| The differences between the dominant factions of the two parties during that time were non-ideological. Both supported laissez faire and "sound currency" - the gold standard and a deflated currency favoring lenders (finance) over debtors (ordinary folk). Neither party tried to represent the interests of the majority of the people, the vast majority of whom were poor farmers or propertyless laborers, and neither believed in government spending benefiting ordinary folk.
There were disputes between different factions of the wealthy class - finance vs. commerce vs. manufacturing, agricultural interests vs. manufacturing interests - but both parties maintained a hard line against the common man. Elections were fought on the basis of sectional and ethnic issues: the Democrats represented Southern Protestants (and racists) and urban Northern Catholics, and the Republicans represented northern Protestants and most of the big money of the East. (Neither party really represented the Midwest and West, and that's where most of the political energy ended up coming from). The Republicans were sometimes Prohibitionists and the Democrats almost never were, and the Republicans tended toward high tariffs whereas the Democrats were often free-traders. In close elections, in the North the Republican would accuse the Democrat of being a Copperhead, and in the South the Democrat would accuse the Republican of being a Yankee.
Beyond all this, the parties were entities unto themselves. The idealistic idea of party politics is that the parties are vehicles by which the people express themselves, and the cynical idea is that the parties are handmaids of big money. The latter is closer to the truth, but it doesn't tell you much about how the parties themselves functioned. During this era the parties were businesses who bought political support by handing out plum government jobs to party workers, and bought votes by dishing out various sorts of goodies to voters. They financed themselves by kickbacks from government employees who owed their jobs to their political party, by stealing government money, and by collecting bribes from various interest groups. Thus, while in general both parties supported whoever was able to bribe them, they were ultimately working only for themselves and could make quite a nuisance of themselves when not paid off, or when paid off by the wrong interest group.
Neither party was impervious to public pressure, but when movements of voters seemed capable of threatening the power of the party leadership, the party leadership would fight back, and would tacitly support the candidate of the other established party in preference to a dissident member of their own party. When the insurgent William Jennings Bryan was nominated in 1896 (the direct result of Cleveland's anti-labor, anti-farmer policies), the Eastern Democrats made sure that he would lose, nominating a dummy splinter candidate that would take votes from Bryan but who wasn't strong enough to threaten McKinley. (McKinley's was also the first political campaign to use modern propaganda methods, and the most expensive campaign up until that time.)
It is for the reader to decide how much of this applies to the Democratic Party of today. The party machine does seem to be more interested in protecting itself than in actually winning elections (note that Howard Dean is an outsider again). The professionals and mercenaries never seem to suffer much after a defeat. Many elected Democrats do have their own financial interests to protect, and a high proportion of them are on the take. There's no doubt that much of the party is in the pocket of big business. And the bipartisanship in the air was also domanant during the worst, most conservative period of Bourbon domination.
This piece is part of a many-part series, "What's wrong with the Democratic Party?" My general answer is that the Democratic Party has been right wing and has betrayed its voters more often than not during the last 144 years, and has been progressive only when forced to by non-party movements, third parties, and organized dissident groups within the party. (The same can be said of the Republicans, except that have often been more frank about representing only "the better class of people"). Party bureaucracies, by their nature, want to maintain control and keep their jobs, and they often can do this by keeping the donors happy while freezing out the voters. They do not necessarily need to win elections if they succeed in keeping the donors happy.
In short, when the Democrats fail you, you should never be hurt or surprised. They do that a lot, and it's your job to force them to do the right thing against their will.
SELECTED CITATIONS FROM MERRILL
(On p. xiii Merrill, writing in 1967, describes his 1953 book as "a product of the Angry Depression Decade." Perhaps what this means is that it is partly also a response to the Democratic Party he knew during the Thirties. I'm sure that a professional will come along to explain that the book is unfair and out of date, but some things have to be said.)
GROVER CLEVELAND AS CONSERVATIVE:
The President announced in vetoing the bill that he did not "believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit....the lesson should constantly be enforced that though the people support the government the Government should not support the people".
(p. 187)
President Cleveland had dealt with the voters [of the Midwest] as though they were the subject peoples of a foreign ruling clique.
(p. 199)
BIPARTISANSHIP:
The reinstated Bourbons resorted to their old practices of nominating and financing stooge candidates, being themselves satisfied with dictating "safe" party policies and entertaining the hope that someday they might find juicy public offices through a "sure thing" election.... Regarding public policies, the two major parties were in a remarkable condition of equilibrium. Never had they been so obviously in such close agreement.
(p. 133; this is in 1880, after the two parties had defeated the Greenbackers)
"He virtually ignores the old Democratic Party, and in some respects preaches more Republicanism than Democracy. His aim is to stand between the two parties and condemn what is wrong with either, and counsels a better feeling between the parties...."
(p. 134: a contemporary description of a Democratic candidate in 1879 in Wisconsin.)
This [1879] Wisconsin campaign was in tenor very much a preview of the ensuing national presidential campaign, except that nationally both parties entertained high hopes of victories through offering nothing.
(p. 135)
The [1879] election effort was essentially one of patronage seeking and of buying protection for big business. Money flowed freely and in a manner reflecting the low moral state of the national political life. Both parties obtained huge sums from the "interested" business barons. Some moguls began the practice of giving money to both sides."
(p. 137)
MAINTAINING PARTY CONTROL AND SUPPRESSING DISSIDENTS WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WINNING ELECTIONS
The later Bourbons were business leaders first and politicians incidentally..... After thirty years, though they had won but few elections, they could boast success in their main purpose - that of keeping farmers and wage owners from effective control of the Democratic Party.
(p. 3)
Most Bourbons, however, shrank from seeking public office themselves, knowing that they were too unpopular with the voters to obtain victory and being too busy as masters of capital to "waste time" campaigning. So they utilized the device of promoting stool-pigeon candidates.
(p. 43)
Most Bourbon leaders were certain that it was the duty of all good Democrats not to support Bryan. (p. 269)
Ever since the Civil War the Bourbons, along with the Republican hierarchy, had ridden the wave of a rampant and unhumanized brand of capitalism. Seldom had the Bourbons been bowed into public office, but never had they been left without control of the national Democratic organization.
(p. 239)
THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION WAS IGNORED
Farmers, because of their numbers, could have maintained control of the Democratic machinery. They failed to recognize, however, that if the Democracy was to work for them, instead of for the Bourbons, it needed to be worked by them...
(p. 4)
For the common people everywhere, the years of acute depression and apparent recovery had culminated in political travesty. Neither the Republican spoilsmen nor the Democratic Bourbons had contributed a single basic legislative act to ameliorate or strike at the roots of the nation's economic ills...
(p. 138) |
