And despite the country having a Democratic incumbent president (Grover Cleveland), McKinley was seen as the candidate of the status quo, while Bryan was portrayed as the candidate of change.Īs Rove points out, this election is often overlooked because of its focus on issues considered to be boring by many: currency and tariffs. McKinley campaigned from his front porch, while Bryan traversed the country giving campaign speeches in almost every state, travelling a distance equivalent to about two-thirds of the circumference of the planet. McKinley was a protectionist, supportive of a high tariff, while Bryan was a "silverite", advocating for changes to the monetary system that would make silver the dominant metal behind the US dollar, instead of the gold standard. McKinley was a plodder, while Bryan was a gifted orator. McKinley was a civil war veteran, Bryan was barely old enough to be President. Both men were mid-westerners (McKinley of Ohio, Bryan originally from Illinois and representing Nebraska), both drew heavily in support from working Americans: McKinley from labor, Bryan from farmers. It was a campaign full of similarities and great divergences.
He uses this unique point of view in The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the Election of 1896 Still Matters, a look back at the 1896 Presidential Election Campaign which pitted veteran Republican politician William McKinley against the newly-minted Democratic Congressman William Jennings Bryan. ContentsĮxamines "President William McKinley, whose 1896 campaign ended a bitter period of political gridlock and reformed and modernized his party, thereby creating a governing majority that dominated American politics for the next thirty-six years" the architect of the successful GOP campaigns of 20, Karl Rove knows a thing or two about presidential election strategy.
Bibliography Includes bibliographical references (pages 441-450) and index.
0 kommentar(er)
