Comparing our era to the Gilded Age and highlighting the differences between Senator Bernie Sanders and William Jennings Bryan and then riffing on whether our country is on the decline—these are some of the questions that the electoral-vote.com site was answering during its Saturday Q&A, while the U.S. was experiencing its third No Kings protest. I found the answers worth repeating on my blog.
As usual there were some other interesting Qs and As, not the least of which was a 5,000 word answer to the ten best players in MLB history. The full Q&A is here.
W.H. in San Jose, CA, asks: I’ve been reading text and watching videos that compare our current era of American history to the Gilded Age, along with drawing parallels between Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and William Jennings Bryan. What do you think of these comparisons? Does it hold merit, or is it just people seeing patterns that are just coincidence?
(Z) answers: I will start by pointing out the Bryan was a Populist, not a Progressive. While both movements were concerned with the deleterious effects of entrenched political and economic power, they drew from very different political bases. In particular, Bryan was a devout evangelical Christian who couched his ideas in Biblical language, and he was also someone who had to pander to significant racist elements in his movement (even though Bryan himself was not especially racist by the standards of his day). Sanders is not an evangelical Christian, and in fact does not use religious language at all, and he doesn’t pander to racists. So, I would be leery of lumping them together, excepting that the original Populists and the original Progressives confronted a world beset by an unusual number of problems, and modern-day populists and progressives seem to be facing the same thing.
And that pretty much gives you my answer to your question: Yes, as I have written before, I believe that the U.S. is in a New Gilded Age. In particular, the Gilded Age was characterized by a significant uptick in racism and racial violence, which we are certainly seeing today. The Gilded Age was characterized by an increasingly imperialist foreign policy, which we are certainly seeing today. The Gilded Age was characterized by an imbalance in power between business owners and laborers, with the former having nearly all the power and the latter having very little. This is something we are certainly seeing today. And, most importantly, the Gilded Age was characterized by a wealth gap, with many rich people, and many poor people, and a shrinking middle class. That is most certainly happening today, as well. In 1890, which is basically the climax of the Gilded Age, the top 1% of Americans owned 25% of the wealth. Today, the top 1% own… 31%.
M.T. in St. Paul, MN, asks: It seems the U.S. is in decline. I’m very much an amateur when it comes to understanding why past empires declined but know there are multiple reasons, depending on which empire and which era. I don’t believe Donald Trump is responsible for America’s decline, though he is accelerating it. I’m curious if you agree America is in decline, if so what is the most important reason for that decline, and where America comes out in the end, assuming the lunacy of Trump and MAGA eventually fade away. As an example, as an amateur, I believe Britain’s decline was due to overreach, trying to control a massive empire when it could no longer do so.
Just as an FYI, the article that triggered this question is New York Times article written by Carlos Lozada, headlined “America Has Become a Dangerous Nation,” and beginning with the observation: “We had a good run—some eight decades or so—but it is clear by now that the United States has ceased to be the leader of the free world.”
(Z) answers: I think that there is no question the U.S. is in decline, and has been so for at least 30-40 years.
As to the reason, my answer is “unsophisticated thinking,” which has manifest in two very important ways. The first is that, over the course of the era of plenty (the latter half of the 20th century), many Americans eventually shifted to a way of thinking that amounts to “I’ve got mine, who cares if they’ve got theirs.” There was a time, particularly right after World War II, when the majority accepted that everyone benefits if the roads and bridges are kept in good repair, that everyone benefits if the nation has a large number of college-educated people, that everyone benefits if it’s plausible to make a good wage and to afford to own a home and raise a family and become a productive member of your community. Now, selfishness is more common than interest in the common good (maybe because World War II, the last time this nation truly rallied, was so long ago?). The result is a society that has been hollowed out from within, and where many people are not especially interested in the overall health and strength of the nation, while others are looking for convenient scapegoats to blame for their troubles.
The second, which is something of a variant of the first, is that America’s empire-like power since World War II has always been much more about its soft power (alliances, cooperation, diplomacy) and much less about its hard power (military). However, particularly recently, and on the instigation of people who aren’t very sophisticated thinkers, the nation has lavished money on the military, and has neglected its soft power. There was most certainly a time when having the biggest guns and the most soldiers was all you needed to impose your will on the planet, or a large portion of it, but that time has long passed. And the U.S. might well have done enough to damage its soft power, at this point, that it cannot be fixed. Meanwhile, this spending of $1 trillion/year on the military is not sustainable, long-term. So, the U.S. is likely to recede further and further in terms of both types of power.
You are right that Donald Trump was not the cause of all this, but he certainly harnessed it in his rise to power, and he has certainly accelerated the trends (and note that I initially typed that as “accelerated the trans,” which may or may not be a Freudian slip). As a historian, I am more about understanding the past rather than predicting the future, but I would say that absent a sea-change event like World War II, the U.S. is not likely to regain its hegemonic status. It will settle in as one of the next-tier powers, along with the U.K., Russia, France, etc., with all looking up at China. And this is going to be painful for the American people, as the country won’t be as safe, and goods will not be as available or as cheap, with the result being that quality of life will degrade.
There are, I will note, three presidents that really serve as the main drivers of all of this, with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush joining the list, in addition to Trump. However, I think that if you managed to revive any of the pre-Reagan Republican presidents, particularly Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, they would agree with every word I have written here.
What do you think?