of it. Downs asks if 'indifferent voters [are] equally pleased by all parties or equally repelled by them.' The latter seems to be the answer. If the two major parties reside in the Center of wealth and power, but the majority of voters do not reside there, it is not surprising that only half of the eligible voters decide to cast ballots in presidential elections. When people feel unrepresented year after year--regardless of which party is in the White House or controls Congress--many eventually give up in disgust or despair."
-- Where Did the Party Go?, pages 118-119
"In 1944, Senator William Langer (R-ND) asserted that small groups of 'millionaire monopolists, international bankers, or crooks' were selecting the presidential nominees of both the Democratic and Republican parites. In 1951, Congressman Usher Burdick (R-ND) said, 'Both old parties want war and profits and the plain people like you and me have no means of bringing our vote to account. We will have to support one or the other of the great party candidates and when both are against us you can see how powerless we are. . . . Many, if not most, Americans remain Jeffersonian in orientation, but their views are underrepresented in Washington."
-- Where Did the Party Go?, pages 228-229
"The normal legislative process that should accompany a monumental proposal to bail out Wall Street has been shelved. Yes, shelved! Only a few insiders are doing the dealing. These criminals have so much power they can shut down the normal legislative process of the highest lawmaking body in this land. All the committees that should be scanning every word that is being negotiated have been benched. And that means the American people have been benched. We are constitutionally sworn to protect this country against all enemies foreign and domestic, and yes, my friends, there are enemies. . . . The people who are pushing this bill are the very same one's who are responsible for the implosion on Wall Street. They were fraudulent then; and they are fraudulent now.We should say No to this deal."
-- Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), House floor, September 22, 2008
"The $700 bailout bill is being driven by fear not fact. This is too much money, in too short of time, going to too few people, while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren't we having hearings . . . Why aren't we considering any other alternatives other than giving $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation which triggered this? Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect the investors? Why aren't we directly helping homeowners with their debt burdens? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy? Isn't time for fundamental change to our debt-based monetary system so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the U.S. Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?”
-- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), House floor, September 29, 2008
"In a stunning vote that shocked the capital and worldwide markets, the House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, ignoring urgent warnings from President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties that the economy could nosedive without it. The Dow Jones industrials plunged nearly 800 points, the most ever for a single day. . . . In the House chamber, as a digital screen recorded a cascade of 'no' votes against the bailout, Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley of New York shouted news of the falling stocks. 'Six hundred points!' he yelled, jabbing his thumb downward."
-- Associated Press story, September 29, 2008
In 1902, William Jennings Bryan expressed public satisfaction that Perry Belmont of New York had been defeated in a race for Congress. The following year, Bryan wrote, "The plutocratic element of the party deserted [in 1896] and ever since that time has been plotting against the party. . . . It is planning now to give the democratic nomination to a representative of corporate wealth whose campaign would be made on money furnished by the trusts and whose administratino, if won, would be controlled by Wall Street, as Mr. Cleveland's last administration was." At the 1912 Democratic National Convention, Bryan introduced a resolution designed to put the party on record as opposing the nomination of any presidential candidate who was "the representative of or under obligation to J. Pierpont Morgan, Thomas F. Ryan, August [P.] Belmont, or any other member of the privilege-hunting and favor-seeking class."
-- Where Did the Party Go?, pages 140, 169
"'The legislation may have failed; the crisis is still with us,' said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a news conference after the defeat. 'What happened today cannot stand,' Pelosi said. 'We must move forward, and I hope that the markets will take that message.'"
-- Associated Press story, September 29, 2008
-- Where Did the Party Go?, page 275
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
