Imagine this scenario for a moment... Mitt Romney wins the nomination for the upcoming Republican presidential candidate and in order to retain the votes of the (much) more conservative members of its party, the Republicans nominate Rick Perry for the vice presidential candidate.
A few months after taking office, an assassin shoots Romney at point blank range and when apprehended, says that they did so for the Tea Party movement.
This might seem outlandish, but this situation happened in the Garfield administration with Chester Arthur serving as Vice President to retain the 'Stalwarts' in the Republican party. 100 days into office, an assassin mortally wounded Garfield and when he was wrestled to the ground, proclaimed "I am a Stalwart and Chester Arthur will be President."
This led to a very inauspicious beginning to Arthur's partial term presidency. He was elected to retain the votes of the Stalwart faction in the party. The Stalwarts wanted the United States to take a more active role in international affairs and increase they party's national appeal as well as attracting the votes of the many new immigrant groups that were coming the the United States from Ireland, Italy and elsewhere in Europe.
Garfield's faction of the Republican party still wanted to retain their old positions that they had since the civil war. Mainly retaining the "America First" attitude of isolation and anti slavery rooted views on reconstruction it had since the end of the Civil War. This faction looked at the Stalwarts with suspicion even before the assassination.
After Garfield died a few months after getting shot and Arthur took office, many of the conspiracy theories remained among the traditionalists of the Republican party throughout the rest of Garfield's life.
It's impossible to know if Arthur's adoption of many of Garfield's positions after the president's death were the result of Arthur trying to reduce suspicion of his role in Garfield's killing or if they were the honestly held views of a Gilded Age president that knew they were likely to serve only a partial term. However, Arthur's legacy will always be tied to Garfield's death.
8/10/11
James Garfield: Stalwarts and Mugwumps
Like the Republican Party of today, the G.O.P. during the 1880's was extremely divided and in decline.
There was the civil war generation that looked at voting Republican as a moral obligation. Their strategy in the elections over and over was to 'wave the bloody shirt' which meant equating voting democratic as a vote for the confederate sympathizers. This strategy worked well, from Lincoln's assassination well into the Gilded Age. Public anger in the north was insatiable, but only for so long.
There were the 'Mugwumps' who were sort of like the Tea Party. They viewed the single most important issues being civil service reform, returning from the 'greenback' standard to the gold standard of currency and reducing or eliminating tariffs. In short- they wanted to shrink the size of government, avoid inflation and increase free trade. The mugwumps tended to be what you might say was the business class that made their fortune from importing or manufacturing. They had much more political conviction than political savvy.
Another movement within the Republican party was the 'Half Breeds'. They were more moderate and somewhat more modern than the civil war faction. They believed in Civil Service reform, but were not as ideological or economically conservative as the Mugwump faction.
The final group struggling to politically keep all the factions together at all costs were the Stalwarts. They saw political machines as a good tool in staying in power. The Stalwarts gave the 'Half Breeds' their name as an insult to say that they were not putting party first, but the Half Breeds wore it with pride. The Stalwarts were much more concerned with getting their people elected and paying out the necessary bribes in the form of government appointments than they were in any kind of political conviction. They were usually the ones that would broker deals between the various factions.
It's interesting to see the parallels between then and now. It seems our modern day Stalwarts such as Newt Gingrich are losing power to the Mugwumps in the Tea Party. Waiving the bloody shirt these days seems to fall to the cultural warriors in the Republican Party that endlessly rehash their battles with hippies from the 60's to an ever shrinking crowd of retirees.
All revolutions, even Republican revolutions eventually eat themselves.
http://www.frumforum.com/the-mugwumps-public-moralists-of-the-gilded-age
There was the civil war generation that looked at voting Republican as a moral obligation. Their strategy in the elections over and over was to 'wave the bloody shirt' which meant equating voting democratic as a vote for the confederate sympathizers. This strategy worked well, from Lincoln's assassination well into the Gilded Age. Public anger in the north was insatiable, but only for so long.
There were the 'Mugwumps' who were sort of like the Tea Party. They viewed the single most important issues being civil service reform, returning from the 'greenback' standard to the gold standard of currency and reducing or eliminating tariffs. In short- they wanted to shrink the size of government, avoid inflation and increase free trade. The mugwumps tended to be what you might say was the business class that made their fortune from importing or manufacturing. They had much more political conviction than political savvy.
Another movement within the Republican party was the 'Half Breeds'. They were more moderate and somewhat more modern than the civil war faction. They believed in Civil Service reform, but were not as ideological or economically conservative as the Mugwump faction.
The final group struggling to politically keep all the factions together at all costs were the Stalwarts. They saw political machines as a good tool in staying in power. The Stalwarts gave the 'Half Breeds' their name as an insult to say that they were not putting party first, but the Half Breeds wore it with pride. The Stalwarts were much more concerned with getting their people elected and paying out the necessary bribes in the form of government appointments than they were in any kind of political conviction. They were usually the ones that would broker deals between the various factions.
It's interesting to see the parallels between then and now. It seems our modern day Stalwarts such as Newt Gingrich are losing power to the Mugwumps in the Tea Party. Waiving the bloody shirt these days seems to fall to the cultural warriors in the Republican Party that endlessly rehash their battles with hippies from the 60's to an ever shrinking crowd of retirees.
All revolutions, even Republican revolutions eventually eat themselves.
http://www.frumforum.com/the-mugwumps-public-moralists-of-the-gilded-age
6/18/11
The Name Game
Peter Baker wrote an article in the NY Times in May talking about how the American public loves to compare Obama to past presidents.
When his poll numbers are up, he's been compared to Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. If he addresses the American public directly, bypassing Congress, he's been called our generation's JFK or Regan. When his numbers are down, he's been called the next Carter or LBJ.
However, this isn't really a new phenomenon. When Rutherford B. Hayes was asked to perform one of Washington's speeches on the founding of the Republic for America's centennial in 1876, he was roundly criticized as a symbol of how far the country had declined.
Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) was sort of a Regan type figure of his times, a divisive politician that enjoyed great loyalty and respect from some segments of the population and was reviled by others. His later admirers who would go on to become president were James Polk and Franklin Pierce. Both their supporters and opponents jointly gave them the nicknames 'Young Hickory' and 'Young Hickory of the Granite Hills' respectively to highlight the common policy of the three men.
Abraham Lincoln's supporters commonly compared him to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for both his reputation as a warrior struggling to save the country and a man of peace. This was somewhat strange since the Confederate President Jefferson Davis was also commonly compared to Thomas Jefferson by his supporters for his belief in states' rights (to own slaves).
George W. Bush has been compared to James Polk for his partisanship and his skill at ramming through legislation, making enemies but also achieving his ambitious political goals.
Even George Washington in his own day was compared to a figure from history when there were no other presidents to compare him to. Washington was given the name 'Cincinnatus' after the Roman retired general/farmer who quit his plow and took his sword back up to defend his country from foreign invaders.
Maybe it's just human nature that people treat history like baseball, always looking for comparisons of current and former greats. At some point though, we have to accept that before they're anyone else, presidents are themselves, making their own history.
When his poll numbers are up, he's been compared to Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. If he addresses the American public directly, bypassing Congress, he's been called our generation's JFK or Regan. When his numbers are down, he's been called the next Carter or LBJ.
However, this isn't really a new phenomenon. When Rutherford B. Hayes was asked to perform one of Washington's speeches on the founding of the Republic for America's centennial in 1876, he was roundly criticized as a symbol of how far the country had declined.
Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) was sort of a Regan type figure of his times, a divisive politician that enjoyed great loyalty and respect from some segments of the population and was reviled by others. His later admirers who would go on to become president were James Polk and Franklin Pierce. Both their supporters and opponents jointly gave them the nicknames 'Young Hickory' and 'Young Hickory of the Granite Hills' respectively to highlight the common policy of the three men.
Abraham Lincoln's supporters commonly compared him to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for both his reputation as a warrior struggling to save the country and a man of peace. This was somewhat strange since the Confederate President Jefferson Davis was also commonly compared to Thomas Jefferson by his supporters for his belief in states' rights (to own slaves).
George W. Bush has been compared to James Polk for his partisanship and his skill at ramming through legislation, making enemies but also achieving his ambitious political goals.
Even George Washington in his own day was compared to a figure from history when there were no other presidents to compare him to. Washington was given the name 'Cincinnatus' after the Roman retired general/farmer who quit his plow and took his sword back up to defend his country from foreign invaders.
Maybe it's just human nature that people treat history like baseball, always looking for comparisons of current and former greats. At some point though, we have to accept that before they're anyone else, presidents are themselves, making their own history.
6/6/11
Lower Your Standards for Politicians
I'm so tired of outraged anchors on TV and tearful and supportive wives on television.
Every time that some sex scandal breaks, it's as though Americans thought that our congressmen and senators lead an honorable life, giving an example of moral certitude (to quote Congressman Weiner) to our young people.
I really don't understand this. Politicians get paid to lie for a living and it's really no surprise to me that they're of questionable character in areas other than politics.
Politicians take money from corporations and unions and pass whatever laws their paymasters demand. They always cloak their actions in political ideology, but it's fairly obvious that we have nothing more than a sophisticated system of bribery in this country. The only people who aren't in on this joke are people that routinely vote for Democrats and Republicans.
The politician that cheats on his wife is the norm, not the exception. Just ask Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm, Rudulph Giuliani, Strom Thurmond, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, David Patterson or the aptly named Anthony Weiner. I'd keep writing but I'm afraid that I'd get carpal tunnel.
Lower your standards America!
Every time that some sex scandal breaks, it's as though Americans thought that our congressmen and senators lead an honorable life, giving an example of moral certitude (to quote Congressman Weiner) to our young people.
I really don't understand this. Politicians get paid to lie for a living and it's really no surprise to me that they're of questionable character in areas other than politics.
Politicians take money from corporations and unions and pass whatever laws their paymasters demand. They always cloak their actions in political ideology, but it's fairly obvious that we have nothing more than a sophisticated system of bribery in this country. The only people who aren't in on this joke are people that routinely vote for Democrats and Republicans.
The politician that cheats on his wife is the norm, not the exception. Just ask Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm, Rudulph Giuliani, Strom Thurmond, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, David Patterson or the aptly named Anthony Weiner. I'd keep writing but I'm afraid that I'd get carpal tunnel.
Lower your standards America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
