Is it 1896 all over again?
James Forsyth 7:22pmThere’s a great piece in The Journal today by John Steele Gordon about what election this year’s might ressemble:
"the election this year is between two very different political personalities. John McCain is a moderate conservative and war hero with a solid political record but limited media skills (he still has trouble using a teleprompter) and no excess of charisma. Barack Obama is a young, very charismatic newcomer with virtually no political record but great oratorical talent who promises profound change.
This is very reminiscent of the election of 1896, when William McKinley ran against William Jennings Bryan. McKinley too was a genuine war hero (distinguished service in the Civil War) who then entered politics. He served several terms in the House and became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. In 1891 he was elected governor of Ohio.
His opponent's political résumé was a lot thinner, with only two back-bencher terms in the House. But at the Democratic convention of 1896, Bryan electrified the crowd with his "Cross of Gold" speech. It instantly became an American classic and propelled him to the nomination at just 36 years old, by far the youngest man ever nominated by a major party. Like Mr. Obama, Bryan promised a new politics aimed to benefit the common man, not the capitalists.
He launched the country's first whistle-stop campaign, giving more than 500 speeches around the country. And at first it worked. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had made its debut on May 26 of that year at 40.94, had lost 30% by August, when it stood at 28.48. But the Republicans fought back, utilizing new advertising techniques, and painted Bryan as someone whose populist ideas would wreck the American economy. The Dow began to recover as McKinley picked up support in northern industrial cities, and among ethnic workers who had been previously Democratic. In the end he won with 51% of the popular vote against 47%."
Now, of course history never repeats itself exactly but this is an interesting possible parallel. It is at the very least a reminder that the best speechmaker doesn’t always win.
The RCP average has Obama 5.5 points ahead. On the one hand, that is a clear lead well outside the margin of error. However, the McCain camp will feel that as long as Obama is in sight, they’ll have a chance in the final weeks of the campaign as voters begin to concentrate on Obama’s qualifications to be Commander in Chief. McCain supporters should also be encouraged by today’s Good Morning America report from their recently returned correspondent in Iraq on why Obama’s pull-out plan is a bad idea; if the media narrative shifts on Iraq that would be a huge fillip for McCain.



"the election this year is between two very different political personalities. John McCain is a moderate conservative and war hero with a solid political record but limited media skills (he still has trouble using a teleprompter) and no excess of charisma. Barack Obama is a young, very charismatic newcomer with virtually no political record but great oratorical talent who promises profound change.
His opponent's political résumé was a lot thinner, with only two back-bencher terms in the House. But at the Democratic convention of 1896, Bryan electrified the crowd with his "Cross of Gold" speech. It instantly became an American classic and propelled him to the nomination at just 36 years old, by far the youngest man ever nominated by a major party. Like Mr. Obama, Bryan promised a new politics aimed to benefit the common man, not the capitalists.




murray
July 11th, 2008 9:24pm Report this commentJames,
Did you need the reminder that the best speechmaker doesn't always win?!
Matt Charles
July 13th, 2008 4:45am Report this commentObama's support is falling quickly,as more voters are finding out the huge difference between his actions of the past and his skillfull words of today. Actions really do speak louder than words, and with John McCain's record of bipartisan actions the phony balony talk of unity Obama offers only serves to draw more attention to his very partisan and radical left voting record.
Hal
July 13th, 2008 3:50pm Report this commentJames Steele Gordon writes "Like Mr. Obama, Bryan promised a new politics aimed to benefit the common man, not the capitalists."
But Bryan was a good deal more radical than Obama. Bryan wanted to inflate the currency, to the benefit of farmer-debtors and the detriment of Wall Street. There is nothing in Obama's platform that is comparably threatening to business.
Wikipedia says that in 1896 McKinley outspent Bryan by a factor of ten. That certainly won't happen in 2008.
In 1896, McKinley ran a front-porch campaign. Unless you went to his house in Canton, Ohio, you didn't see or hear him. McCain, on the other hand, is constantly exposed, and the contrast between him and Obama is inescapable.
The parallel between 1896 and 2008 doesn't hold up.
Ganpat Ram
July 14th, 2008 1:27pm Report this commentNothing shows the puerility of the media than their awe of this unintelligent clown Obama's speechifying propensity.
It is not as though he were a genuinely eloquent speaker like Churchill or Trotsky. Those figures had the atmosphere of historical greatness around them. Obama merely regurgitates cheap US identity-politicking cliches.
But certainly he speaks better than the avergae plastic-chicken-circuit US politico.
Yet commonsense should have warned Americans against any politician who talks well. That is almost always the sign that he is going to prove an egoistic disaster in office.
In very very rare circumstances, a great speaker might do a useful job: Churchill in 1940 is the best example.
Other than that, the world's fine political talkers have brought misery. Think of all the "great" leaders of Third World nationalism: Nehru, Sukarno, Sekou Toure, Nasser, Kenyatta...all were powerful speakers who messed up their countries catastrophically.
A plain, unpretentious non-orator like Lee Kuan Yew by contrast lifted his nation out of its wretchedness.
No: the poetic gift of speaking is to be feared like the plague, in politics.
Back to top