Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread

[Turquoise Blue]

Why did you want to vote for Bryan? He was a fundamentalist.

[Elessar267]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Why did you want to vote for Bryan? He was a fundamentalist.

His fundamentalism focused far more on the question of universal brotherhood and the end of poverty and exploitative business practices than on other elements of "fundamentalist Christianity". There was good reason for him to condemn the teaching of evolution, as well; at that time, the hierarchy of races and social Darwinism were considered a critical part of the theory of evolution as taught in Biology classes - and, to be honest, I would have been right along with him campaigning against the teaching of such "theory of evolution" in the schools.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Elessar267

His fundamentalism focused far more on the question of universal brotherhood and the end of poverty and exploitative business practices than on other elements of "fundamentalist Christianity". There was good reason for him to condemn the teaching of evolution, as well; at that time, the hierarchy of races and social Darwinism were considered a critical part of the theory of evolution as taught in Biology classes - and, to be honest, I would have been right along with him campaigning against the teaching of such "theory of evolution" in the schools.

Alright. That are quite good reasons for voting Bryan in 1900.

[stefanbl]

Originally Posted by Makemakean

Yeah, now I could be wrong (my memory ain't what it never was), but didn't you in one thread aeons ago post that you were from Durham? That's like Labour heartland, so you get more points for political non-conformity than me.

Correct, even in 2010 Labour won every seat in County Durham, on 53% of the vote, but still.

My family is pretty red, in that they always vote Labour but are mainly apolitical, (apart from an Uncle who really hates the EU) they are also all formerly working class, my Step-Dad joined the Prison service after the failure of 1985 miners strike, for example.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Why did you want to vote for Bryan? He was a fundamentalist.

What's wrong with that?

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by scholar

What's wrong with that?

She means a Christian fundamentalist. Denial of evolution. A lot more popular viewpoint back then, but not so much today, what with science and all.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by DJC

She means a Christian fundamentalist. Denial of evolution. A lot more popular viewpoint back then, but not so much today, what with science and all.

At that time there would be nothing wrong with that belief apart from it being wrong, it was not indicative of any inefficiency in governing nor an adequate level of competence and understanding of the world, as it would be today. Otherwise I would suggest that all people who vote in the early elections of the United States to recognize that they are voting for Slavocrats and even the most abolitionist of candidates largely are voting for merely the limitation of slavery, not its abolishment. Abraham Lincoln was a proponent of that. and it should be noted that almost every single candidate in early American history was a Christian fundamentalist and either had no knowledge of evolution or would have laughed at it or called it heresy. I don't hold fundamentalism against any candidate until into the mid-twentieth century, and even then it won't ruin the candidate for me until the seventies.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by scholar

At that time there would be nothing wrong with that belief apart from it being wrong, it was not indicative of any inefficiency in governing nor an adequate level of competence and understanding of the world, as it would be today. Otherwise I would suggest that all people who vote in the early elections of the United States to recognize that they are voting for Slavocrats and even the most abolitionist of candidates largely are voting for merely the limitation of slavery, not its abolishment. Abraham Lincoln was a proponent of that. and it should be noted that almost every single candidate in early American history was a Christian fundamentalist and either had no knowledge of evolution or would have laughed at it or called it heresy. I don't hold fundamentalism against any candidate until into the mid-twentieth century, and even then it won't ruin the candidate for me until the seventies.

But since this is a retrospective exercise, we can view his beliefs with hindsight and see that having an anti-science president is not ideal if given other choices.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by DJC

But since this is a retrospective exercise, we can view his beliefs with hindsight and see that having an anti-science president is not ideal if given other choices.

Indeed. Thats why Bryan was last of the three major candidates (Debs, McKinley and Bryan)

[Elessar267]

Originally Posted by DJC

But since this is a retrospective exercise, we can view his beliefs with hindsight and see that having an anti-science president is not ideal if given other choices.

Except, as I explained upthread, the "theory of evolution" as taught in schools of the era was barely scientific, and taught as holy writ the hierarchy of races, the higher evolution of the upper classes as opposed to the lower classes, and not only approved but actively encouraged eugenic policies such as "racial cleansing", sterilization of the mentally disabled and of "aggressive" members of racial minorities, and, was used commonly to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide.

I hate to say it, but the Christian fundamentalists were right.

EDIT: I'm in no way saying that any of those things is truly part of the modern theory of evolution, nor part of the theory which Darwin himself proposed or advocated, but that's what they were considered to be back then, by both proponents and detractors of said theory. There was a kernel of science in it, but the ultimate implications of the way they understood it justifiably horrified people like Bryan.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by DJC

But since this is a retrospective exercise, we can view his beliefs with hindsight and see that having an anti-science president is not ideal if given other choices.

Anti-science is not synonymous with being a Christian Fundamentalist. Show me where he was against technology or scientific pursuits and not just against evolution as it was crudely understood in 1900.

Again, I will not not vote for a candidate because of being a Christian fundamentalist even in hindsight until the 70s and beyond.

[jpj1421]

Besides, I think it's more fun to vote as I would in that time period, with no knowledge of the future. Just saying.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by scholar

Anti-science is not synonymous with being a Christian Fundamentalist. Show me where he was against technology or scientific pursuits and not just against evolution as it was crudely understood in 1900.

Again, I will not not vote for a candidate because of being a Christian fundamentalist even in hindsight until the 70s and beyond.

Hey, I'm not forcing you to do anything. Vote how you like. It's mainly Bryan's extreme religiousness and his role in the Scopes trial which puts me off of him. Otherwise, I might have chosen him over Debs.

[jpj1421]

Originally Posted by DJC

Hey, I'm not forcing you to do anything. Vote how you like. It's mainly Bryan's extreme religiousness and his role in the Scopes trial which puts me off of him. Otherwise, I might have chosen him over Debs.

Yeah...when Scopes rolls around, 1925 me would be pretending he had never heard of WJB. Which is why I prefer to put aside all knowledge of the future. *shrugs*

[scholar]

Originally Posted by DJC

Hey, I'm not forcing you to do anything. Vote how you like. It's mainly Bryan's extreme religiousness and his role in the Scopes trial which puts me off of him. Otherwise, I might have chosen him over Debs.

I'm not saying you are, just that being a fundamentalist in 1900 is an easily forgivable flaw, if you can even call it as such.

[Elessar267]

Originally Posted by DJC

Hey, I'm not forcing you to do anything. Vote how you like. It's mainly Bryan's extreme religiousness and his role in the Scopes trial which puts me off of him. Otherwise, I might have chosen him over Debs.

Yes, because being against Social Darwinism and the "scientific" belief in the hierarchy of races taught in early twentieth century Biology classrooms is a glaring flaw.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Elessar267

Yes, because being against Social Darwinism and the "scientific" belief in the hierarchy of races taught in early twentieth century Biology classrooms is a glaring flaw.

He condemned Darwin's theory of evolution because it contradicted the Bible and conflated it with the twisted philosophy of Social Darwinism. He likely had good intent in his anti-evolution crusade, but he was misguided and only helped to impede scientific progress in the US. To be clear, not necessarily a bad person, just misguided.

[Elessar267]

Originally Posted by DJC

He condemned Darwin's theory of evolution because it contradicted the Bible and conflated it with the twisted philosophy of Social Darwinism. He likely had good intent in his anti-evolution crusade, but he was misguided and only helped to impede scientific progress in the US. To be clear, not necessarily a bad person, just misguided.

The entire theory of evolution was conflated with Social Darwinism and other nonsense like the hierarchy of races. Even its proponents, in that day, rarely separated them. It wasn't until World War II that the true reaction against Social Darwinism and other attached, sociopolitical theories that the original, Darwinist ideas of biological evolution - as espoused in the Origin of Species and other texts by other biologists in its time - really came to bear as purely science.

There is an excellent play and film called Inherit the Wind. They truly are excellent, and they are a dramatization of a fictionalized version of the Scopes trial. They are not, however, what actually happened, yet are often conflated with the very real conflict that happened in reality. It was a product of its time, and in no way intended to be an actual representation of what happened in the trial. It was a metaphor for the 1950s, not a historical retelling of the 1920s.

Yes, Bryan did believe in the literal seven day creation, as did many other Christians in their day. But when "science" is telling you that the wealthy deserve to be wealthy because they're more highly evolved, I think they were more than a little justified in rejecting the theories which "science" imparts. Should they have been better able to distinguish between the theories? Perhaps. But they didn't, and neither did the "scientists" of the same day. It was a question of yes/no. Though there were some few exceptions, for most people, it went hand in hand. Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Yes? Then you must believe that the wealthy are more evolved, due to Survival of the Fittest, and that the mentally disabled should be sterilized and that Black and Yellow people are inherently inferior to Europeans. Do you believe in racial equality, or in provision for the poor, a fair shake for everyone in society regardless of their social station? Yes? Then you must be a G-d-fearing, Bible-thumping Christian who believes in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis that we just invented a few generations ago. This wasn't just the people who are now the Christian right; this is including people like the NAACP, which thoroughly rejected the theory of evolution and embraced Biblical literalism until after World War II because of this dichotomy (though, admittedly, not to the extent that many others did). Only socialists broke this rule in any significant number and, well, you know how much socialists were trusted by either side of this divide in the United States.

It's a sad thing when you study something, and, in the end, both sides are both so right, yet so wrong.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Elessar267

The entire theory of evolution was conflated with Social Darwinism and other nonsense like the hierarchy of races. Even its proponents, in that day, rarely separated them. It wasn't until World War II that the true reaction against Social Darwinism and other attached, sociopolitical theories that the original, Darwinist ideas of biological evolution - as espoused in the Origin of Species and other texts by other biologists in its time - really came to bear as purely science.

There is an excellent play and film called Inherit the Wind. They truly are excellent, and they are a dramatization of a fictionalized version of the Scopes trial. They are not, however, what actually happened, yet are often conflated with the very real conflict that happened in reality. It was a product of its time, and in no way intended to be an actual representation of what happened in the trial. It was a metaphor for the 1950s, not a historical retelling of the 1920s.

Yes, Bryan did believe in the literal seven day creation, as did many other Christians in their day. But when "science" is telling you that the wealthy deserve to be wealthy because they're more highly evolved, I think they were more than a little justified in rejecting the theories which "science" imparts. Should they have been better able to distinguish between the theories? Perhaps. But they didn't, and neither did the "scientists" of the same day. It was a question of yes/no. Though there were some few exceptions, for most people, it went hand in hand. Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Yes? Then you must believe that the wealthy are more evolved, due to Survival of the Fittest, and that the mentally disabled should be sterilized and that Black and Yellow people are inherently inferior to Europeans. Do you believe in racial equality, or in provision for the poor, a fair shake for everyone in society regardless of their social station? Yes? Then you must be a G-d-fearing, Bible-thumping Christian who believes in the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis that we just invented a few generations ago. This wasn't just the people who are now the Christian right; this is including people like the NAACP, which thoroughly rejected the theory of evolution and embraced Biblical literalism until after World War II because of this dichotomy (though, admittedly, not to the extent that many others did). Only socialists broke this rule in any significant number and, well, you know how much socialists were trusted by either side of this divide in the United States.

That last sentence is why I'm glad I went with Debs, then. A responsible leader -- even back then -- should be informed enough to be able to differentiate between actual science and pseudo-scientific prejudice based on race or class.

Originally Posted by Elessar267

It's a sad thing when you study something, and, in the end, both sides are both so right, yet so wrong.

Can you elaborate on that please?

[Elessar267]

Originally Posted by DJC

That last sentence is why I'm glad I went with Debs, then. A responsible leader -- even back then -- should be informed enough to be able to differentiate between actual science and pseudo-scientific prejudice based on race or class.

Unfortunately, a lot of socialists fell on one side or the other, as well (though, I admit, I don't know about Debs himself); it's just that most of the exceptions were socialist, not that most socialists were exceptions.

Can you elaborate on that please?

Well, the one side believed in expanding democracy, regulating business, and making the country more egalitarian and give even minorities and the poor a true say in government, while the other side were actually promoting the theory of evolution, at least, the bare-bones of the true theory. But the latter, despite their at least rudimentary understanding of science, were racist bigots and pro-wealthy to an extent that would make even the modern GOP blush, while the former rejected scientific inquiry entirely because of a few crackpot ideas attached to it. Both sides, so ignorant, yet... not.