Historical question: Should Democratic party be proud of William Jennings Bryan

[WI_DEM]

Bryan was three times the Democratic nominee for president:
1896: on the theme of "free silver"
1900: on the theme of "anti-Imperialism"
1908: on the theme of "trust-busting"

He was an outspoken critic of banks and railroad barons. He called for direct elections of Senators (rather than having them elected by state legislators)and was an early advocate of a minimum wage, old age pension (later social security), and abolishing child labor. He was known as the "Great Commoner."

On the other hand he also advocated prohibition and was a fundamentalist who was the attorney against Clarence Darrow in the famous "Monkey Trial" in 1925--regarding Darwinism.

[mitchum]

1. He was also a raging anti-semite

his "crucified on a cross of gold" was a reference to those "evil Jewish bankers back east"

[David__77]

2. He was a racist.

I don't think he should be upheld, no. There's no compelling factor that mitigates his racism.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The democratic party has represented a variety of interests, monied,

societal, etc., during the decades of its "progress".

Bryan came along as one century was ending and another beginning. He was more of a populist than a democrat.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Dunno about "proud," but...

Bryan was a powerful figure at the time, and like so many important historical figures, there's good news and bad news.

We're probably lucky that he never became President because a lot of what he wanted was just plain nuts, but he was passionate about a few things some of us still believe in.

One of the few figures in our history to openly resign his office for ethical reasons-- a pacifist, he quit as Secretary of State when we entered WWI. A populist, he actually fought for his Midwestern constituency, and fought the Eastern banks the way many in the past had, but in a way that was working far better than say, Shays' Rebellion or the Civil War worked.

If I was alive at the time, I would disagree with much of what he stood for, but I probably would have admired him for fighting for it.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I believe. as with most people in history,

he's a mixed bag. I can see a cosmic connection between his "trust busting" "anti Imperialism" stances and his position arguing against Darwinism. With his former issues attacking a type of economic Darwinism, he was consistent if nothing else. Ironically, this is also why, I find the alliance of corporatist and Christian fundamentalist elements as in the big picture equivalent to mixing oil and water.

I'm somewhat conflicted myself, personally, I believe Darwin was correct from a purely biological dog eat dog and survival of the fittest stand point, however from a societal point of view, I pray we evolve to the point of taking care of and pulling the least among us up, instead of just leaving them behind. I suppose this is where my faith takes precedence over my reason.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. He was also against going into war

in 1917, I believe. As has been said elsewhere, he was a product of his time. We should be proud of the progressive issues he espoused.

[Odin2005]

7. He must be seen in the context of his time.

Back in his time It was normal for rural economic populists to be very religious, socially conservative, and xenophobic. Social Liberalism only became part of the Democratic Party as the result of the influences of the inner-city immigrant communities IIRC.

[Postman]

9. "He must be seen in the context of his time" - - -Nonsense.

To say that, is to give a pass to the crimes of the past. Wrong is wrong is wrong no matter who it is , no matter what time frame it is.

It was legal to own slaves at one time, does that make it right? What would Jesus have done? ..(and I'm agnostic) You must admit that Jesus' alleged time frame was considerably farther in the past than WJB.

[bleedingheart]

12. by that logic most if not all figures in history would be poor examples

there is not one "perfect" person. As for Jesus...we only know what is written about him...and that was written to lure more converts and to deify him...

The real Jesus might have been quite a different guy...

[Selatius]

8. He was a mixed bag, but he wasn't a coward to stand up to greed-soaked bankers/industrialists.

He was a populist, to be sure. That meant he was racist, in addition to being what would today be called a religious fundamentalist, but he wasn't afraid to challenge big business when it stomped on the workers. He was authoritarian on social issues, and he was left wing on economic issues.

[Puregonzo1188]

10. When I first learned about him in the context of the farm populist movement I immediately wanted to

know more about him, so I looked up him up. The next thing I saw about him was that he was a fierce anti-imperialist, a position that didn't exactly make him that popular. That made me like him more. The next thing I read about was his objections to WWI which made me like him even more, so I looked more into him. Then I found out the man was a raving lunatic who thought Darwin and Nietzsche were the causes of World War I and was involved in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Needless to say that changed my opinion of him quite a bit and now that I hear he was a racist and an anti semite that just furthers it.

So I guess on that note he really was a mixed bag. Sure his populist-leanings and anti-imperialist stancews are heroic to say the least, but the man was a religous nut and a dangerous one at that.

[LeftishBrit]

11. A lot of good, a lot of terribly bad

On the good side, he was economically progressive; a supporter of women's suffrage; an opponent of imperialism; and a supporter, and, as Secretary of State, negotiator of arbitration treaties nations provided for a "cooling off" period as a way to avoid war. He also believed that political leaders should serve in their country's wars, and volunteered his own services (though he was not sent into combat) - if more politicians believed this, there would undoubtedly be fewer wars!

On the bad side, he was full of the racial prejudices of his time; was a religious fundamentalist who considered that a country's welfare is based on individuals' morality and that all morality is based in religion; was famously an anti-evolution crusader; and was a fierce campaigner for Prohibition and for some of the original anti-drug laws in America.

To some degree, he seems to have moved to the right as he got older, but the strange (at least by modern standards) combination of progressive and fundie seems to have been present throughout his career.