William Jennings Bryan today

[White Trash]

If William Jennings Bryan were alive and kicking today, what party would he register with? What factions would he be a member? What issues would he take up?

I'd like to think he'd be a populist, federalist Democrat like myself, but I'd like to hear the opinions and views of others.

[RINO Tom]

I agree.  What drove him was his economic populism, IMO; he just simply had other cultural views that were influenced by his time period and home region.

When you get right down to the true spirit of what he was fighting for, he has more in common with Bernie Sanders than he does with Mike Huckabee, even if there are some "social" views on the surface that make it murky for some.

[White Trash]

I agree.  What drove him was his economic populism, IMO; he just simply had other cultural views that were influenced by his time period and home region.

When you get right down to the true spirit of what he was fighting for, he has more in common with Bernie Sanders than he does with Mike Huckabee, even if there are some "social" views on the surface that make it murky for some.

Yeah that sounds about right. His lamentations about the economic elite do sound a lot like Sander's going on about the "top one puh-cent"

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

His head would explode when he first saw a computer. RIP.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

He almost reminds me of Brian Schweitzer. Maybe Jim Webb too. Populist Dem, with some progressive tendencies. I don't think he'd make it in a presidential primary.

[Kingpoleon]

Probably an evangelical progressive, like Mark Hatfield.

I think he would probably be a Webb/O'Malley supporter, and if he keeps his home state, then I expect he would not endorse in the GE or endorse Johnson. He would definitely be pro-life and probably support auditing the Fed. Besides that, I can't think of an issue like prohibition or silver that might motivate him, but his great oratorical skills ensure he could do whatever he wanted. He might have to serve as Speaker, Secretary of State, or Vice President to become accepted enough by the Democrats to win their nomination.

[RFayette]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

[Mr. Smith]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

Racial bigotry, not necessarily, but definitely anti-Social Darwinism.

[RFayette]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

Racial bigotry, not necessarily, but definitely anti-Social Darwinism.

Maybe, but I still thought he was more on the liberal side of the race debate for his day.

[DC Al Fine]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

Racial bigotry, not necessarily, but definitely anti-Social Darwinism.

Maybe, but I still thought he was more on the liberal side of the race debate for his day.

He was, but in an era when some politicians were openly pro-lynching. Calling him anti-racist is an anachronism.

[DC Al Fine]

He'd have difficulty advancing in either party.

Bryan was heavily involved in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and was loudly anti-evolution and pro-prohibition. Even updating his social views to their modern equivalents, he'd still be hopelessly out of line with today's Democratic Party. Obviously his economics wouldn't fly with the Republicans either.

If he got into politics at all, he'd be some eccentric state representative that we'd only hear about in a hysterical U.S. General Discussion thread.

[RINO Tom]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

Racial bigotry, not necessarily, but definitely anti-Social Darwinism.

Maybe, but I still thought he was more on the liberal side of the race debate for his day.

I find it QUITE strange to refer to being racially tolerant as a strictly liberal view anyway but especially at a time when many progressives were championing eugenics.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

Racial bigotry, not necessarily, but definitely anti-Social Darwinism.

Maybe, but I still thought he was more on the liberal side of the race debate for his day.

I find it QUITE strange to refer to being racially tolerant as a strictly liberal view anyway but especially at a time when many progressives were championing eugenics.

     You might say that it's a view someone might take if they believe in Progress.

[RINO Tom]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

Racial bigotry, not necessarily, but definitely anti-Social Darwinism.

Maybe, but I still thought he was more on the liberal side of the race debate for his day.

I find it QUITE strange to refer to being racially tolerant as a strictly liberal view anyway but especially at a time when many progressives were championing eugenics.

     You might say that it's a view someone might take if they believe in Progress.

That is way too simplistic.  Imagine a future where everyone looks back on abortion as evil.  This same revisionism would label the Religious Right as being "very progressive for their time!"

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Honestly as a religious Democrat he would be fine in Nebraska's Democratic Party. I could see him becoming NE 2's rep.

[Kingpoleon]

He'd have difficulty advancing in either party.

Bryan was heavily involved in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and was loudly anti-evolution and pro-prohibition. Even updating his social views to their modern equivalents, he'd still be hopelessly out of line with today's Democratic Party. Obviously his economics wouldn't fly with the Republicans either.

If he got into politics at all, he'd be some eccentric state representative that we'd only hear about in a hysterical U.S. General Discussion thread.

I think if he managed to make it in the House, he could keep winning election like Walter Jones and Jim Traficant. Perhaps he could manage a deal with whichever party he belongs to to become Speaker.

His oratorical skills alone would be reason enough not to mess with him.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Social issues mold the party coalitions today far more then economic issues, (That's why WV and Western PA are Republican while Nova and the Philadelphia suburbs are Democratic) so as much as I hate to say it, he would be a Republican.

[darklordoftech]

Keep in mind that prohibition had as much in common with the modern anti-tobacco movement as it did with the War on Drugs. Also keep in mind that it was Frank Lautenberg who introduced the national drinking age legislation and that the Republicans initially opposed it.

[AtorBoltox]

Impossible to answer so entirely pointless conversation to have

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

Racial bigotry, not necessarily, but definitely anti-Social Darwinism.

Maybe, but I still thought he was more on the liberal side of the race debate for his day.

I find it QUITE strange to refer to being racially tolerant as a strictly liberal view anyway but especially at a time when many progressives were championing eugenics.

     You might say that it's a view someone might take if they believe in Progress.

That is way too simplistic.  Imagine a future where everyone looks back on abortion as evil.  This same revisionism would label the Religious Right as being "very progressive for their time!"

But that is basically how it works. Many successes of protestant moralism are ret conned as "Progressive successes", while dispensing Prohibition as being the work or religious extremists.

That is because Progressive was never a distinct ideology or set of views but was generally what anyone regards "progressing towards a more model society" as. And everyone had a different interpretation of what that was. So successes from both sides are morphed together as progressivism, while the failures or undesirable aspects are cast aside as nativism, racism etc.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's hard for me not to see him as Trump's VP if he were alive today.  He'd obviously have to be less of an agricultural supremacist to get anywhere today, so I'm assuming he could stomach a populist city candidate.  And keep in mind that his views on race relative to his era were akin to Trump's views relative to the modern era. 

Really?  Wasn't one of WJB's big reasons for opposing evolution that it could lead to racial bigotry (along with a socially Darwinian economic philosophy)?

Racial bigotry, not necessarily, but definitely anti-Social Darwinism.

Maybe, but I still thought he was more on the liberal side of the race debate for his day.

I find it QUITE strange to refer to being racially tolerant as a strictly liberal view anyway but especially at a time when many progressives were championing eugenics.

     You might say that it's a view someone might take if they believe in Progress.

That is way too simplistic.  Imagine a future where everyone looks back on abortion as evil.  This same revisionism would label the Religious Right as being "very progressive for their time!"

Well, duh.

[fluffypanther19]

Impossible to answer so entirely pointless conversation to have