Presidential Election of 1896

Democratic Presidential Banner from 1896

Americans seem to think the Presidential Election currently in the news is the wildest one yet, but last week's blog shared some of the elections that have been called "the dirtiest."  This week I will share events of the 1890 elections, the last Presidential Elections of Isaac B. Werner's lifetime, which were pretty crazy!!

The era most of us know as the Gilded Age was great for a small segment of Americans, but for farmers like Isaac, as well as other workers engaged as miners, small ranchers, and factory laborers, times were hard.  The big issue became whether adhering to the gold standard to keep a stable economy was best or whether implementing bimetalism to include silver would benefit more ordinary Americans.

Cartoon from St. John, KS County Capital

For farmers and other working class people who were suffering most economically, 'Free Silver!' became the rallying cry.  The Republicans had the political wealth and power, but the People's Party believed that if they joined with the Democrats in nominating William J. Bryan as their Presidential candidate that their combined votes could defeat the Republicans. 

The caption on the cartoon showing Uncle Sam trying to ride his bicycle with only one wheel, identified as "Gold" reads:  "The country will never be Prosperous again until Silver is restored to full and unlimited coinage."  The "Silver" wheel lies on the ground, crushed by "Demonitization" with the guiding light of a lamp left behind on the ground labeled "Common Sense."

It was William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech at the Democratic Convention, with its reference to drip down economics, that probably lifted him above other potential nominees, and it was certainly Bryan's nearly exclusive focus on "Free Silver" that led the People's Party to nominate him, despite the fact that he was not a member of their party!

When it came to selecting the Vice-Presidential candidate, however, the Democrats and the People's Party nominated different candidates.  The Democrats chose a wealthy man from the east coast, hoping he would bring some votes from those Republicans who favored silver (and there were a few who did).  The People's Party nominated one of their own as the Vice-Presidential candidate, wanting to be represented on the ticket. 

The tactic did not succeed.  Republican McKinley received 271 electoral votes while Bryan received only 176.

Four years earlier in the 1892 Presidential Election, bimetallism had also been an issue, with the Democrats choosing Cleveland as their candidate, the Republicans choosing Harrison, and the People's Party choosing Weaver.  Cleveland prevailed with 277 electoral votes to Harrison's 145 and Weaver's 22.  The poor economy during Cleveland's administration was blamed on adherence to the gold standard by many in the People Party and Cleveland's own Democratic party, and they demanded bimetallism.

Political Cartoon from St. John, KS County Capital progressive newspaper

The above political cartoon uses the bicycle theme to illustrate why bimetallism beats the gold standard.  President Cleveland is depicted riding a unicycle, cheered on by the wealthy.  The caption reads:  "Cleveland--'This blasted wheel wobbles too much.  I never can catch that fellow ahead and you might as well save your breath.  I am in a perplexing and delicate predicament as a result of ill-advised financial expedients.'"

The poor economy set the stage for the Democrats in 1896 to nominate Bryan as their candidate.   People's Party candidate Weaver's weak performance in 1892 motivated the populists in 1896 to make the unusual decision to select the nominee of the Democratic ticket for their own Presidential candidate, while at the same time nominating a different man for Vice President. 

The Republicans who favored bimetallism split from their party to form a splinter party, as did the Democrats who favored retaining the Gold standard, while the People's Party nominated a Democrat as their candidate, resulting in William Jennings Bryan having two different running mates.  Talk about a crazy Presidential Election!

So, as you follow the news of the upcoming Presidential Election of 2016, perhaps you can take some comfort in the fact that as crazy as it may seem to you, America has survived crazy Presidential elections in the past.

By the way, although Bryan did receive a strong showing of 47% of the popular vote in 1896 to McKinley's 51%, the electoral vote was McKinley 271, Bryan 176.  That difference shows how important it is that candidates pay attention to states with more electoral votes during their campaigning.  It also explains why we see so many charts on our television screens showing the likely votes of the "Important" electoral states and why Isaac's old home state of Kansas, with fewer electoral votes, is rarely mentioned by the television commentators. However, in the 1896 Presidential election, Kansas was at the heart of political news.

What's Old is Always New Again

Charles Darwin

After enduring years of debt and struggle, Isaac Werner finally had put that behind.  Unfortunately his financial achievements were eclipsed by his failing health, and he never fully enjoyed the successful farm he had created.  His struggles during the Gilded Age bear much in common with today.  In his time, the disparity between the post-Civil War wealthy men like Jay Rockefeller in comparison to factory laborers, miners, and farmers like Isaac was a new social disparity for Americans, our early history having been primarily a population of working people of similar means producing materials sent to England for manufacture.  It was during the Civil War that the steel mills, factories, railroads, and manufacturing began to change the social landscape of Americans markedly.

Ward McAllister

Charles Darwin's Evolution of the Species was distorted by some to justify a social view never intended by Darwin.  John D. Rockefeller's words reveal this attitude:  "The growth of a large business is merely survival of the fittest.  The American beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it.  This is not an evil tendency in business.  It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God..."  Like-minded men of the Gilded Age had little pity for the squalor of immigrant families enticed to America for cheap labor in factories, miners facing daily danger, and farmers struggling to raise crops for which railroads charged unregulated shipping fees to get the farmers' produce to markets.

Jacob Riis

During this time, journalist Ward McAllister wrote about the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy families, describing the centerpiece for one obscenely opulent dinner in the ballroom of Delmonico's at 14th Street in New York City in 1890 as a:  "...long extended oval table, and every inch of it was covered with flowers, excepting a space in the center, left for a lake...thirty feet in length, enclosed by a delicate golden wire network reaching from table to ceiling, making the whole one grand cage; four superb swans, brought from Prospect Park, swam in it, surrounded by high bands of flowers of every species and variety...[and] above the entire table, hung little golden cages with fine songsters..."  The only thing Isaac had in common with the wealthy guests at this dinner was their mutual pleasure in the music of songbirds!

Political cartoon from 1890s

At the same time McAllister was writing about the wealthy, journalist Jacob Riis was exposing the misery, starvation, crowding, graft and political corruption of NYC's tenement district.  His book, How the Other Half Lives, was published in 1891, including photographs of the desperate conditions of working class families.

Then, as now, the wealthy used their riches not just for mansions and extravagant lifestyles but also to influence politics, and the People's Party, of which Isaac Werner was a member, included laborers, miners, and farmers in a political movement to confront the wealthy at the ballot box.

An interesting article, "Who Rules America:  Wealth, Income, and Power," which can be read at http://www.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html, defines wealth as what is owned minus what is owed, and points to the advantage of great wealth with financial resources available to spend on more than is needed for a comfortable life--those additional resources giving them power.  The article describes the United States as a "Power Pyramid," with the "...top 10% having 85 to 90% of the nation's stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity...It's tough for the bottom 80%--maybe even the bottom 90% to get organized and exercise much power."

Political cartoon from 1890s

The article supports this relationship between wealth and power with four examples.  First, they are in a better position to make "...donations to political parties, payment to lobbyists, and grants to experts who are employed to think up new policies beneficial to the wealthy."  Second, "...stock ownership can be used to control corporations, which of course have a major impact on how the society functions."  Third, that power can also lead to more wealth through political influence at local, state, and national levels.  And, fourth, the opportunity to do the things that money can buy--whether access to better health, safer jobs, more travel and leisure, among other privileges--becomes a power indicator in itself. 

Both major political parties in America today reflect the influence of power by the wealthy.  Yet, the recent effort by the Senate to act legislatively to change the decision of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case shows a definite split between the parties.  That case, which allows massive spending and influence by corporations and unions through Political Action Committees, has magnified the need for campaign finance reform, something about which most Americans agree, regardless of political affiliation.  The Senate vote attempting to overturn the effect of Citizens United received a majority vote but failed to reach the 2/3rds majority needed when not one single Republican voted in support, despite strong support for overturning Citizens United among Republican voters.

Political cartoon from the 1890s

The impact of Citizens United is nowhere more apparent than in Kansas, Isaac's old political grounds.  According to an article published in The Huffington Post on October 25, 2014, since Senator Pat Roberts's failure to break a 50% majority in the Kansas primary, "Spending by super PACs and dark money nonprofits has exploded by at least 560 percent since then, fueling what will end up being the most expensive Senate race in Kansas history.

Aggravated by the bombardment of political ads on television, I became curious about who was funding them, and my informal observation was consistent with the Huffington Post reporting.  "The biggest spender in the race is Freedom Partners Action Fund, a super PAC founded by the Koch brothers, which has paid out nearly $2 million attacking Orman.  Koch Industries, the private company owned by the brothers, is based in Wichita, Kansas, and has long backed Roberts.  Its employees and political action committee are the leading funders of the senator's political career."  A review of Sen. Roberts's voting record shows that he has been a "forceful opponent of campaign finance reform" and a leading opponent of disclosure of donors contributing to nonprofits.

When I began reading Isaac Werner's journal, I was naturally interested in what he wrote about farming and the social life of early settlers on the prairie.  However, what intrigued me were the many political similarities of his time with our own.  (See "Isaac and the Plutocrats," blog archives April 5, 2012.)  Isaac and other farmers and laborers came together to confront the wealth and power of Wall Street and corporations (which had become even more powerful then through trusts and monopolies).  It seems that the impact of wealth and power vs. the one-man-one-vote ideal of the American democracy is an ongoing political issue! 

Remember, to enlarge the cartoons to enable reading the labels and captions, click on the images.

Politics Hardly Seem to Change, the Sequel




Political cartoon from late 1800s, "How Foolish Men Vote"

With the inundation of political commercials on television, few Americans could be unaware of the approaching elections.  On November 24, 2011, soon after I began this blog, I compared the political issues of Isaac Werner's times in the late 1800s with current issues, posting several political cartoons from that era. People continue to visit that blog, making it one of my most popular posts.  I thought it might be worthwhile to take a fresh look at whether conditions have changed.

The political cartoon at right is also from the newpaper to which Isaac Werner subscribed.  Its subtitle reads:  "The Farmer, Mechanic or Workman Who Votes for Either of the Old Parties is Voting Bread, Meat, Clothes and Money Out of Reach of His Wife and Children."  Many of the political cartoons posted in my earlier blog also address the issue of political influence exerted by wealthy and powerful men, at the expense of other Americans.  Obviously, that issue continues to play a significant role in politics today.  (You can enlarge by clicking in the image.)

I recently saw a chart (See below left) posted on face book, comparing the ratio of CEO pay to regular workers' pay.  Not only is the 354 to 1 ratio between CEO and Worker pay in the U.S. noteworthy, but also the U.S. ratio to what exists in other countries stands out.  While it is true that we are living in a global economy today, the ratio is  uniquely extreme in the U.S.  (The sources used by Maclean's appear at the bottom of the chart.) 

Of course, what struck me, just as it did in my earlier blog, is the similarity of economic disparity during the Gilded Age of Isaac Werner's time with today.  A recent news article about a house under construction in Hillsboro Beach, Florida described its 60,000 square feet built on 4 acres along 465'  of beachfront (with a 492' private dock for a yacht), having 11 bedrooms, 17 baths, a private IMAX theater with seating for 18, a putting green, a 30-car underground garage, and a 139-million-dollar price tag!  Even the millionares' mansions along 5th Avenue in NYC during the Gilded Age and the Summer Homes in Newport are eclipsed by this extreme display of wealth.

Compiled by Maclean's from various source statistics

An article posted on msn.com titled "America's 10 richest people" reported that entry into the Forbes 400 List of wealthiest Americans in 2013 required $1.3 billion to be included.  This year's list required $1.55 billion, and 113 billionaires were excluded from the list.

Within days of reading that article I read that because of the wages paid by Wal-Mart, nearly half of the children of that company's 'associates,' qualify for Medicare Benefits or go uninsured, their family situation being cited as an example of America's working poor.


A recent vote in the U.S. Senate intended to take action against the Citizens United case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court failed, cited by many as an example of money and power defeating the voice of individual Americans.  The barrage of political ads on television right now nearly all have a tiny caption at the bottom disclosing some political action group that paid for the advertising.  The power of money exerted a huge influence in American politics in Isaac Werner's times, and it still does.

Perhaps these kinds of news reports explain why my 2011 blog about similarities our own age shares with the Gilded Age explain why that blog continues to attract visitors.  Many of the Progressive ideas from the People's Party were implemented in the early years of the past century and contributed to the growth of America's Middle Class.  Today's shrinking Middle Class and the economic disparity between America's richest and poorest citizens may have more in common with the Gilded Age than the post-W.W. II years many Americans remember proudly.

I hope you visit "Politics Hardly Seem to Change" in the archives at Nov. 24, 2011.  I think you will find the cartoons and the political comparisons thought provoking, regardless of your own political positions.

The People's Party Urged Silver

1890 Political Cartoon from the County Capital

During the People's Party movement of the late 1800s one of the most politically divisive issues was bimetallism.  Many members of the People's Party supported bimetallism, in which silver as well as gold would support our currency.

 

Initially, both gold and silver were legal tender of the United States, first with a floating exchange rate that was fixed at a 15:1 ratio in 1792 by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury.  During the Civil War money was needed to pay soldiers, and "Greenbacks" were issued, but the bonds to pay for the War were redeemable in gold.  This was pointed to by the People's Party as an example of the wealthy getting their bonds repaid in valuable gold while the soldiers were left with the deflated paper money.  It was in 1873 that the free and unlimited coinage of silver ended, putting the country on a gold standard.  When the Panic of 1893 struck the nation, the schism between the wealthy and the working classes intensified, particularly regarding the continuance of the gold standard.

 

1890s Political Cartoon from the County Capital

Membership in the People's Party consisted largely of farmers, laborers, and miners, and the majority believed that a return to silver would inflate the money supply, giving more cash to everybody.  Farmers especially saw a double benefit from inflation--higher prices for their crops and repayment of their outstanding loans with deflated dollars.  Bankers and other investors obviously opposed the idea of accepting deflated dollars in payment of the notes they held.  Politically, this translated into Republicans supporting candidates and policies that adhered to the gold standard while Democrats and the People's Party supported candidates and policies that supported bimetallism.

 

The political cartoon at the start of his blog shows rich men in top hats, holding government bonds as they cheer for President Cleveland, who is struggling to compete on a unicycle representing the single metal gold standard.  The common man, on a 2-wheeled bicycle representing bimetallism, stays in the lead.  The political cartoon just above uses a one-wheeled bicycle, showing how impossible it is for Uncle Sam to make any progress toward prosperity when the rear wheel, labeled "silver" has been removed.

 

Abandoned silver mines near Creede, Colorado

The prosperity of  silver mines declined as an oversupply of the metal caused the market to fall.  In an effort to prop up the market and appease those calling for a return to bimetallism, the government agreed to buy a certain amount of silver each month at a fixed price.  Naturally, this caused silver mines to reopen and increase operations, driving the silver market below the government price to the extent that the government program was ended.  When we visited Creed, Colorado, we saw the evidence of that tumultuous period for miners in the form of abandoned mines.

 

In 1896 the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan, and the People's Party also nominated Bryan, believing that the combined votes of the two parties would defeat the Republican candidate and put a "Free Silver" president in the White House.  Bryan's focus on the silver issue was apparent at the Democratic Convention, where he delivered his famous "Cross of Gold" speech, declaring:  "The gold standard has slain tens of thousands."  He contrasted "idle holders of idle capital" with "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country."  

 

Regional voting in 1896 Election

 Bryan's speech takes its familiar title from his rallying challenge to the Republicans:  "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."  (To read the full text of this speech you may go to http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354.)

 

Disagreements about the silver question resulted in groups splintering off from both of the major parties, but on election day Bryan swept the rural South, the heartland states, and the upper Northwest, areas where farming, mining, and lumbering were dominant.  However, McKinley held the banking, railroading, and manufacturing states and gained the presidency with 51 % of the vote.

 

The push by the People's Party to join with Democrats to gain the White House and put a Free Silver President in office failed.  (For a good explanation of the 1896 Currency Question you may visit http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/currency.html.) 

Next week's blog will share more about William Jennings Bryan from his own book published immediately after the 1896 campaign and titled "The First Battle."

Another Echoing Voice





A 1890s political cartoon from the County Capital 

In her speech at Cooper Union Hall in New York City on 11 August 1896, (referenced in last week's blog post, "Echoing Voices from the Past,") Mary Elizabeth Lease spoke the following:  "Once we made it our boast that this nation was not founded upon any class distinction.  But now we are not only buying diamonds for thier wives and daughters and selling our children to titled debauchees, but we are setting aside our Constitution and establishing a gold standard to help the fortunes of our hereditary foe."  This cartoon is a perfect illustration of Mrs. Lease's accusation!



Titled "Fruits of American Plutocracy," the cartoon shows a wealthy American father bestowing his blessings on his daughter's  marriage to a "Foreign Prince," linking his family with the "Nobility."  The dialogue at the bottom of the image reads:

"American Millionaire:  So, Duke, you want my daughter's hand in marriage?
The Duke:  I would give name and honor through her hand.
American Millionaire:  Have you scrofula?  Are you dissipated?  In other words, have you all the contaminations common to noble blood?
The Duke:  I'm afflicted with scrofula, epilepsy, am dissipated, disreputable, and a scoundrel.
American Millionaire:  Take her, then, and may heaven bless my children." 

Mary Elizabeth Lease declared in her Cooper Union speech that "There are two great enemies of thought and progress, the aristocracy of royalty and the aristocracy of gold..."  It is said that George Washington declined when asked to be made King of the United States, and our Declaration of Independence states that "All men are created equal."  Yet, the fairy tale lure of kings and queens, and the romance of a simple girl marrying a handsome prince has appealed to many Americans.  Magazines with photographs of William and Kate on their covers sell well, and many Americans wept for the death of William's mother, Princess Diana.

 

Nothing offers greater proof of Americans' fascination with English nobility than the current popularity of the television series, "Downton Abbey."  Consider its plot.  Downton Abbey has fallen into financial distress, so the young male heir, Lord Grantham, marries Cora Levinson, the daughter of a wealthy American, in order to save the estate! 

 

Obviously, not all of us share the scorn of Mary Elizabeth Lease as we tune in each week during the all-to-brief season to watch the lives of the Crawley family and wistfully long to see what is going to happen to them as we wait for the months to pass until the next season begins.  For those of us who admit to being fans of that show, we shouldn't be too critical of the Plutocrat in the cartoon who wants to be aligned with the nobility through the marriage of his daughter to a Duke!






Echoing Voices from the Past

Political cartoon from the 1890s

"They say this question is so deep that the common people are not fit to decide it.  They say 'leave it to the financiers.'  We have left it to them too long, and while we have been sinking into bankruptcy our financiers have been growing millionaires."  Mary Elizabeth Lease from her speech of 11 August 1896 to a mass meeting at Cooper Union Hall, New York City

 

When I began my blog, the first post was titled:  I Love History.  I wrote, "It gives us such a road map of achievements to emulate and mistakes to avoid.  When I am discouraged by things happening in the world in which I live, I am heartened by reading history.  If they made such a mess of things--and they often did--and their world survived, then perhaps our own mixed-up world can survive the problems we have created."  (You may read that blog in the archives at 3 January 2012.)

 

One of the reasons I decided to write a book about Isaac B. Werner, his community, and the People's Party movement of the late 1800s was that I saw so many similarities with our own times.  In particular, they were going through a time of great disparity between average working people and the wealthy corporate tycoons, railroad magnates, and Wall Street speculators.  When you began reading the words quoted at the beginning of this blog, did you initially realize they were spoken over a century ago?

 

This past week I read through the Forbes list of America's 100 most highly compensated CEOs of 2012, and it reminded me of the complaints made by laborers during the late 1800s, who called themselves "Wage Slaves." Today's wage earners might share some of the same feelings when they compare CEO compensation with their hourly wages.  Forbes reported that the most highly compensated CEO in 2012 was John H. Hammergren, who received 131.19 million dollars, (including salary, bonus,"other" and stock gains)!  Some of the names on the list might be more familiar to you:  Ralph Lauren, who received 66.65 million dollars, and Howard D. Schultz of Starbucks, who received 41.47 million dollars.  (To read the full list of CEO Compensation for 2012 visit http://www.forbes.com/lists/2012/12/ceo-compensation-12_rank.html.)

 

A political cartoon from the 1890s

Contrast those CEO compensation numbers with the current minimum wage standards in the U.S.  An employee earning the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would make $15,000 a year, which would put him $7,000 below the federally defined poverty line.  The minimum wage for employees who derive part of their income from tips is only $2.13.

 

A little bit of math will offer the following comparison between Mr. Hammergren's earnings and those of a minimum wage worker.  At $7.25 an hour the weekly wage for a 40 hour work week is $290, but Mr. Hammergren makes $2,522,884.61 a week, although I don't really know how many hours he works.  Assuming a 40 hour work week for Mr. Hammergren, he makes $60,572.11 an hour--more or less.  Of course, Mr. Hammergren's compensation is extraordinary, even among his corporate peers.

In the USA Today article published March 28, 2013, "Back in the high (pay) life again," the authors' observed, "[B]ig raises continue even as many companies are laying off employees."  Even CEO Eleanor Bloxham is quoted as admitting, "The continual disconnect between CEO and worker pay is just creating more of a gulf."  ("Special Report:  CEO Compensation," Matt Krantz and Barbara Hansen, B1-2)  Several news sources published reports on this topic, and rankings of the highest paid executives varied, perhaps because compensation often includes such a variety of "other" benefits, such as use of corporate jets and other "perks", as well as stock options and bonuses.  

 

In her 1896 speech at Cooper Union Hall, Mrs. Lease deplored such extremes of compensation in a nation which was formed to avoid an aristocracy among its citizens.  She said, "But here in this country we find in place of an aristocracy of royalty an aristocracy of wealth.  Far more dangerous to the race is it than the aristocracy of royalty.  It is the aristocracy of gold that disintegrates society, destroys individuals and has ruined the proudest nations."

 

A political cartoon from the 1890s

The political cartoons published in the County Capital to which Isaac subscribed and whose editor was a friend illustrate the themes of Mrs. Lease's speech.  The "Golden Empire" stresses the greed of capitalists growing fat by reducing wages to allow workers barely enough to purchase clothing, food, and lodging, often making those purchases at company stores so that their wages were little more than "tickets."  The cartoon with Columbia, as a symbol of the nation, attempting to awaken feelings for the suffering of a poor family in a man clutching his bags of money is an obvious illustration of the disparity in wealth and the difficulty in bridging mutual understanding across the chasm that separates their very different lives and opportunities.  The cartoon showing a group of wealthy Wall Street men sitting on their money is especially reminescent of recent criticism of banks to whom taxpayer money was given in 2007 to avoid a national financial collapse who chose to sit on the loaned assets from taxpayers rather than putting it in circulation to speed the recovery.  The political cartoons I have posted have been particularly popular with visitors in the past, and these three seem to me good examples that we have much in common with the concerns of our ancestors. 

 

The United States has always been a nation that admires success and that believes in the possibility for anyone to work hard and build a better life for him- or herself.  We do not condemn the successful for the money they have earned through their hard work and clever ideas.  Yet, as these cartoons show, our nation has long struggled with the difficulties of preserving the American dream for everyone without allowing a disparity between the fortunate and the unfortunate to mock the idea of this country as a land of opportunity for all its citizens.



Isaac and the Political Press

The Plutocrat and His Toy (the press)

From the time John Hilmes established the County Capital newspaper in St. John in 1888, the paper took a progressive stance on political matters.  The St. John News was the Republican paper.  Isaac not only subscribed to the County Capital but also had his articles published in that paper regularly.  Neither of these St. John newspapers made any pretense of objectivity with regard to political bias.  That was typical of newspapers of that era.

The question today is whether media bias is any less so.  Television and the internet have more influence than newspapers in today's media market, and with the speed of information now minute-by-minute rather than being published in a morning and an evening edition, policing the accuracy of what is published is nearly impossible.  The ability to manipulate voter opinions is as great as it ever has been.

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished freedoms, and each of us can exercise that right.  However, the dissemination of each individual's speech is vastly unequal.  Several hundred people will visit my blog each week, but several hundred thousand may see a single political advertisement on television.  Facebook is a place where people can express their opinions to their friends, and many people use that opportunity to express political views.  I assume it will not offend my facebook friends to share that some asked me on facebook to commit my vote to the Republican presidential candidate months before a candidate was ever nominated.  My Democratic friends had more fun posting videos of every gaff Romney made, and they were especially fond of sharing Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert's clips.  Frankly, none of those facebook postings was particularly informative in shaping my political views, although I preferred the ones that made me laugh versus the hateful ones.

 

The founding fathers knew that accurate and relevant information is critical to the democratic process, and citizens can exercise their right to vote wisely only if that information is available, a significant purpose for insuring freedom of speech and a free press.  Unfortunately, the quality of what we hear and read is not always deserving of the precious protection it is given, yet consorship is worse.

 

The dilemma raised by the level of misinformation and outright lies during political campaigns led Time Magazine to feature "The Fact Wars" as their cover story of the October 3, 2012 issue.  The sad conclusion of their article was that although fact checking is being increasingly done, it seems to be making little difference.  As Neil Newhouse, Romney's pollster infamously said, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers."  Researchers have found that voters tend to choose media that support opinions they already hold, and if, by chance, they learn of a misrepresentation by their candidate, they are likely to excuse it.  The article quotes pollster Frank Luntz who said about Americans, "We don't collect news to inform us.  We collect news to affirm us."

 

The Time article also reported on research that identified "belief echoes," information that sticks in our brains even after a falsehood is corrected.  For that reason, I particularly dislike one political commentator who uses the excuse that he is an entertainer to disclaim any responsibility for the falsehoods he presents as factual during his rants.  His lie, lodged in a listener's brain, may remain longer than the memory of the source, leaving an erroneous "belief echo" planted by a bigoted blowhard.

 

Michael Scherer's article in Time is a thought-provoking examination of an important issue, and I recommend it.  Another interesting problem was examined at NPR's digital blog concerning whether TV stations should refuse to air political ads that contain verifiable lies.  To protect against censorship, federal law requires candidate ads to be broadcast, so the TV stations have little choice.  However, third-party and super PAC ads are not protected under that law.  Yet, these ads containing verifiable falsehoods blanket viewers.  The comments following this NPR blog are also interesting as people argue the importance of quality information for voters vs. the dangers of censorship.

 

One of my pet peeves is the pretense of balance by network programing when they put a pair of talking heads side-by-side on the television screen to discuss a topic.  One of the talking heads is well-informed, experienced, and shares a point of view generally held by other individuals in that field of expertise.  The other talking head is a crackpot, ill-informed, with no experience and spouting opinions based on nonsense.  However, the program host is careful to give both talking heads equal time and proper respect, misleading viewers to think that the opinions of both deserve serious consideration.  There are times when reasonable and intelligent people can hold opposing views, but there are also times when two talking heads are one too many!

 

I like to read all the opinions on the editorial page.  I like to share discussions with people of differing views.  But I also adhere to the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."  Following that adage, there are networks I do not watch and commentators I will run the length of the house to turn off before they plant a false "belief echo" in my brain.

 

The 1890 political cartoon at the beginning of this post is one of my favorites.  Most of us realize the bias of our favorite newspapers and television shows, and we know that journalistic ethics have changed since Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings delivered the nightly news.  Campaign strategists have now made a profession of fooling the public with statistics from "independent" studies that are no such thing.  Polls and focus groups allow these strategists to know exactly what version of their "facts" will be most persuasive.  And, to be honest, facts seem less and less capable of simple black and white truth or lie, colored into varying shades of grey by complications and contradicting evidence.  Yet, we voters must not be tricked by the wink of the eye and the strategist manipulating the news like a toy monkey.  Elections influenced by sound bites, ads paid for by wealthy special interest groups, and other such tainted information will elect exactly the kind of failed candidates we deserve if we fall for them.  What was true in Isaac's time is true today.  That will never change.



Isaac & the Plutocrats

America has not always been a nation with great disparity between the wealth of its richest and poorest citizens. In his famous book, Democracy in America published in 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville opened with this observation: "Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions," a statement that obviously ignored American slaves who certainly did not share in such "general equality."

As for the rest of the American population, most were farmers. Writing in 1781, Thomas Jefferson said: "While we have land to labor then, let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench, or twirling a distaff. Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe." To assure that America continued to have land for the agrarian republic he regarded as the ideal, Jefferson acquired the Louisiana Territory in 1803, providing room for further expansion.

By 1850, farmers still represented 64% of the labor force, although Jefferson's idea of leaving "the general operations of manufacture" in Europe had begun to change. At the beginning of the Civil War there were only a few hundred American millionaires.* By 1890 the number had risen to about 4,000, among them such familiar names as J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Jay Gould. The number of farmers, however, had dropped to 42% of the labor force. During the time these incredibly wealthy men were creating their fortunes in railroads, steel, and oil, farmers were confronting higher interest rates and foreclosures, lower prices for their crops, and drought, blizzards, and other hardships caused by Mother Nature. It is no wonder that the great disparity in wealth between farmers and laborers, in comparison to the wealthy and politically powerful men of the Gilded Age, created resentment and distrust.

As Isaac Werner wrote in his journal in 1889, "...disgraceful low ruling prices ruining near everybody but 'skimmers' with money. Things getting daily into worse shape and more discontent among the producing class causing oceans of thinking among the commonest people." In a speech delivered in 1890 by Mary Elizabeth Lease, a leading Populist speaker, she said, "Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master. The West and South are bound and prostrate before the manufacturing East. Money rules..."

It is startling how the language of the Populist activists of Isaac's time and the Occupy Wall Street protesters of today is so similar, and the political cartoons of the late 1800s are almost capable of appearing today without modification. Compare some of the goals expressed by the 99ers today with the concerns of Isaac's time--jobs, more equal distribution of income, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics. Both then and now, activists sought economic justice and directed much of their anger toward corporate abuses. In their 1880s newspaper The Nonconformist, the Vincent brothers of Winfield, Kansas blamed "corporate greed, that breeds anarchism and everything else that is hideous, in the proportion that it deepens its grip upon the industrial masses."

In Isaac's time the wealth of the few soared during and after the Civil War. Recent statistics from the Congressional Budget Office show that between 1979 and 2007, the incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. As for the country's total wealth, in 2007 the richest 1% of Americans owned 34.6% and the next 19% of Americans owned 50.5%. By combining these numbers, it can be seen that the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth, leaving 15% of the wealth in the hands of the bottom 80% of the population.

In the 1800s there were no federal social programs like those we have today to help the aged and the poor. Therefore, the economic extremes between the needy laborers and the very rich were especially severe. When the steel workers in the Carnegie Homestead Steel Mill attempted to negotiate a wage increase because the price of steel had increased during the three years since their prior union contract had been negotiated, they were told that management would instead reduce their wages in the new contract by 22%. When farmers were losing their farms to foreclosure and feeding their children a mixture of ground wheat and water to keep them from starving, the wealthy were building mansions fit for royalty.

The agrarian society upon which Thomas Jefferson placed his faith, believing that farmers possessed a "peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue...[which] keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth" is a mere sliver of the American population today. In the century and a quarter since Isaac joined with other farmers and laborers to form the People's Party to confront the political power of Wall Street, corporations, and trusts, the American population has changed. Data from the 2010 census shows the total U.S. population as 308,745,538, with only 613,000 farmers, with those farmers representing about 2.5% of the nation's working force and only about 0.5% of all employed Americans. As for the present workers in manufacturing and industry, many of them have seen their jobs given to foreign laborers. Yes, America's work force has changed; yet, the issues of economic inequality are being debated as vigorously today as they were in Isaac's time.

*A million dollars in 1890 would be equivalent to about $24,400,250 in 2011.
Plutocracy is defined as government by the wealthy; also, a controlling class of rich men.