Frank DiStefano's book The Next Realignment

[lpetrich]

FDS concludes with discussing "the American dream". Quoting historian James Truslow Adams (1931):

But there has been also the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.

Does any other nation have a national dream?

This new government would ban titles of nobility and its chief executive would be no duke or king or consul or emperor but a mere “president,” a title that at the time had the connotation of the simple leader of a meeting. From the very beginning, America was created as a nation in which anyone could become anything. In reality, of course, not every American was yet included in this dream—slavery, the non-inclusion of Native Americans, traditional gender roles, and historical divisions excluded many Americans from the full promise of these ideals. Yet America still purposely embedded this dream in the new republic's culture and institutions, at a time when even holding out such ideals was radical compared to the rigid divisions that had reigned across the rest of the world throughout the entirety of human history.

He then discussed "rebuilding parties around the American dream" and he proposed that parties form around addressing how to do that.

But I'm not going to try to predict what an upcoming party system might look like.

 

[Swammerdami]

Interesting fact: Monetary policy was often a key issue in the political divide.

Hamilton and the Federalists established the First Bank of the United States to create a common currency, help finance the federal government, and pay off war debts. 80% of the capital was private, much from foreign investors (though their shares were non-voting). This was strongly opposed by Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans who felt the Bank would increase federal power, and work for the interests of financiers and businesses but not for farmers and other common people. Trading tobacco and grain for gold or silver (rather than for paper money) was a simple natural transaction farmers could understand. I think Jefferson also resented that the Revolutionary scrip farmers had sold to speculators for pennies on the dollar would be redeemed at face value.

The D-R's took power, and when the First Bank's charter expired in 1811 its assets were sold to Stephen Girard. (172 years later Girard Bank merged with Mellon Bank.)

Five years after the First Bank was dissolved, the D-R's under Madison, with an improved understanding of finance and faced with the chaos of unregulated private paper money, reversed Jefferson's position and established the Second Bank of the United States. This Bank succeeded in its goals and became the largest financial institution in the world! But this Bank became a major political issue and led to a schism in the D-R Party, with Andrew Jackson opposing it for alleged corruption and also for much the same reasons as Jefferson had opposed the First Bank. President Jackson had his Treasury withdraw funds from the Bank, depositing them in banks owned by his political allies, and when this Bank's 20-year charter expired, it was dissolved. Historians still debate who was "right" in the Jackson-vs-Bank war, but Jackson's actions did lead to financial panics in 1833 and 1837. Restoration of a central bank was a major goal of the Whig Party. (Although Lincoln issued paper money to finance the Civil War, and the Treasury was given much power over the years, there was no third central bank until Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.)

And so on and so forth. William Jennings Bryan made silver coinage the major issue of the Democratic Party for a while: this really meant inflation to serve the needs of indebted farmers. Banks and other creditors were happy with deflation so supported the Republican Party. FDR's introduction of paper money not backed by gold, again favoring debtors over creditors, followed in Bryan's footsteps and is still ranted about on YouTube 88 years later.

Monetary policy seems increasingly irrelevant in recent years. But some wonder whether paper money will lose its magic some day. Perhaps there is another political schism in our future based on monetary policy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Interesting fact: Monetary policy was often a key issue in the political divide.

Hamilton and the Federalists established the First Bank of the United States to create a common currency, help finance the federal government, and pay off war debts. 80% of the capital was private, much from foreign investors (though their shares were non-voting). This was strongly opposed by Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans who felt the Bank would increase federal power, and work for the interests of financiers and businesses but not for farmers and other common people. Trading tobacco and grain for gold or silver (rather than for paper money) was a simple natural transaction farmers could understand. I think Jefferson also resented that the Revolutionary scrip farmers had sold to speculators for pennies on the dollar would be redeemed at face value.

The D-R's took power, and when the First Bank's charter expired in 1811 its assets were sold to Stephen Girard. (172 years later Girard Bank merged with Mellon Bank.)

Five years after the First Bank was dissolved, the D-R's under Madison, with an improved understanding of finance and faced with the chaos of unregulated private paper money, reversed Jefferson's position and established the Second Bank of the United States. This Bank succeeded in its goals and became the largest financial institution in the world! But this Bank became a major political issue and led to a schism in the D-R Party, with Andrew Jackson opposing it for alleged corruption and also for much the same reasons as Jefferson had opposed the First Bank. President Jackson had his Treasury withdraw funds from the Bank, depositing them in banks owned by his political allies, and when this Bank's 20-year charter expired, it was dissolved. Historians still debate who was "right" in the Jackson-vs-Bank war, but Jackson's actions did lead to financial panics in 1833 and 1837. Restoration of a central bank was a major goal of the Whig Party. (Although Lincoln issued paper money to finance the Civil War, and the Treasury was given much power over the years, there was no third central bank until Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.)

And so on and so forth. William Jennings Bryan made silver coinage the major issue of the Democratic Party for a while: this really meant inflation to serve the needs of indebted farmers. Banks and other creditors were happy with deflation so supported the Republican Party. FDR's introduction of paper money not backed by gold, again favoring debtors over creditors, followed in Bryan's footsteps and is still ranted about on YouTube 88 years later.

Monetary policy seems increasingly irrelevant in recent years. But some wonder whether paper money will lose its magic some day. Perhaps there is another political schism in our future based on monetary policy.

Monetary policy, the domestic economy and militarism seem to be the immiscible amalgam driving global events. Sometimes I think the only thing propping up the USD is militarism and national interdependence. There will certainly never be a return to something like a gold type standard.