1896 Presidential Election

[Deus Naturae]

McKinley

You support the gold standard, protectionism, and the Spanish-American War?

[Deus Naturae]

For me, Palmer is the only choice. McKinley was a corporate tool who supported high tariffs to protect Big Business from international competition and invaded Cuba to benefit American cotton and tobacco interests. America had engaged in (attempted) imperial conquest since the War of 1812, and successfully since the Mexican-American War, but McKinley oversaw unprecedented expansion of the overseas US Empire.

Bryan was nearly as bad. Most of his positions were based in ignorance and/or demagoguery. He believed that Prohibition would end alcohol consumption, that immigrants stole jobs from native workers, and that simply creating more money would make people wealthier. Plus, he wasn't even an anti-imperialist in 1896, and probably would've declared war on Spain himself.

I'd never for Levering or Matchett for obvious reasons. The former was a moralistic Baptist authoritarian and the latter would've turned the US into a Soviet-style dictatorship. Palmer was the only clear choice: A staunch supporter of sound money, free trade, anti-imperialism, and individual liberty. It's telling that his campaign, the so-called last stand of classical liberalism in the United States, occurred during the last Presidential election of the 19th century, setting the stage for the wars, global empire-building, economic devastation, and massive expansion of government power that would occur in the 20th.