This is going to seem hostile toward some politics currently, but, this entry is about the clarity of the electorate.
I want to look first at the election of 1896. I am sure there are some Americans that already know that election. It is rather novel and it is about currency.
It was the beginning of the industrial revolution and there was a very vicious argument in the USA regarding the basis of the American dollar. Would the currency best based in gold or silver. That was the hot topic for that election.
If anyone wants to understand the vibrant strength of the American election for President, know this election. It touched on many issues.
The United States presidential election of November 3, 1896, (click here) saw Republican William McKinley defeat Democrat William Jennings Bryan in a campaign considered by historians to be one of the most dramatic and complex in American history.
The 1896 campaign is often considered by political scientists to be a realigning election that ended the old Third Party System and began the Fourth Party System.[1] McKinley forged a coalition in which businessmen, professionals, skilled factory workers and prosperous farmers were heavily represented; he was strongest in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Pacific Coast. Bryan was the nominee of the Democrats, the Populist Party, and the Silver Republicans. He was strongest in the South, rural Midwest, and Rocky Mountain states.
Economic issues including bimetallism, the gold standard, free silver, and the tariff, were crucial....
There was no establishment party anywhere. There were educated men in and out of the legislature and the center of politics considered leaders. The parties of the day were diverse and more then two. Presidential elections were far less expensive. The electorate was easy to reach and the population of the country far less.
The election of 1896 is the one time the USA could reveal it's profound structure without the perversion of mass media and the computer age.
Understanding the rock solid dynamics of POTENTIAL of the USA elections can transcend a century or more to understand sincere power of the US Constitution. Understanding the power of the USA elections can then be applied to modern day and media of any kind.
That stated, to return to the hot topic of metallurgy and mining. Gold? or Silver?
Everyone knows how this election turned out, but, understand the economic crisis that prompted the subject that dominated the election.
The Economic Crisis of 1893. (click here)
Setting aside derivatives and default swaps, economics is economics. And let's face it there was limitless opportunity in the USA in the day. The world was their oyster, but, that is very different from today. Today, with growing populations and shrinking land the computer economy burst out of the density of people. Now an entire economy can be run over computers IF the people are willing to be out of work or work for very poor wages because the big sale warehouse store remove a lot jobs from an economy.
In 1896 William Jennings Bryan sold his idea for the economic dynamics of the time to the 'idea of bimetal' for USA currency. He blamed the DISORDERED economy on the currency being too dense with gold. He wanted it mixed with silver. This was the time in the USA when the currency was backed by real gold in places where there were secure vaults. That would change later, but, at the turn of the century people were still reading newsprint and listening to speeches if a person could not read.
Bryan didn't have to be a world recognized economist. He simply had to make speeches that made sense to his constituency. POLITICS. His politics stated the economy would become better if the currency lined up better with the downturn of the economy. In other words, most people could obtain currency backed with silver than gold in the day of the race for the presidency. That sounded pretty good to people. Of course if the currency was mixed with silver the people would be able to have dollars far easier or so they thought. Bryan blamed gold as the problem for the economy.
The economic downturn was more or less not so much a downturn as a profound change in the dynamics of the society within the USA. There were railroads that passed by enormous swaths of land where farmers were milking their cows by hand and probably still worked the soil with horse pulled plows, etc. There was a huge divide between the new industrial society and the society that existed for more than a century in agriculture.
The new society was no different than the one that exists today, it needed participation to prosper. What good is a passenger train if people could not afford to ride on it. The new society was in danger of being very limited and very expensive if more of the country didn't participate in it. Due to the stark divide there existed a significant gap in the economy. But, that is not my purpose. My purpose is understanding the strength of any politics.
Mr. Bryan knew there was a great resistance to move into this new society of mechanical genius. Some of that resistance was correct, but, the philanthropists that wanted to turn profits didn't care about that, Bryan was able to create a dialogue to win an election. His argument wasn't a lie, but, to turn the country into a unified economic engine was far more complex than simply printing money.
Shhh, don't tell The Fed that, right Rand Paul?
But, the lesson of William Jennings Bryan can apply to the politics of the day. All the candidates today have very distinct messages. Two of the messages require more than simply turning a key to make it happen.
Recently, Donald Trump spoke to the change in law that has to occur to achieve the goals of his supporters. Given he might have a majority in the House and Senate the possibility he will achieve his goals are better than some other issues that might actually be unconstitutional for the Republicans.
Ideology can be very unconstitutional. I'll go so far as to say, ideology is absolutely unconstitutional.
The argument of today, April 7, 2016; between the two Democratic candidates, is can the messages be achieved? There is a fine line between the two candidates. Hillary Clinton is exceptionally well versed in law at all levels, as the First Lady of Arkansas, the First Lady of the White House, a member of the US Senate, a Secretary of State in the White House AND as a member of an incredibly dynamics organization of former President Clinton that have achieved the impossible around the world. Hillary Clinton's scope is considerable. She would be able to assess the potential of her aspirations of the first day of office and adjust her ambitions to achieve her promises to the American people.
Senator Sanders is no less worldly. He has achieved from the time he was mayor to his current status as a US Senator. The difference between Senator Sanders (and he has qualified this all through his campaign) and Hillary Clinton is that he would not bother to assess the potential to achieving his promises, he would simply set out to have them achieved no matter what it took. His qualification to a successful presidency is that he and his supporters are building a political revolution.
The quandary for Democrats is 'What is the strength of the politics?'
I am not going to answer that, I will take the words of Hillary Clinton today, I'll leave that up to the voters to decide.
The year 2016 is critical to many people. The USA cannot continue on it's current path. We are becoming a militarized mercenary force while depriving people of health care, food and clean water. There is a lot to decide. I suggest every person voting make the best decision for their country, otherwise, we will be rowing our boats for four years hoping to say, "I told you so." at the end of those four years.
Become familiar with the turn of the century American of the late 1800s and early 1900s while realizing two world wars followed it. We are at a precipice in the history in the USA. We need to get it right. If we can harness the best of us in local economies because we understand each other and the world we touch, we can do anything.
I want to look first at the election of 1896. I am sure there are some Americans that already know that election. It is rather novel and it is about currency.
It was the beginning of the industrial revolution and there was a very vicious argument in the USA regarding the basis of the American dollar. Would the currency best based in gold or silver. That was the hot topic for that election.
If anyone wants to understand the vibrant strength of the American election for President, know this election. It touched on many issues.
The United States presidential election of November 3, 1896, (click here) saw Republican William McKinley defeat Democrat William Jennings Bryan in a campaign considered by historians to be one of the most dramatic and complex in American history.
The 1896 campaign is often considered by political scientists to be a realigning election that ended the old Third Party System and began the Fourth Party System.[1] McKinley forged a coalition in which businessmen, professionals, skilled factory workers and prosperous farmers were heavily represented; he was strongest in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Pacific Coast. Bryan was the nominee of the Democrats, the Populist Party, and the Silver Republicans. He was strongest in the South, rural Midwest, and Rocky Mountain states.
Economic issues including bimetallism, the gold standard, free silver, and the tariff, were crucial....
There was no establishment party anywhere. There were educated men in and out of the legislature and the center of politics considered leaders. The parties of the day were diverse and more then two. Presidential elections were far less expensive. The electorate was easy to reach and the population of the country far less.
The election of 1896 is the one time the USA could reveal it's profound structure without the perversion of mass media and the computer age.
Understanding the rock solid dynamics of POTENTIAL of the USA elections can transcend a century or more to understand sincere power of the US Constitution. Understanding the power of the USA elections can then be applied to modern day and media of any kind.
That stated, to return to the hot topic of metallurgy and mining. Gold? or Silver?
Everyone knows how this election turned out, but, understand the economic crisis that prompted the subject that dominated the election.
The Economic Crisis of 1893. (click here)
Setting aside derivatives and default swaps, economics is economics. And let's face it there was limitless opportunity in the USA in the day. The world was their oyster, but, that is very different from today. Today, with growing populations and shrinking land the computer economy burst out of the density of people. Now an entire economy can be run over computers IF the people are willing to be out of work or work for very poor wages because the big sale warehouse store remove a lot jobs from an economy.
In 1896 William Jennings Bryan sold his idea for the economic dynamics of the time to the 'idea of bimetal' for USA currency. He blamed the DISORDERED economy on the currency being too dense with gold. He wanted it mixed with silver. This was the time in the USA when the currency was backed by real gold in places where there were secure vaults. That would change later, but, at the turn of the century people were still reading newsprint and listening to speeches if a person could not read.
Bryan didn't have to be a world recognized economist. He simply had to make speeches that made sense to his constituency. POLITICS. His politics stated the economy would become better if the currency lined up better with the downturn of the economy. In other words, most people could obtain currency backed with silver than gold in the day of the race for the presidency. That sounded pretty good to people. Of course if the currency was mixed with silver the people would be able to have dollars far easier or so they thought. Bryan blamed gold as the problem for the economy.
The economic downturn was more or less not so much a downturn as a profound change in the dynamics of the society within the USA. There were railroads that passed by enormous swaths of land where farmers were milking their cows by hand and probably still worked the soil with horse pulled plows, etc. There was a huge divide between the new industrial society and the society that existed for more than a century in agriculture.
The new society was no different than the one that exists today, it needed participation to prosper. What good is a passenger train if people could not afford to ride on it. The new society was in danger of being very limited and very expensive if more of the country didn't participate in it. Due to the stark divide there existed a significant gap in the economy. But, that is not my purpose. My purpose is understanding the strength of any politics.
Mr. Bryan knew there was a great resistance to move into this new society of mechanical genius. Some of that resistance was correct, but, the philanthropists that wanted to turn profits didn't care about that, Bryan was able to create a dialogue to win an election. His argument wasn't a lie, but, to turn the country into a unified economic engine was far more complex than simply printing money.
Shhh, don't tell The Fed that, right Rand Paul?
But, the lesson of William Jennings Bryan can apply to the politics of the day. All the candidates today have very distinct messages. Two of the messages require more than simply turning a key to make it happen.
Recently, Donald Trump spoke to the change in law that has to occur to achieve the goals of his supporters. Given he might have a majority in the House and Senate the possibility he will achieve his goals are better than some other issues that might actually be unconstitutional for the Republicans.
Ideology can be very unconstitutional. I'll go so far as to say, ideology is absolutely unconstitutional.
The argument of today, April 7, 2016; between the two Democratic candidates, is can the messages be achieved? There is a fine line between the two candidates. Hillary Clinton is exceptionally well versed in law at all levels, as the First Lady of Arkansas, the First Lady of the White House, a member of the US Senate, a Secretary of State in the White House AND as a member of an incredibly dynamics organization of former President Clinton that have achieved the impossible around the world. Hillary Clinton's scope is considerable. She would be able to assess the potential of her aspirations of the first day of office and adjust her ambitions to achieve her promises to the American people.
Senator Sanders is no less worldly. He has achieved from the time he was mayor to his current status as a US Senator. The difference between Senator Sanders (and he has qualified this all through his campaign) and Hillary Clinton is that he would not bother to assess the potential to achieving his promises, he would simply set out to have them achieved no matter what it took. His qualification to a successful presidency is that he and his supporters are building a political revolution.
The quandary for Democrats is 'What is the strength of the politics?'
I am not going to answer that, I will take the words of Hillary Clinton today, I'll leave that up to the voters to decide.
The year 2016 is critical to many people. The USA cannot continue on it's current path. We are becoming a militarized mercenary force while depriving people of health care, food and clean water. There is a lot to decide. I suggest every person voting make the best decision for their country, otherwise, we will be rowing our boats for four years hoping to say, "I told you so." at the end of those four years.
Become familiar with the turn of the century American of the late 1800s and early 1900s while realizing two world wars followed it. We are at a precipice in the history in the USA. We need to get it right. If we can harness the best of us in local economies because we understand each other and the world we touch, we can do anything.
