Grade William Henry Harrison's presidency

[Mechaman]

Had he lived through his full four-year term (sparing us John Tyler's presidency), he would have been accounted perhaps the best Whig president ever to have ascended to the office.  Everything was in place for a transformational Whig agenda with the election of 1840.

This presumes that William Henry Harrison wouldn't have been William Henry Harrison.

But if that were the case, if Harrsion was some great transformational figure in the making I think that he would probably be successful in encouraging a more economically moderate path for that era's Democrats in appealing to voters.  After all the Van Buren's response to the Panic of 1837 was to blame the recently deceased Second Bank of grand conspiracy to bring down the system and pledge that the government would not be involved in bailing out the "corrupt" northern and urban institutions that made the Panic possible (supposedly).  We do know a little bit about his views on slavery, but being an Ohio man might have encouraged him to be more in line with the Whig mainstream by opposing war with Mexico over Texas, thus leaving the Southwest/California in Mexican hands for a little while longer.  Overall he probably wouldn't have been a great friend to the "Slave Power", but Southern Whigs would've likely still backed him as a "sane" alternative to the populist Jacksonians that were the rank and file of the Democratic Party in areas of the Deep South.  The very first thing the Congress might have done is raise tariffs substantially to improve infrascture and roads of the time and maybe even give a much needed boost shot to American industry (though would probably reveal the inherent injustices and crueliities many industrial workers faced under their wealthy owners, which might actually bring in more Democratic support in urban areas,
. Although there is the possibility the Whigs could have passed strict immigration laws in response to nativist fears about German and Irish immigrants, thus limiting Democratic efforts on that front).  Really, a comparison to Ronald Reagan would be very appropriate here: A man in his late sixties, conservative politics (for the time) with a populist persona/face to it, won a mandate election, took control of congress from an unpopular liberal (for the time) administration/coalition, whose popularity wildlly varies depending on the demographics (rich industrialists/white protestant middle class would've loved him, poor farmers and lower class ethnic whites would've hated him (compare with non-whites views of Reagan)).

Ironically, this might've made an earlier Buchanan administration possible.  Buchanan after all was very moderate on tariff issues (he started his career as a Federalist), largely due to being a Pennsylvania man.  Of course, his incompetence and moderate heroism would've still made the Civil War very likely.  I have a feeling that the Civil War was pretty much inevitable since the 1820 Missouri Compromise at least.

[Frodo]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America?  

[Antonio the Sixth]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America? 

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc). Of course those are very different cleavages than those of today.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Easily better than any President of the last third of a century.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America?  

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc).

tl;dr, but it sounds like someone is just making things up so that they can make the seemingly anti-slavery man a liberal even though he was Jackson's right-hand guy economically. Jackson was a classical liberal, but they don't want credit for him because of the Trail of Tears. (Edit: Did read now - I didn't realize Mechaman was making the post. This isn't the reason, but it still seems like a weird comparison as the beliefs don't line up.)

Meanwhile the Whigs were founded to implement big government. American System, anybody? Tariffs, Centralized government (Except state's rights on slavery for WHH - and from what I have read on here from HST, it seems like he tried to expand it?), and massive improvements and taxes. Subsidizing businesses doesn't make WHH not to the left of Van Buren. Obviously, he's not a leftist in the forum sense, but isn't that in line with what most centrist/centre-left Democrats would do today.

Obviously Van Buren wasn't completely opposed to slavery either, just opposing the spread of it, but being the nominee of the Free Soil Party legacy has helped his legacy a ton, especially on here.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America?  

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc).

tl;dr, but it sounds like someone is just making things up so that they can make the seemingly anti-slavery man a liberal even though he was Jackson's right-hand guy economically. Jackson was a classical liberal, but they don't want credit for him because of the Trail of Tears. (Edit: Did read now - I didn't realize Mechaman was making the post. This isn't the reason, but it still seems like a weird comparison as the beliefs don't line up.)

Meanwhile the Whigs were founded to implement big government. American System, anybody? Tariffs, Centralized government (Except state's rights on slavery for WHH - and from what I have read on here from HST, it seems like he tried to expand it?), and massive improvements and taxes. Subsidizing businesses doesn't make WHH not to the left of Van Buren. Obviously, he's not a leftist in the forum sense, but isn't that in line with what most centrist/centre-left Democrats would do today.

Obviously Van Buren wasn't completely opposed to slavery either, just opposing the spread of it, but being the nominee of the Free Soil Party legacy has helped his legacy a ton, especially on here.

To be honest, I'd be very hesitant to use adjectives like "liberal" and "conservative" to describe anyone prior to 1930. The definition of "liberal" in 1836 was very different from what we think of as liberal today (see Classical Liberalism), and the whole "small" government=conservative, "big" government=liberal thing really doesn't work until the 60s. Does anyone want to argue that Alexander Hamilton was a liberal because he supported "big" government? I didn't think so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America? 

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc).

tl;dr, but it sounds like someone is just making things up so that they can make the seemingly anti-slavery man a liberal even though he was Jackson's right-hand guy economically. Jackson was a classical liberal, but they don't want credit for him because of the Trail of Tears. (Edit: Did read now - I didn't realize Mechaman was making the post. This isn't the reason, but it still seems like a weird comparison as the beliefs don't line up.)

Meanwhile the Whigs were founded to implement big government. American System, anybody? Tariffs, Centralized government (Except state's rights on slavery for WHH - and from what I have read on here from HST, it seems like he tried to expand it?), and massive improvements and taxes. Subsidizing businesses doesn't make WHH not to the left of Van Buren. Obviously, he's not a leftist in the forum sense, but isn't that in line with what most centrist/centre-left Democrats would do today.

Obviously Van Buren wasn't completely opposed to slavery either, just opposing the spread of it, but being the nominee of the Free Soil Party legacy has helped his legacy a ton, especially on here.

The idea that left=big government and right=small government is a moronic misconception of modern US political discourse that needs to die once and for all. I'm certainly not claiming Jackson was a "leftist" though (I guess he was as far as whites were concerned, but not beyond that).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

His biggest disaster was his choice of Vice President.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

His biggest disaster was his choice of Vice President.

Harrison didn't choose Tyler; the Whig National Convention did.

[Frodo]

His biggest disaster was his choice of Vice President.

Harrison didn't choose Tyler; the Whig National Convention did.

Agreed -didn't Harrison originally approach Henry Clay with the offer, who promptly rejected it in favor of remaining in the Senate?  

[Tetro Kornbluth]

His biggest disaster was his choice of Vice President.

Harrison didn't choose Tyler; the Whig National Convention did.

Agreed -didn't Harrison originally approach Henry Clay with the offer, who promptly rejected it in favor of remaining House Speaker? 

Yes. You're both right. Either way, it was most noteworthy decision associated with Harrison's presidency

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

His biggest disaster was his choice of Vice President.

Harrison didn't choose Tyler; the Whig National Convention did.

Agreed -didn't Harrison originally approach Henry Clay with the offer, who promptly rejected it in favor of remaining House Speaker? 

Clay was a Senator by that point, but yeah. Probably one of the most momentous decisions in American History, considering Clay probably wouldn't have brought up the Texas issue, thus delaying the Civil War.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

His biggest disaster was his choice of Vice President.

Harrison didn't choose Tyler; the Whig National Convention did.

Agreed -didn't Harrison originally approach Henry Clay with the offer, who promptly rejected it in favor of remaining House Speaker? 

Clay was a Senator by that point, but yeah. Probably one of the most momentous decisions in American History, considering Clay probably wouldn't have brought up the Texas issue, thus delaying the Civil War.

Ummm.... not annexing that massive chunk of the west and, arguably, not recreating the Second Bank of the United States were of equal importance.

[Mechaman]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America? 

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc).

tl;dr, but it sounds like someone is just making things up so that they can make the seemingly anti-slavery man a liberal even though he was Jackson's right-hand guy economically. Jackson was a classical liberal, but they don't want credit for him because of the Trail of Tears. (Edit: Did read now - I didn't realize Mechaman was making the post. This isn't the reason, but it still seems like a weird comparison as the beliefs don't line up.)

Meanwhile the Whigs were founded to implement big government. American System, anybody? Tariffs, Centralized government (Except state's rights on slavery for WHH - and from what I have read on here from HST, it seems like he tried to expand it?), and massive improvements and taxes. Subsidizing businesses doesn't make WHH not to the left of Van Buren. Obviously, he's not a leftist in the forum sense, but isn't that in line with what most centrist/centre-left Democrats would do today.

Obviously Van Buren wasn't completely opposed to slavery either, just opposing the spread of it, but being the nominee of the Free Soil Party legacy has helped his legacy a ton, especially on here.

The idea that left=big government and right=small government is a moronic misconception of modern US political discourse that needs to die once and for all. I'm certainly not claiming Jackson was a "leftist" though (I guess he was as far as whites were concerned, but not beyond that).

Yes, Leftists generally disown the term liberalism now days.  Just ask TNF his thoughts on it haha.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

His biggest disaster was his choice of Vice President.

Harrison didn't choose Tyler; the Whig National Convention did.

Agreed -didn't Harrison originally approach Henry Clay with the offer, who promptly rejected it in favor of remaining House Speaker? 

Clay was a Senator by that point, but yeah. Probably one of the most momentous decisions in American History, considering Clay probably wouldn't have brought up the Texas issue, thus delaying the Civil War.

Ummm.... not annexing that massive chunk of the west and, arguably, not recreating the Second Bank of the United States were of equal importance.

At the time, yes. But in the long term, Texas had a much bigger impact on American history than the B.U.S., since annexation prompted the Mexican War, which prompted the Civil War, the reverberations of which are still felt today.

[Mechaman]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America?  

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc).

tl;dr, but it sounds like someone is just making things up so that they can make the seemingly anti-slavery man a liberal even though he was Jackson's right-hand guy economically. Jackson was a classical liberal, but they don't want credit for him because of the Trail of Tears. (Edit: Did read now - I didn't realize Mechaman was making the post. This isn't the reason, but it still seems like a weird comparison as the beliefs don't line up.)

Meanwhile the Whigs were founded to implement big government. American System, anybody? Tariffs, Centralized government (Except state's rights on slavery for WHH - and from what I have read on here from HST, it seems like he tried to expand it?), and massive improvements and taxes. Subsidizing businesses doesn't make WHH not to the left of Van Buren. Obviously, he's not a leftist in the forum sense, but isn't that in line with what most centrist/centre-left Democrats would do today.

Obviously Van Buren wasn't completely opposed to slavery either, just opposing the spread of it, but being the nominee of the Free Soil Party legacy has helped his legacy a ton, especially on here.

My histtorical analysis of Martin Van Buren has very little do with his anti-slavery views.  It had more to do wiith Antonio V's conclusions.  Slavery was too much of a grey area issue that involved everyone from moralistic Puritans to Know Nothings to German Marxists.  Any objective historian should mention the Puritan work ethic (hardly a liberal philosophy) alongside the "Commuunist Manifesto reasing radicals" when discussing it.

In regards to big government vs. small government I believe that is an oversimplification of old school politics.  You ask any random Democratic politician why they are Democrats I doubt very many of them will say "well because they happen to be the liberal party at the moment."  Very few people go into politics thinking that their political party could "change sides" at any moment (blue dogs and "moderate" New Englanders are the exceptions, not the rule).  If you asked most Democratic officeholders why they are Democrats you will more than likely hear something along the lines of "the Democratic Party is the party of the working class", "Democrats fight for the poor", etc. etc. etc..  This is the point that gets missed alot, but what has changed over the past hundred and fifty years is not the ends of liberalism, but the means.

You have to rememberr that for the vast majority of human history that oligarchial rule had been the rule and not the exception.  In Old Europe monarchs and their Parliaments (which were generally used to expand the influence and authority of rich landowners) used the power of government to institute regressive taxation to keep the poor in perpetual poverty (one of the causes of the French Revolution).  Further, laws like the Penal Laws used big government laws to disenfranchise and strip millions of people of many things we would consider basic political rights like free speech, the right to own property, the right to marry, and the right not to swear allegiance to the Anglican Church.
Government intervention was used far more on the side of the wealthy and powerful than it was to advance the cause of the disadvantaged up to that point in history.  Thus why small government back then was often viewed as a liberal view more so than a conservative one.  This attitude would be dominant in liberal psyche until about the early 20th century when liberals started adopting the socialistic (emphasis) arguments in favor of turning the "tool of the rich" against them.  It should be noted that as late as the 1910s that labor unions were skeptical of government intervention into the workplace (something that showed up in the aftermath of that New York City fire that the Democratically controlled (emphasis) New York Assembly passed workplace safety laws on).

As it regards American politics, policies like high tariffs were generally viewed as "the rich milking the poor" for good reason.  Free Trade has only become a conservative view in recent times due to the international workplace and globalization where any rich first world country can move operations overseas.  Back in the day it took months for trade shipments to reach port and the third world working conditions were happening in Lowell and not Laos (very hard to blame low tariffs for low pay in other words).  Factory workers were paid barely survivable wages while working inhumane hours while their robber baron bosses made hand over fist.  Protectionism in theory benefits the entire community, but the Gilded Age revealed it to be little more than a scheme for rich industrialists to force everyone poorer than them to buy their overpriced goods while providing very little benefits or pay improvements for their laborers (and thus why no sane economist recommends returning to it).  Free trade had such a strong following among the working class due to the idea that free and fair competition between domestic and foreign companies (remember, this was before globalization) would force domestic owners to increase worker wages in order to motivate labor to produce the best product at the lowest price possible (something Cleveland and Bryan agreed on).  Basically, the concept of perfect competition.

In regards to internal improvements, Democratic opposition to such improvement was widely based on the knowledge that said improvements would be made at the cost of the poor (crippling taxes and tariffs rarely felt by domestic industry but definitely by the poor farmer and laborer) for the benefit of the middle and upper classes (remember middle class is much smaller).  Further, working conditions on such projects were far from humane, as the several hundred strikes by Irish work gangs before the Civil War would show (and further note here, the Know Nothings largely got their numbers from people who used to ID as National Republicans and Whigs, are they "liberal" because they supported big government expansion and centralized government?  I don't think so).
A comparison with the Keystone XL Pipeline could be made re: environmental impact.  Just because something is sold as "improving people's lives" don't mean it's "liberal".

Martin Van Buren, a master of New York machinery, an advocate of freer trade, who blamed the failings of the economy on a rich elite class of bankers, was hardly conservative.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Mechaman said everything better than I possibly could, but I think his point about taxes is worth emphasizing. Until the early 20th century, taxes tended to be of the most regressive kind (tariffs, sales taxes, flat property taxes, poll taxes, etc) and thus hurt disproportionately the poor. Thus, the burden to raise the revenue necessary for "big government" expenditures was largely felt by the working class. Furthermore, the kind of "big government" initiatives that were enacted in the first half of the 19th century (internal improvements, expansive monetary policy, etc) were most beneficial to the development of industry and commerce.

What has changed in the 20th century is, on the one hand, the invention of the progressive income tax, which has shifted the burden of public expenditure on the wealthiest (or at least on the upper-middle class) and relieved the poor. On the other hand, with the New Deal and on, public expenditures became increasingly focused on social policy and welfare (though not nearly as much as other developed countries, since the US still wastes billions in the military-industrial complex and other forms of corporate welfare), the sort of policies that directly benefits the disadvantaged. In these circumstance, "tax and spend" policies have become a hallmark of progressive politics, but only insofar as they can be tools to bring about greater equality.

What matters, in the end, is not the size of government, but who the government works for. The left wants to use the government to lift up the poor, while the right directs its effort toward sustaining the development of large corporations.

[Mechaman]

Mechaman said everything better than I possibly could, but I think his point about taxes is worth emphasizing. Until the early 20th century, taxes tended to be of the most regressive kind (tariffs, sales taxes, flat property taxes, poll taxes, etc) and thus hurt disproportionately the poor. Thus, the burden to raise the revenue necessary for "big government" expenditures was largely felt by the working class. Furthermore, the kind of "big government" initiatives that were enacted in the first half of the 19th century (internal improvements, expansive monetary policy, etc) were most beneficial to the development of industry and commerce.

What has changed in the 20th century is, on the one hand, the invention of the progressive income tax, which has shifted the burden of public expenditure on the wealthiest (or at least on the upper-middle class) and relieved the poor. On the other hand, with the New Deal and on, public expenditures became increasingly focused on social policy and welfare (though not nearly as much as other developed countries, since the US still wastes billions in the military-industrial complex and other forms of corporate welfare), the sort of policies that directly benefits the disadvantaged. In these circumstance, "tax and spend" policies have become a hallmark of progressive politics, but only insofar as they can be tools to bring about greater equality.

What matters, in the end, is not the size of government, but who the government works for. The left wants to use the government to lift up the poor, while the right directs its effort toward sustaining the development of large corporations.

I believe that what a lot of people miss in historical analysis is that a lot of issues are skipped over for the sake of a few.  To many the only issues that matters is how a politician felt about black people, slavery, and Native Americans.  To be frank, yes we should judge historical figures harshly for having those views.  However, at the same time I feel that a large range of other issues are largely ignored to give the perception that there were "good guys" in history.  Suddenly, people who were seething anti-Irish racists, wanted to ban Catholics from serving in public office, and deny the right to vote to anybody who didn't own property are "good" or "liberal" solely because they opposed chattel slavery (nevermind that they were largely okay with or even encouraged the conditions of wage slavery due to the aforementioned biases, not to go all Tweed on everyone).  Indentured servitude (which was actually ethnic cleansing of poor Britons and the Irish) has been so extremely whitewashed as only "working your way to America" that it is understandable how one can conclude there is a nefarious revisionist agenda at play in history textbooks.

History is pretty damn inconvenient.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America?  

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc).

tl;dr, but it sounds like someone is just making things up so that they can make the seemingly anti-slavery man a liberal even though he was Jackson's right-hand guy economically. Jackson was a classical liberal, but they don't want credit for him because of the Trail of Tears. (Edit: Did read now - I didn't realize Mechaman was making the post. This isn't the reason, but it still seems like a weird comparison as the beliefs don't line up.)

Meanwhile the Whigs were founded to implement big government. American System, anybody? Tariffs, Centralized government (Except state's rights on slavery for WHH - and from what I have read on here from HST, it seems like he tried to expand it?), and massive improvements and taxes. Subsidizing businesses doesn't make WHH not to the left of Van Buren. Obviously, he's not a leftist in the forum sense, but isn't that in line with what most centrist/centre-left Democrats would do today.

Obviously Van Buren wasn't completely opposed to slavery either, just opposing the spread of it, but being the nominee of the Free Soil Party legacy has helped his legacy a ton, especially on here.

My histtorical analysis of Martin Van Buren has very little do with his anti-slavery views.  It had more to do wiith Antonio V's conclusions.  Slavery was too much of a grey area issue that involved everyone from moralistic Puritans to Know Nothings to German Marxists.  Any objective historian should mention the Puritan work ethic (hardly a liberal philosophy) alongside the "Commuunist Manifesto reasing radicals" when discussing it.

In regards to big government vs. small government I believe that is an oversimplification of old school politics.  You ask any random Democratic politician why they are Democrats I doubt very many of them will say "well because they happen to be the liberal party at the moment."  Very few people go into politics thinking that their political party could "change sides" at any moment (blue dogs and "moderate" New Englanders are the exceptions, not the rule).  If you asked most Democratic officeholders why they are Democrats you will more than likely hear something along the lines of "the Democratic Party is the party of the working class", "Democrats fight for the poor", etc. etc. etc..  This is the point that gets missed alot, but what has changed over the past hundred and fifty years is not the ends of liberalism, but the means.

You have to rememberr that for the vast majority of human history that oligarchial rule had been the rule and not the exception.  In Old Europe monarchs and their Parliaments (which were generally used to expand the influence and authority of rich landowners) used the power of government to institute regressive taxation to keep the poor in perpetual poverty (one of the causes of the French Revolution).  Further, laws like the Penal Laws used big government laws to disenfranchise and strip millions of people of many things we would consider basic political rights like free speech, the right to own property, the right to marry, and the right not to swear allegiance to the Anglican Church.
Government intervention was used far more on the side of the wealthy and powerful than it was to advance the cause of the disadvantaged up to that point in history.  Thus why small government back then was often viewed as a liberal view more so than a conservative one.  This attitude would be dominant in liberal psyche until about the early 20th century when liberals started adopting the socialistic (emphasis) arguments in favor of turning the "tool of the rich" against them.  It should be noted that as late as the 1910s that labor unions were skeptical of government intervention into the workplace (something that showed up in the aftermath of that New York City fire that the Democratically controlled (emphasis) New York Assembly passed workplace safety laws on).

As it regards American politics, policies like high tariffs were generally viewed as "the rich milking the poor" for good reason.  Free Trade has only become a conservative view in recent times due to the international workplace and globalization where any rich first world country can move operations overseas.  Back in the day it took months for trade shipments to reach port and the third world working conditions were happening in Lowell and not Laos (very hard to blame low tariffs for low pay in other words).  Factory workers were paid barely survivable wages while working inhumane hours while their robber baron bosses made hand over fist.  Protectionism in theory benefits the entire community, but the Gilded Age revealed it to be little more than a scheme for rich industrialists to force everyone poorer than them to buy their overpriced goods while providing very little benefits or pay improvements for their laborers (and thus why no sane economist recommends returning to it).  Free trade had such a strong following among the working class due to the idea that free and fair competition between domestic and foreign companies (remember, this was before globalization) would force domestic owners to increase worker wages in order to motivate labor to produce the best product at the lowest price possible (something Cleveland and Bryan agreed on).  Basically, the concept of perfect competition.

In regards to internal improvements, Democratic opposition to such improvement was widely based on the knowledge that said improvements would be made at the cost of the poor (crippling taxes and tariffs rarely felt by domestic industry but definitely by the poor farmer and laborer) for the benefit of the middle and upper classes (remember middle class is much smaller).  Further, working conditions on such projects were far from humane, as the several hundred strikes by Irish work gangs before the Civil War would show (and further note here, the Know Nothings largely got their numbers from people who used to ID as National Republicans and Whigs, are they "liberal" because they supported big government expansion and centralized government?  I don't think so).
A comparison with the Keystone XL Pipeline could be made re: environmental impact.  Just because something is sold as "improving people's lives" don't mean it's "liberal".

Martin Van Buren, a master of New York machinery, an advocate of freer trade, who blamed the failings of the economy on a rich elite class of bankers, was hardly conservative.

Incredibly interesting perspective. This is why I missed you so much the past few months. I have to disagree in two senses: 1) I don't necessarily view a society through the rich vs. poor mentality. There is a way for everyone to grow together fairly. I do suppose it was not the same through much of history though, and you'd probably argue even today. Looking back from today's perspective would be pretty inaccurate - I'd assume 90% of todays America would be for Van Buren. It was rightfully mentioned as horrible to compare time periods. (You should whip some sense into those Dems voting for the American System in that other poll!) 2) Today's far right does rail against banks as well. Whether they're economically populist or libertarian, both groups spend a ton of time hating on Wall St for its elite interests. it seems to be a common trait of the extremes whereas the centre loves it.

Also, re: Keystone XL, the Democrats' biggest moneyed interests were pushing that for quite awhile. I suppose the Republicans always supported it because they're in the pockets of Big Oil, but it wasn't obviously partisan to begin with. There was a clash between the two members of the coalition, and arguably the more elite one won. You can argue "Ultimately that policy aided them from an environmental disaster that would've been more harmful to them" but Republicans can shape the narrative on a host of issues as well, hopefully starting with how their policies can affect income inequality.

And thanks for reminding me why I love both Cleveland and Bryan!

We finally have something for GPG (Edit: Agh, Antonio beat me in adding it.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wait, if progressive income taxation was constitutional in the 19th century, what the hell did they need the 16th Amendment for?

Anyway, my point remains that taxation has gradually become significantly more progressive, roughly between 1900 and 1950, in the US like in most developed countries.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, the income tax is now less progressive than it was at that time in the 1950s.

That's my point, 1900-1950 is the time this process happened.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Incredibly interesting perspective. This is why I missed you so much the past few months. I have to disagree in two senses: 1) I don't necessarily view a society through the rich vs. poor mentality. There is a way for everyone to grow together fairly. I do suppose it was not the same through much of history though, and you'd probably argue even today. Looking back from today's perspective would be pretty inaccurate - I'd assume 90% of todays America would be for Van Buren.

I'm not so sure about that - a lot of Americans today wouldn't go for a party that is categorically unwilling to support redistributing federal dollars to build infrastructure in their state.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Also, the income tax is now less progressive than it was at that time in the 1950s.

That's my point, 1900-1950 is the time this process happened.

The big difference here (as I think you alluded to) isn't the progressivity of the tax rates - income tax rates were very progressive in the first part of the century, being paid only by the wealthy except for a short period after Wilson expanded them to pay for WW1. The big difference is how much of the government revenue was being filled by those progressive income taxes - not much until the 1940s. Likewise the main reason tax revenue is less progressive now than in the 1950s isn't because of changes in income tax rates, it's because a larger share of the taxes are paid in the form of non-progressive payroll taxes.

here's a chart for combined federal, state and local revenue:
Income taxes are in blue. Ad-valorum, which includes tariffs as well as sales, excise and property taxes are in red. Payroll taxes are in yellow.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Incredibly interesting perspective. This is why I missed you so much the past few months. I have to disagree in two senses: 1) I don't necessarily view a society through the rich vs. poor mentality. There is a way for everyone to grow together fairly. I do suppose it was not the same through much of history though, and you'd probably argue even today. Looking back from today's perspective would be pretty inaccurate - I'd assume 90% of todays America would be for Van Buren.

I'm not so sure about that - a lot of Americans today wouldn't go for a party that is categorically unwilling to support redistributing federal dollars to build infrastructure in their state.

Let me introduce you to the Republican Party.

Incredibly interesting perspective. This is why I missed you so much the past few months. I have to disagree in two senses: 1) I don't necessarily view a society through the rich vs. poor mentality. There is a way for everyone to grow together fairly. I do suppose it was not the same through much of history though, and you'd probably argue even today. Looking back from today's perspective would be pretty inaccurate - I'd assume 90% of todays America would be for Van Buren.

I'm not so sure about that - a lot of Americans today wouldn't go for a party that is categorically unwilling to support redistributing federal dollars to build infrastructure in their state.

Today, I think you would have Democrats be the dominant party with Whigs only having outside support. Lets look at the main issues.

Whigs:
-Federal involvement in economy
-Tends to support the rich, even to the point of hurting the poor.
-More liberal on social issues.

Democrats:
-Little government involvement in the economy.
-Based in the poor, with distrust towards the rich.
-Conservative on social issues.

In terms of minorities, Whigs would be out of touch with Blacks and Latinos. They would have a chance with Asians.

In terms of the gender gap, I feel like women might actually trend to the Whig Party.

For North vs. South, the Democrats would be comfortably ahead in the South, but there would a strong Whig contingent in places like Florida. Whigs would run best in New England.

Places like Maryland and Virginia would support the Whigs because of a large number of government employees.

I like this, but I'm curious where you are getting social issues from. Is there really anything to go off of other than slavery and possibly immigration? Even those two issues show very little correlation to each other.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Incredibly interesting perspective. This is why I missed you so much the past few months. I have to disagree in two senses: 1) I don't necessarily view a society through the rich vs. poor mentality. There is a way for everyone to grow together fairly. I do suppose it was not the same through much of history though, and you'd probably argue even today. Looking back from today's perspective would be pretty inaccurate - I'd assume 90% of todays America would be for Van Buren.

I'm not so sure about that - a lot of Americans today wouldn't go for a party that is categorically unwilling to support redistributing federal dollars to build infrastructure in their state.

Let me introduce you to the Republican Party.

When was the last time the Republican Party voted down a Federal Highway bill on the principle that it isn't something the government should be involved with?  Anyway the GOP is lucky to get a plurality in Presidential elections nowadays.