The backbencher revolt by Congress on Monday which defeated the bailout plan for Wall Street suggested a Washington establishment out of touch with the anger of Main Street voters, and offers one more similarity between our time period and that of the Gilded Age.
The backbencher revolt by Congress on Monday which defeated the bailout plan for Wall Street suggested a Washington establishment out of touch with the anger of Main Street voters, and offers one more similarity between our time period and that of the Gilded Age.
Since 2000 our nation has resembled the Gilded Age period -- those decades following the Civil War when our politics featured a divided electorate and close presidential elections, and our economy was marked by a concentration of wealth and a promotion of laissez-faire policies.
Now we apparently find ourselves ready to emulate the Gilded Age once again since the bailout crisis of 2008 looks like the economic crisis that ended that earlier Gilded Age -- the Depression of 1893.
Like the Great Depression that gave rise to the New Deal of the 1930s, the depression of the 1890s changed the course of American history by changing people's thinking about the role of government, and reform.
The economic crisis prompted a reexamination of our existing economic institutions.
The collapse of the economy prompted a radical critique of government policy in 1896 by presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan and then the implementation of progressive reforms in 1901 by Teddy Roosevelt.
Today, both presidential candidates are championing reform of our economic institutions which each believes has been for too long under-regulated.
They have clothed their calls for demands in moral rhetoric that would have appalled financier J.P. Morgan and pleased populist orator Mary Lease, who was known in 1890s for her attacks on bankers and Wall Street.
John McCain has spoken about "outrageous and unconscionable" compensation for CEOs and called for the firing of the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Obama has launched similar populist appeals and this week has stepped his criticism of Wall Street.
But it is important note that the election of 1896 was not won by the champion of radical reform, William Jennings Bryan, who called for more government action on behalf of the "people" and not big business. Victory went to the more moderate sounding William McKinley who limited his attacks on the outgoing Democratic president, Grover Cleveland.
It was not until Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901 that fundamental change in government role in the economy took place. Roosevelt tapped into public anxiety to transform the relationship between government and business in ways that would have been unthinkable, or at least politically unacceptable, a generation before.
McCain has often expressed his admiration for Teddy Roosevelt and Obama has called for a transformative presidency. But although each candidate champions reform, their support of the bailout suggests that each would be more like William McKinley than Teddy Roosevelt.
The backbencher revolt by Congress on Monday which defeated the bailout plan for Wall Street suggested a Washington establishment out of touch with the anger of Main Street voters, and offers one more similarity between our time period and that of the Gilded Age.
Since 2000 our nation has resembled the Gilded Age period -- those decades following the Civil War when our politics featured a divided electorate and close presidential elections, and our economy was marked by a concentration of wealth and a promotion of laissez-faire policies.
Now we apparently find ourselves ready to emulate the Gilded Age once again since the bailout crisis of 2008 looks like the economic crisis that ended that earlier Gilded Age -- the Depression of 1893.
Like the Great Depression that gave rise to the New Deal of the 1930s, the depression of the 1890s changed the course of American history by changing people's thinking about the role of government, and reform.
The economic crisis prompted a reexamination of our existing economic institutions.
The collapse of the economy prompted a radical critique of government policy in 1896 by presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan and then the implementation of progressive reforms in 1901 by Teddy Roosevelt.
Today, both presidential candidates are championing reform of our economic institutions which each believes has been for too long under-regulated.
They have clothed their calls for demands in moral rhetoric that would have appalled financier J.P. Morgan and pleased populist orator Mary Lease, who was known in 1890s for her attacks on bankers and Wall Street.
John McCain has spoken about "outrageous and unconscionable" compensation for CEOs and called for the firing of the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Obama has launched similar populist appeals and this week has stepped his criticism of Wall Street.
But it is important note that the election of 1896 was not won by the champion of radical reform, William Jennings Bryan, who called for more government action on behalf of the "people" and not big business. Victory went to the more moderate sounding William McKinley who limited his attacks on the outgoing Democratic president, Grover Cleveland.
It was not until Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901 that fundamental change in government role in the economy took place. Roosevelt tapped into public anxiety to transform the relationship between government and business in ways that would have been unthinkable, or at least politically unacceptable, a generation before.
McCain has often expressed his admiration for Teddy Roosevelt and Obama has called for a transformative presidency. But although each candidate champions reform, their support of the bailout suggests that each would be more like William McKinley than Teddy Roosevelt.
Given the current stance of both presidential candidates, one would hesitate to predict any radical reform come January 2009. While both candidates talk about a redefinition of roles and rules in Washington, their acceptance of the bailout indicates a Rooseveltian revolution -- whether Teddy in 1901 or Franklin in 1933 -- will not occur.
Both Obama and McCain gave their tentative support to a revised version because it included:
| More oversight.
| More aid to individual mortgage holders.
| Some limits on CEO compensation.
| $50 billion less in expenditure.
But while these additions made the administration's $700 billion bailout more palatable to Congress and to both candidates, it did not make the proposal more palatable to the voters.
For the changes appeared to many voters as more superficial than substantive -- a form of sugar coating to make the costly and quick bailout acceptable to a discontented public. Polls indicated discontent, and protesting phone calls to Congressional offices demonstrated it.
Especially a proposal pushed by an unpopular president (22 percent approval rating) and an even more unpopular Congress (9 percent approval rating).
In this regard Republicans can be thankful they do not control Congress. For otherwise the $700 billion bailout would be associated with the GOP. Now its ownership includes Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Peolosi and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The danger for both parties is a potential of voter revolt at a time when an angry public has lost faith and arrogant leaders have lost touch. Especially since there is no guarantee that the rushed bailout will stem the crisis.
Rupp, a political historian at West Virginia Wesleyan College, is a Gazette contributing columnist.
Post a comment