But I could not find any. Remember he was a Good Democrat, and he needed the South to get elected. Thus, like FDR, Bryan avoided the issue of race. Bryan on the other hand was for the following:
Graduated income tax,
Direct election of senators,
Prohibition of liquor (Yes, it failed but he died in 1924 before people realized how badly it was failing),
Woman suffrage,
Public disclosure of newspaper ownership and the signing of editorials,
Labor laws and reforms including workman's compensation, minimum wage, eight-hour day, improved conditions for seamen and railroad employees, prohibition of injunctions in labor disputes),
Public regulation of political campaign contributions,
Federal Reserve Act,
Federal Trade Commission,
Federal Farm Loan Act,
Government regulations of railroads and telegraph/telephone, safety devices and pure food processing,
Tariff reform,
Control of trusts,
Government control of currency and banking,
The initiative, the referendum,
Establishment of Departments of health and education and labor,
Promotion of public parks,
Defense of rights of minorities,
Anti-imperialism,
Settling of international differences through peaceful arbitration,
Support of education (including Negro education),
Strengthening of Latin American relations (through advocating courses in Spanish and Latin American affairs, scholarships, exchanges of professors, helping to found the University of Miami),
Voting reform,
Influence on the revision of state constitutions,
Reform to make the Constitution more easily amendable (Remember he lived at the time when much of the above when it passed Congress was struck-ed down as unconstitutional by the Courts).
Yes you can say the whole New Deal. As to the Scopes Trial, his dislike of Evolution had less to do with Darwinism but what is now called Social Darwinism:
"Darwinism leads to a denial of God. Nietzsche carried Darwinism to its logical conclusion and it made him the most extreme of anti-Christians. I had read extracts from his writings—enough to acquaint me with his sweeping denial of God and of the Saviour—but not enough to make me familiar with his philosophy.
As the war progressed I became more and more impressed with the conviction that the German propaganda rested upon a materialistic foundation. I secured the writings of Nietzsche and found in them a defense, made in advance, of all the cruelties and atrocities practiced by the militarists of Germany. Nietzsche tried to substitute the worship of the “Superman” for the worship of God. He not only rejected the Creator, but he rejected all moral standards. He praised war and eulogized hatred because it led to war. He denounced sympathy and pity as attributes unworthy of man. He believed that the teachings of Christ made degenerates and, logical to the end, he regarded Democracy as the refuge of weaklings. He saw in man nothing but an animal and in that animal the highest virtue he recognized was “The Will to Power”—a will which should know no let or hindrance, no restraint or limitation.
Nietzsche’s philosophy would convert the world into a ferocious conflict between beasts, each brute trampling ruthlessly on everything in his way. In his book entitled “Joyful Wisdom,” Nietzsche ascribes to Napoleon the very same dream of power—Europe under one sovereign and that sovereign the master of the world—that lured the Kaiser into a sea of blood from which he emerged an exile seeking security under a foreign flag. Nietzsche names Darwin as one of the three great men of his century, but tries to deprive him of credit (?) for the doctrine that bears his name by saying that Hegel made an earlier announcement of it. Nietzsche died hopelessly insane, but his philosophy has wrought the moral ruin of a multitude, if it is not actually responsible for bringing upon the world its greatest war.
His philosophy, if it is worthy the name of philosophy, is the ripened fruit of Darwinism—and a tree is known by its fruit.
In 1900—over twenty years ago—while an International Peace Congress was in session in Paris the following editorial appeared in L’Univers:
“The spirit of peace has fled the earth because evolution has taken possession of it. The plea for peace in past years has been inspired by faith in the divine nature and the divine origin of man; men were then looked upon as children of one Father and war, therefore, was fratricide. But now that men are looked upon as children of apes, what matters it whether they are slaughtered or not?”
I have given you above the words of a French writer published twenty years ago. I have just found in a book recently published by a prominent English writer words along the same line, only more comprehensive. The corroding influence of Darwinism has spread as the doctrine has been increasingly accepted. In the American preface to “The Glass of Fashion” these words are to be found: “Darwinism not only justifies the sensualist at the trough and Fashion at her glass; it justifies Prussianism at the cannon’s mouth and Bolshevism at the prison-door. If Darwinism be true, if Mind is to be driven out of the universe and accident accepted as a sufficient cause for all the majesty and glory of physical nature, then there is no crime or violence, however abominable in its circumstances and however cruel in its execution, which cannot be justified by success, and no triviality, no absurdity of Fashion which deserves a censure: more—there is no act of disinterested love and tenderness, no deed of self-sacrifice and mercy, no aspiration after beauty and excellence, for which a single reason can be adduced in logic.”
http://www.scopestrial.org/inhisimage.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(898 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
