WI/PC: Bryan wins in 1896

kodak

kodak

I have several questions regarding William Jennings Bryan and his failed bid(s) for president. There aren't very many timelines involving him, which surprises me, as he had a huge impact on American politics and shifted the democrat's platform completely.

1. Did he have a shot at winning in 1896? In the 1900 and 1908 elections, he lost by a much wider margin, due to his increasingly unpopular platform, anti-imperialist stance, and pacifism.

2. What would the economic effects of his silver policy be? I would assume nothing good in the long term.

3. Would he support the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii or reject it? This could lead to one of the funnier moments in history, where the nation that wasn't intended to exist is forced to do so anyways.

4. Bryan was a big supporter of the Spanish-American war, so if anything it would happen faster. Would he grant full independence to the Philippines and Cuba (giving the USA much more credibility in Latin America and Europe regarding anti-imperialism)?

5. All in all, if elected in 1896, would he have a chance of reelection?
 

David T

Did he have a chance? Kevin Philips has argued that he could have beaten any Republican except McKinley and *maybe* Allison. See my discussion at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/JdGV9CyfZu4/kJGvh2rxv3wJ

As for what a Bryan administration would be like: one problem, I once wrote, is that he would be trying to introduce free silver *at the wrong time.* There was a case for it throughout the long, generally deflationary period between the "Crime of 1873" and 1896. But now with the cyanide process and the discovery of gold in South Africa, the Klondike, etc., gold production was increasing, and free silver would only add to inflation. However, Noel Maurer http://business.gwu.edu/profiles/noel-maurer/ has argued that this wouldn't be so bad:

***


I agree, of course, that it was the wrong time: the
horse had already left the barn, as you point out.

Still, I'm not so sure that there would be any
appreciable negative effect.

The increase in monetary demand from the U.S. would
have slowed the slide in silver prices.

(Checking) Silver prices (in gold) dropped 12% from
1897 to 1902, and then rose. U.S. inflation was 3%
(total, not per year) over the same period.

Seems likely, then, that at most you get a minor burst
of inflation (within historical experiences) in 1897-1902,
with a 15% (3 + 12) price rise being the maximum. More
likely inflation is less than 15%, perhaps as low as OTL.

That isn't low, but it isn't outside the realm of
experience. Frex, prices rose 10% in 1902-07.

Farmers would like it, more than the tiny 3% rise
of OTL, and it isn't a high enough rate of inflation
to really cause much damage to the economy ... espec-
ially since no one will have any reason to expect it
to continue, and thus change their expectation of
long-term price stability. (In fact, inflation
would likely be lower than OTL after 1902.)

In that sense, I'm really not sure that a Bryan
administration would have much effect on the national
economy. In fact (bad logic alert: this is thinking
out loud), it might have salubrious effects in the
long run. Frex, weakening the religious attachment
to gold might make the Great Depression less likely.

The flip side, however, is the damage to investor
confidence from abandoning the gold standard. I
doubt it would be large, but that's more of a gut
feeling than anything else. One might plausibly
argue that a Bryan Administration would have large
negative economic effects through that channel,
rather than through higher inflation.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/vxT1Tnekdlk/YCKGYhy-wRkJ
 

Alto

Backwards financial system and a recession hard to come out of causes his ouster and the collapse of the populist wing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top