Historical continuity of Democrats and Republicans

[OSR stands with Israel]

Grover Cleveland though was a clear exception in that he was arguably one of the 4 most pro-business presidents we have ever had (Coolidge, Harding, McKinley) and its not even really for small vs big government because you honestly can call Andrew Jackson left despite being anti-big government as he did it from a populist framework while Cleveland was anything but a populist .


Cleveland was a strong supporter of the Gold Standard , was very anti union, and was pro-business in almost every conceivable way and you could make an argument he was more conservative than Harrison.


Politically on Economic issues/Domestic Policy there were far far more similarities between Grover Clevelend and William McKinley then there were between Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Ryan

[OSR stands with Israel]

Cleveland was a strong supporter of the Gold Standard , was very anti union, and was pro-business in almost every conceivable way and you could make an argument he was more conservative than Harrison.


Politically on Economic issues/Domestic Policy there were far far more similarities between Grover Clevelend and William McKinley then there were between Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Ryan

Grover Cleveland is the tail end of the eating around the big polished table of the Jacksonian Revolution. Cleveland thinks he is a Jacksonian by virtue of doing the same thing as Jackson, he thinks he is helping the poor. Just like Old Hickory, he supported hard money. Just like King Andrew, he opposed bigger government seeing it philosophically as a tool for the elites to enrich himself. Just like King Andrew, he opposed business monopolies. Just like King Andrew Jackson he opposed protectionism. Of course he supported immigration and he supported universal white male suffrage (though it is not like anyone opposed this by 1884 except for maybe some Plantation owners and New England blue blood aristocrats).

Grover Cleveland is like the George W. Bush of the Reagan Conservative dominated GOP, and William Jennings Bryan is the Donald Trump figure.

It is of no service to the poor farmer that the establishment has now embraced the populist rage of 30 or 50 years prior. They need help TODAY with TODAY's problems. Just like the Bushes failed to grasp that, so to did Cleveland and thus to achieve the same effect as a Jackson, as a Reagan, you need a new figure working against the traditional order of things, with a set of policies aimed at the challenges of today. Clinging to last cycle's revolutionaries, makes you the bourbons, the Rockefellers or the Bushes, it makes you next in line for the populist firing squad.

To call Cleveland a conservative because he is different from Bryan, would be like calling the Bushes Liberals because they disagree with Trump. In a relativist sense maybe, but I don't like to deal in relativist positioning because that is almost meaningless ("example: Brezhnev was a Conservative"). Its the opposite extreme in these discussions of using modern metrics (that's how you end up with "Louis XIV and Hitler were Socialists"). Both are wrong.

Then why did Cleveland support the gold standard, why did he oppose assistance for the unemployed , why was he extremely anti union as well .


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland


Look at the reasoning he gives for opposing government programs it’s not cause they would help the elitist but because he believes it’s unconstitutional. That’s an argument that Calvin Coolidge would make

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Andrew Jackson was clearly anti big government cause at the time big government was used to help elitists only while in Grover Cleveland cause he came out and opposed legislation specifically that helps the unemployed and look at that reasoning.



Also no George W Bush and Trump are similar on nearly 90% of the issues while it’s a stretch to say that Cleveland and Bryan are on even say 25%.


The better comparison is if someone like Jacob Javits was elected president who was clearly a liberal on the issues . Grover Cleveland was basically the Jacob Javits of the Democratic Party and he was basically primaried by Goldwater/Reagan . Javits was clearly a Liberal and to the left of many Democrats and it’s clear he would be a Dem by 1988/1992 it’s clear Cleveland would be a Republican by 1912ish

[OSR stands with Israel]

Cleveland was a strong supporter of the Gold Standard , was very anti union, and was pro-business in almost every conceivable way and you could make an argument he was more conservative than Harrison.


Politically on Economic issues/Domestic Policy there were far far more similarities between Grover Clevelend and William McKinley then there were between Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Ryan

Grover Cleveland is the tail end of the eating around the big polished table of the Jacksonian Revolution. Cleveland thinks he is a Jacksonian by virtue of doing the same thing as Jackson, he thinks he is helping the poor. Just like Old Hickory, he supported hard money. Just like King Andrew, he opposed bigger government seeing it philosophically as a tool for the elites to enrich himself. Just like King Andrew, he opposed business monopolies. Just like King Andrew Jackson he opposed protectionism. Of course he supported immigration and he supported universal white male suffrage (though it is not like anyone opposed this by 1884 except for maybe some Plantation owners and New England blue blood aristocrats).

Grover Cleveland is like the George W. Bush of the Reagan Conservative dominated GOP, and William Jennings Bryan is the Donald Trump figure.

It is of no service to the poor farmer that the establishment has now embraced the populist rage of 30 or 50 years prior. They need help TODAY with TODAY's problems. Just like the Bushes failed to grasp that, so to did Cleveland and thus to achieve the same effect as a Jackson, as a Reagan, you need a new figure working against the traditional order of things, with a set of policies aimed at the challenges of today. Clinging to last cycle's revolutionaries, makes you the bourbons, the Rockefellers or the Bushes, it makes you next in line for the populist firing squad.

To call Cleveland a conservative because he is different from Bryan, would be like calling the Bushes Liberals because they disagree with Trump. In a relativist sense maybe, but I don't like to deal in relativist positioning because that is almost meaningless ("example: Brezhnev was a Conservative"). Its the opposite extreme in these discussions of using modern metrics (that's how you end up with "Louis XIV and Hitler were Socialists"). Both are wrong.

Then why did Cleveland support the gold standard, why did he oppose assistance for the unemployed , why was he extremely anti union as well .

Because gold was seen traditionally as working against financial speculation and it is one thing that Democrats have agreed on from Jefferson and Madison (happy Orser? ) from 1792 to today is that they don't like financial speculation. The economics of who benefits and who loses has changed but the establishment still is stuck on yesterday, so they keep pursuing gold for its own merits, because of its innate qualities and because 50 years prior it was seen as a way to thwart speculation. The thing is financial speculation is like rats, you shine a light on one corner it will move to another, that is why every regulatory effort ultimately fails, it is fighting the last war so to speak. It is no different with Cleveland and Gold.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland


Look at the reasoning he gives for opposing government programs it’s not cause they would help the elitist but because he believes it’s unconstitutional. That’s an argument that Calvin Coolidge would make

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Andrew Jackson was clearly anti big government cause at the time big government was used to help elitists only while in Grover Cleveland cause he came out and opposed legislation specifically that helps the unemployed and look at that reasoning.

The concept of direct help to the poor and also of unions would work against the classically liberal economic philosophy that he is a ingrained in and thus would continue to keep that position because he thinks the on the whole, classical liberalism is better than economic nationalism. The primary issue of economics in this age isn't defined by welfare, it is defined by trade and trusts and in Cleveland's eyes he is just applying uniformly the principles of the philosophy that dictates that protectionism is bad, that monopolies are bad, also means that unemployment aid and unions are also bad. It is not case of Cleveland being conservative, it is a case of a dogmatic adherent to the economic bible from 1835, without understanding that the ground that dictated this bible's creation has changed. Thus always is economic conditions and thus policies have to adapt.

Also no George W Bush and Trump are similar on nearly 90% of the issues while it’s a stretch to say that Cleveland and Bryan are on even say 25%.

Is it a stretch by their standards? or Yours?
                     Grover          WJB
Trade             Free            Free
Trusts            Anti             Anti
Speculation   Anti             Anti
Immigration   Pro              Pro
Corruption     Anti             Anti


These were big five dividing lines between the parties prior to 1896. They both generally line up the same way and both come across as obvious Democrats for the period.

Also while it is true that Cleveland was a leader of the so called "Bourbon Democrats" that included a number of rich people, it is worth remembering that they themselves would never have called themselves that. In fact this is a pejorative term by their opponents, just like Whigs calling other Whigs, "Tories" in the 18th Century UK. They would have considered themselves Democrats, perhaps even Jacksonian Democrats. The reason why their were rich people supporting "Jacksonian Democrats" is because well their were rich people supporting Jackson in 1832. What matters is what rich people and why? Well rich people of immigrant backgrounds obviously. Rich people whose industry was harmed by the protectionism of the dominant GOP-Economic Nationalist-Industrial Complex that had been built up over the past years. And of course the obvious group, plantation owners who for obvious reasons had been directly harmed by GOP policies, still yearned for free trade and were definitely on the outs in terms of national power, even if they dominated their local area (like being a rich man in a third world country, you are still an outsider on the global scene).


Also don't forget, WJB is considered a conservative culturally by the 1920's against the likes of "progressive" Al Smith. And Al Smith was a Republican by 1940 for all intents and purposes. When these revolutions happen, people get tossed aside and it is always messy. Suddenly, the party isn't your kind of conservative or your kind of liberal anymore and you prefer to stake your lot in with the other side. The story of liberalism in the period from 1890 - 1940 is as Truman referenced, a messy period in which old understandings are tossed aside and an attempt to adapt to the challenges of the modern age is thus made. During this process many people still clinging to classical liberalism decide to throw in with the right and over time the right shifts its rhetoric to accommodate them (its kind of like how forum libertarians either become Socialists or far rights conservatives when they get older).

But leaving that aside, on the ground in as late as 1892, there is nothing about Grover Cleveland that doesn't scream bog standard Democrat for the time, not because the Democrats were the conservative party, but because that is where liberalism was in 1892. Free Trade, against monopolies, against speculation, for immigration and against corruption.

I fully agree with the fact that Grover Cleveland matches up with Classical Liberalism more than what conservative was there but the question is you could argue that classical liberalism matches up with conservatism more than it does with modern liberalism. Also the question wasnt really between fiat money and a central bank vs Gold in which case you could argue the pro gold stance is the more pro worker stance , the question was between Gold vs Bimetallism and remember the US had bimetallism in place until 1873. Bimetallism was not abandoned by Democrats but by the Republicans so Cleveland taking the postion he took on gold matches him with the GOP more than it does with the Democrats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetallism#United_States

With its acceptance, Sec.11 of the Coinage Act of 1792 established: "That the proportional value of gold to silver in all coins which shall by law be current as money within the United States, shall be as fifteen to one, according to quantity in weight, of pure gold or pure silver;" the proportion had slipped by 1834 to sixteen to one. Silver took a further hit with the Coinage Act of 1853, when nearly all silver coin denominations were debased, effectively turning silver coinage into a fiduciary currency based on its face value rather than its weighted value. Bimetallism was effectively abandoned by the Coinage Act of 1873, but not formally outlawed as legal currency until the early 20th century.

I understand that opposing government programs was not favored by the left in the Jackson time but thats cause the time was much different and government programs back then mainly favored the wealthy but Cleveland explicitly says here he opposes government programs to the people itself because its unconstitutional which is a conservative argument. Yes its also a classical liberal positon but you could argue that classical liberalism matches up more with conservatism than post 1896 liberalism. His opposition to unions was also a pro business side 100%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike



Also remember anti trust laws were passed under President Harrison a Republican and named from  prominent Republican

[OSR stands with Israel]

I fully agree with the fact that Grover Cleveland matches up with Classical Liberalism more than what conservative was there but the question is you could argue that classical liberalism matches up with conservatism more than it does with modern liberalism.

Well, no, not really. This is a very superficial take for reasons that have already been examined exhaustively in this thread: it confuses means with ends and presumes that everything wet is water, rather than examining motives and intent.

Classical liberalism is not libertarianism. (You did not say this, but the two are confused often enough for it to be necessary to address it explicitly.) As a rule I don't like to even use that term, because people forget that "classical" is an adjective and not part of the term itself. "Classical-liberalism" does not and never existed. Used correctly, the term refers to the expression liberalism takes in a pre-industrial society. Nobody is a classical liberal today, any more than a particularly hairy or inarticulate man is a Neanderthal. Conservatism has a fundamentally different set of assumptions about how the world works and different goals for its ideal form of society. Cleveland did not share those goals, hence why he is not a conservative (except perhaps in a relative sense).

As for the labor issue —much as it pains me to say it, liberals are not automatically pro-labor. H*ll, Harry Truman threatened to draft strikers in the 1940s, for all the noise he made about Taft-Hartley. As I said earlier in this thread, nineteenth century Democrats were a liberal party, not a labor party. That's an important distinction that is often lost on Americans, but it remains important in other Western countries where liberals and socialists do not cooperate electorally.

Yes i understand that but looking at how Cleveland justified his policies it seems like his intentions were to be pro business in general. His opposition to goverment programs weren't because they benefited the elite but because they were unconstitutional which is a  conservative argument.

His position on Gold isnt similar to Jackson either cause remember he opposed bimetallism which Jackson did not oppose and was abondened not by Democrats but by Republicans. So Cleveland was basically supporting Republican policies when it came to Gold.


The best example for Cleveland actually would be imo to be a Jacob Javits/Zell Miller figure in the party

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes i understand that but looking at how Cleveland justified his policies it seems like his intentions were to be pro business in general.

They call it liberal capitalism for a reason. Yankee does a good job of explaining how the revolutionaries of yesterday are the establishment of today —read his post again.

His opposition to goverment programs weren't because they benefited the elite but because they were unconstitutional which is a  conservative argument.

No it isn't. Especially at that moment in history, you were more likely to hear strict constructionist arguments coming from liberals than from conservatives. Of course, neither party has ever let the constitution stand in the way of their legislative agenda, and it's silly to pretend that is an ideological distinction.

His position on Gold isnt similar to Jackson either cause remember he opposed bimetallism which Jackson did not oppose and was abondened not by Democrats but by Republicans. So Cleveland was basically supporting Republican policies when it came to Gold.

Again, see above. I recently described Cleveland on the IP board as representative of a tradition of Bourbon liberalism that had long since outlived it's usefulness. That bit of editorial aside, Cleveland was clearly and old-fashioned liberal and by 1896 was behind the times —but that was at the end of his career, twelve years after his first presidential campaign. Cleveland couldn't have been nominated three times by the national Democratic party if he was some friendless gadfly with no connection to the party's history or values. In that sense he's more like Bill Clinton than Zell Miller —a politician popular in his day whose brand of politics has aged poorly as his party turns toward radical alternatives to the status quo.

Democrats probably nominated him a me too type of candidate in which the only way the could win was by being sorta Republican lite in a way . So Bill Clinton on steroids