Were William Jennings Bryan and FDR anti-worker neoliberals?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Yes, because opposing tariffs means neoliberal shill apparently.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Troll topic. Tariffs weren't for the benefit of the average worker back then.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Troll topic. Tariffs weren't for the benefit of the average worker back then.

And they aren't today either.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Troll topic. Tariffs weren't for the benefit of the average worker back then.

I can’t wait for people like you to make my Nissan Sentra cost much more than a Chevy Cruze that gets recalled every week all because you think tariffs saves the working man.

[Yank2133]

The left hated FDR in his day.

[Jeffster]

The original reason the Democratic party was against tariffs was because they were the party of slavery. They didn't want other countries to slap tariffs on their goods and take away the advantage of using cheap slave labor. Democrats maintained their shameful reactionary position against all tariffs as a holdover from those awful years, but they switched the justification to claim that they really care about consumers. Of course now they don't care when those consumers lose their good paying job to outsourcing and have to settle for lower paying service jobs.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The original reason the Democratic party was against tariffs was because they were the party of slavery. They didn't want other countries to slap tariffs on their goods and take away the advantage of using cheap slave labor. Democrats maintained their shameful reactionary position against all tariffs as a holdover from those awful years, but they switched the justification to claim that they really care about consumers. Of course now they don't care when those consumers lose their good paying job to outsourcing and have to settle for lower paying service jobs.

TIL slavery was not abolished until after FDR's Presidency.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

Huey Long referred to himself as a Tariff Democrat.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Also FDR repealed tariffs because they were destroying the world economy. Was Smoot-Hawley helping American workers?

[Jeffster]

The original reason the Democratic party was against tariffs was because they were the party of slavery. They didn't want other countries to slap tariffs on their goods and take away the advantage of using cheap slave labor. Democrats maintained their shameful reactionary position against all tariffs as a holdover from those awful years, but they switched the justification to claim that they really care about consumers. Of course now they don't care when those consumers lose their good paying job to outsourcing and have to settle for lower paying service jobs.

TIL slavery was not abolished until after FDR's Presidency.

Learn to read. I said the Democratic party's position on tariffs were born out preserving their advantage from slavery. As Republicans took up the position of using tariffs to build domestic industry, Democrats maintained their reactionary position, only changing the justifications over time. It was never about helping the people, but about keeping the donor class happy, shifting from the slaver interests to the corporate interests.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The original reason the Democratic party was against tariffs was because they were the party of slavery. They didn't want other countries to slap tariffs on their goods and take away the advantage of using cheap slave labor. Democrats maintained their shameful reactionary position against all tariffs as a holdover from those awful years, but they switched the justification to claim that they really care about consumers. Of course now they don't care when those consumers lose their good paying job to outsourcing and have to settle for lower paying service jobs.

TIL slavery was not abolished until after FDR's Presidency.

Learn to read, moron. I said the Democratic party's position on tariffs were born out preserving their advantage from slavery. As Republicans took up the position of using tariffs to build domestic industry, Democrats maintained their reactionary position, only changing the justifications over time. It was never about helping the people, but about keeping the donor class happy, shifting from the slaver interests to the corporate interests.

Smoot-Hawley was helping build American industry?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The original reason the Democratic party was against tariffs was because they were the party of slavery. They didn't want other countries to slap tariffs on their goods and take away the advantage of using cheap slave labor. Democrats maintained their shameful reactionary position against all tariffs as a holdover from those awful years, but they switched the justification to claim that they really care about consumers. Of course now they don't care when those consumers lose their good paying job to outsourcing and have to settle for lower paying service jobs.

TIL slavery was not abolished until after FDR's Presidency.

Learn to read, moron. I said the Democratic party's position on tariffs were born out preserving their advantage from slavery. As Republicans took up the position of using tariffs to build domestic industry, Democrats maintained their reactionary position, only changing the justifications over time. It was never about helping the people, but about keeping the donor class happy, shifting from the slaver interests to the corporate interests.

And the fact that it brought unprecedented prosperity is totally beside the point.

[darklordoftech]

RINO Tom's answer to the OP's question would be accurate.

[Sumner 1868]

The original reason the Democratic party was against tariffs was because they were the party of slavery. They didn't want other countries to slap tariffs on their goods and take away the advantage of using cheap slave labor. Democrats maintained their shameful reactionary position against all tariffs as a holdover from those awful years, but they switched the justification to claim that they really care about consumers. Of course now they don't care when those consumers lose their good paying job to outsourcing and have to settle for lower paying service jobs.

TIL slavery was not abolished until after FDR's Presidency.

Learn to read, moron. I said the Democratic party's position on tariffs were born out preserving their advantage from slavery. As Republicans took up the position of using tariffs to build domestic industry, Democrats maintained their reactionary position, only changing the justifications over time. It was never about helping the people, but about keeping the donor class happy, shifting from the slaver interests to the corporate interests.

And the fact that it brought unprecedented prosperity is totally beside the point.

Can we stop pretending that Bill Clinton's house of cards speculative bubble was "prosperity" please? It was a shocking display of gross irresponsibility and the nostalgia for it is horrible.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The original reason the Democratic party was against tariffs was because they were the party of slavery. They didn't want other countries to slap tariffs on their goods and take away the advantage of using cheap slave labor. Democrats maintained their shameful reactionary position against all tariffs as a holdover from those awful years, but they switched the justification to claim that they really care about consumers. Of course now they don't care when those consumers lose their good paying job to outsourcing and have to settle for lower paying service jobs.

TIL slavery was not abolished until after FDR's Presidency.

Learn to read, moron. I said the Democratic party's position on tariffs were born out preserving their advantage from slavery. As Republicans took up the position of using tariffs to build domestic industry, Democrats maintained their reactionary position, only changing the justifications over time. It was never about helping the people, but about keeping the donor class happy, shifting from the slaver interests to the corporate interests.

And the fact that it brought unprecedented prosperity is totally beside the point.

Can we stop pretending that Bill Clinton's house of cards speculative bubble was "prosperity" please? It was a shocking display of gross irresponsibility and the nostalgia for it is horrible.

What are you talking about? Your comment is completely unrelated to mine.

[Mr. Smith]

The original reason the Democratic party was against tariffs was because they were the party of slavery. They didn't want other countries to slap tariffs on their goods and take away the advantage of using cheap slave labor. Democrats maintained their shameful reactionary position against all tariffs as a holdover from those awful years, but they switched the justification to claim that they really care about consumers. Of course now they don't care when those consumers lose their good paying job to outsourcing and have to settle for lower paying service jobs.

TIL slavery was not abolished until after FDR's Presidency.

Learn to read. I said the Democratic party's position on tariffs were born out preserving their advantage from slavery. As Republicans took up the position of using tariffs to build domestic industry, Democrats maintained their reactionary position, only changing the justifications over time. It was never about helping the people, but about keeping the donor class happy, shifting from the slaver interests to the corporate interests.

Don't kid yourself about the GOP using tariffs to "build domestic industry", their plank, especially those goldbug ones were just in it for their donor classes who stood to benefit the most from such mercantilism.

[darklordoftech]

McKinley and Hoover would probably support free trade today.

[YE]

No because back then the GOP supported tarrifs to profit off of them as the GOP was and still is the party of big businesses. How this pertains todays NAFTA news I'm not sure other than hofoid seemingly went off the rails as usual (and I say this as someone who's actually moderately protectionist).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Tariffs were a lot higher in those days.

[Ye We Can]

No because back then the GOP supported tarrifs to profit off of them as the GOP was and still is the party of big businesses. How this pertains todays NAFTA news I'm not sure other than hofoid seemingly went off the rails as usual (and I say this as someone who's actually moderately protectionist).

Its a bit more complicated than that; its important to remember that the first Permanent income tax wasn't passed until the Wilson administration. Tariffs were the most important government tax revenue until the 1920's or so, and because the GOP wasn't retarded in those days most conservative Republicans supported tariffs to pay for what meager government programs were around those days instead of an income tax, which was scary to most Republicans back then.

[Beet]

Is Obama an Alt-Right Nationalist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF9gpvI2UfU

[RINO Tom]

Without simplifying things TOO much, it should be perfectly obvious to everyone that motive matters a lot more than method when determining ideology.  In a modern example, Trump is not supporting protectionist policies for the same reason that Bernie Sanders is.  Period.  Just as Teddy Roosevelt hated William Jennings Bryan with a burning passion, you can have a similar "populist bent" or whatever and still be ideologically opposed.

From a historical perspective, it should also be perfectly obvious that support for tariffs being "left wing" or "right wing" would depend entirely on context and, more specifically, how developed your economy is.  In a developing economy where tariffs are used to prop up your country's business community at the potential expense of some consumers, it's fairly easy to make a left-wing argument against protectionism.  Similarly, when you're a world superpower and you prefer to import the cheapest goods from all over in an effort to maximize trade efficiency but this might hurt a few sectors via market forces, it's easy to find a left-wing argument against excessive free trade.  The Twentieth Century (specifically from World War II up until we went off the Gold Standard) really seemed to have put the parties in limbo with how they aligned on these issues.

Regardless of your opinions on trade/what method works better for "workers" or whatever-the-, it's very irresponsible to compare people's trade stances across several decades.

EDIT: I appreciate the "Yes" votes, though.  Make Atlas Fun Again.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

From a historical perspective, it should also be perfectly obvious that support for tariffs being "left wing" or "right wing" would depend entirely on context and, more specifically, how developed your economy is.  In a developing economy where tariffs are used to prop up your country's business community at the potential expense of some consumers, it's fairly easy to make a left-wing argument against protectionism.  Similarly, when you're a world superpower and you prefer to import the cheapest goods from all over in an effort to maximize trade efficiency but this might hurt a few sectors via market forces, it's easy to find a left-wing argument against excessive free trade.  The Twentieth Century (specifically from World War II up until we went off the Gold Standard) really seemed to have put the parties in limbo with how they aligned on these issues.

Regardless of your opinions on trade/what method works better for "workers" or whatever-the-, it's very irresponsible to compare people's trade stances across several decades.

EDIT: I appreciate the "Yes" votes, though.  Make Atlas Fun Again.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Troll topic. Tariffs weren't for the benefit of the average worker back then.

And they aren't today either.

[Orser67]

This is similar to the idea that JFK was a conservative because he cut taxes. The fact is that the politics of today are vastly different from what they were 50-120 years ago, and it's very hard to make direct comparisons across political eras. Tariff levels were generally pretty high between the Civil War and World War 2, whereas today they're at the lowest levels ever. So just like with JFK and taxes (JFK wanted to lower the top marginal rate from 91 percent to 65 percent), the baseline of the tariff was vastly different.

WJB saw the tariff primarily as a special favor granted to industrialists, who enriched themselves via higher prices for consumers. A great example of this is Joseph Wharton, who had a monopoly on nickel production in the U.S. but nonetheless convinced Congress to put high tariffs on nickel. WJB also believed that U.S. tariff rates were unfair to American farmers since they didn't protect agricultural products in the same way that they protected manufacturing.

FDR's views on the tariff were more nuanced, but he at least could be accused of something similar to neoliberalism since his support for free trade was based partly on building a stable world order. Early in his presidency, though, he actually undercut a major international effort to lower tariffs because he wanted a "free hand" in domestic policy.