You’ve probably heard the old saying that history repeats
itself. As overused and clichéd as that may sound, it does have a high degree
of truth to it. This most recent election cycle has been described correctly as
remarkable and historic but also unparalleled and unprecedented. These latter
two are incorrect, showing up our predisposition to favour a past which we feel
is tangible. The further we travel away, the more we forget. However, the
election of 1896 is incredible in its parallel to our most recent one.
The Gilded Age was coming to a climax and was a period that
had been characterised by economic upheaval, political corruption and industrialisation
which was creating a divide between urban and rural communities. Tensions were
high throughout the country which led to the proliferation of smaller parties, though
they never broke the dominance of the Republicans and the Democrats as the two
main parties. One main difference between then and now was that the Democrats
were seen as the party which favoured conservative, right wing policies more so
than the Republicans.
This would change when the Democrats nominated a progressive
as their candidate for the 1896 election. Nomination processes were very
different compared to now and the voting process at the convention had more
importance than today. Before the convention, it seemed that the establishment
candidate would win but during it, an impassioned speech by a young man changed
the course of history dramatically.
William J. Bryan made ‘The Cross of Gold’ speech which was received
so well that he won the nomination. At that time, the issue of currency was an
important one, especially in Southern states. After the civil war, both parties
backed the gold standard as a currency and wished to eliminate silver being
used as well. Farmers wanted this because they believed it would increase
inflation which would in turn make getting credit easier and thus allow them to
invest in their farms. Bryan departed from this in his speech thus drawing the
support of the agrarian North and thus stopping the momentum of smaller parties
which were formed on the issue of silver. Therefore, the first parallel between
that election and this one is that the Democrats choose to pick an outsider to
lead their party rather than an establishment character in the form of Hilary.
Though the second parallel is that whilst The Republican’s
choose an establishment figure, William McKinley, to face Bryan they would
ultimately win the election thus ending the currency issue. Thirdly and most interestingly
is the comparison that can be made between Bryan and Trump. Both candidates
were populists, appealing to the issues which were seen to be most important to
the common man. Perhaps, the reason that Trump succeeded when Bryan failed was
because trust in political elites was higher than now. The temptation to go
against the grain was less strong when people believed their politicians were
working in their interest, at least in the main. Not to mention the confidence to believe in ideals that weren't endorsed by elites was probably harder without the ability to connect, through social media, with people who shared your ideas.
It has often been said that ‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ by L. Frank Baum is a political
allegory for the situation that America found itself as it entered the
twentieth century. The city of Oz which housed the Wizard represents the
political elites unaware of the suffering going on outside the city. Baum
appears sympathetic to Bryan but casts him as the cowardly lion, a man with
valuable ideas who did not have the bravery to push his ideas through.
Baum is however curtailed by an attempt to create in his
narrative a simple divide between good and evil. The scarecrow, without a
brain, represents farmers who are unable to fight the industrial revolution
because they are not able to out manoeuvre larger corporations. The tin man
represents industrial workers who are being used as assets rather than people
by their employers who do not care for their safety. These two characters unite
along with the lion to help Dorothy end the reign of the wicked witch. This
fiction is happier than the reality in which the farmers of the South do not
realise that they have a lot in common with the working class in the industrial
North and therefore do not unite behind Bryan. The truth is that the working
man in Texas did not see that they shared the same concerns as the working man
in New York. Again, the similarity of those in this election dependant on
health insurance voting for a candidate seeking to repeal it is startling when
compared to those workers dependent on credit voting against Bryan.
‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz’ allegory can expand to 2016
though in this reality, we face an even grimmer end. Glinda is gone and – true to
the revisionist tendencies of our generation – our narrative follows more closely
to ‘Wicked’. Hillary is Elphaba, the
wicked witch, who has been painted as evil by Donald, the wizard purposefully
working against the good of his citizens. The city of Oz is representative of a
media so obsessed with colourful nonsense that they add to the vilification of
Elphaba, a woman by no means perfect but who genuinely wanted the best for her
fellow citizens. We can only hope that the election result was not the end of
our story but the beginning and that our heroine, Dorothy is on the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment