McKinley’s done well and deserves a second term. I like his running mate, that Roosevelt fellow - smart and energetic. I think he’s got a real future in politics, despite being sidelined to the Vice Presidency if elected this time. Bryan is a bit too populist and rabble-rousing for my taste.
Jennings was a turn of the century populist… In other words we was a religious fanatic with no understanding of economics or morality. He destroyed the Laissez-Faire Democratic Party, making him a villain to prosperity.
McKinley was a simple crony who represented the unification of Rockefeller and Morgan interests which coalesced in opposition to the bizarre economic program of Bryan. Theodore Roosevelt was a certified maniac. He set standards for the modern executive that cripple the country to this day.
If Lincoln maimed the Republic permanently, this election put it out of its misery.
Basically, ‘free silver’ was a crude way of expanding the money supply. As the tale of the babysitting co-op demonstrates, in order to have an economy that functions well enough to benefit a lot of people, you need enough money to ensure that a decent quantity of transactions take place. Bryan understood this at some level, which means that he apparently had a better grasp of economics than you.
Ah yes, laissez-faire. In the eyes of its proponents, no matter how sucky an economic system it has frequently demonstrated itself to be for most people, it can never fail, it can only be failed.
Who certified him?
Gotta admit, I’ve never heard that before. I’d say you’ve got something of a minority viewpoint about TR.
That said, the thread addresses how people would vote in the actual election of 1900, which is not an invitation to take this thread into a hijack.
Now that we know that Mr. Farnaby would prefer to have voted for neither major party’s candidate, (a legitimate expression in this thread), any further discussion of his particular views should be taken up in a new thread.
Yes that’s rational empiricism for you. A babysitting co-op fable that has been demolished several times carries more weight than the most prosperous period in US history, namely the sound money period of the 19th century.
The babysitting fable envisions a world in which there is one good, and arbitrarily rigid prices. It is a lesson in why price-fixing does not work.
tomndeb: this is a legitimate continuation of the thread’s topic because it involves an argument in favor of the sound money policies of the Democrats before Bryan’s takeover of the party.( policies adopted by McKinley, in a reversal of the traditional Republican stance, due to political expediency) Thanks.