From: nyt%nyxfer%igc.apc.org@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (NY Transfer News)
Subject: HIST:How Capitalism Rules/Pt.15
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: The NY Transfer News Service
Resent-From: "Rich Winkel" <MATHRICH@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:23:09 GMT


Via The NY Transfer News Service ^ All the News that Doesn't Fit

                    The Republocrats, Part 15:

                    The Power Behind McKinley

                        By Vince Copeland


The 1896 defeat of the Democrat William Jennings Bryan had its
lessons, as did the victory of the Republican William McKinley
(1897-1901). But they were different lessons.

By 1896 both the national government and the Republican Party had
evolved a little further, although not yet into a smoothly running
machine. The government was run more efficiently, however, with the
new civil service system, such as it was, beginning to take effect
and the party leaders settling into positions more manageable by
big business.

At the same time, however, the direct personal intervention of big
business was being stepped up. The division of labor  between
politician and businessperson was eroding a little.

The frock coat and shoe-string necktie of the professional
politician was still a common sight in Washington, but so was the
diamond stick-pin. And this was not just the costume of the
lobbyists.

Did this mean that politics was now cruder or that the
multimillionaires in Washington were less skilled than the
traditional politicians? In some cases, yes. But certain U.S.
Senators and Cabinet appointees showed great skill, as we have
explained.

THE RULERS ARE NOT THE RULING CLASS

Since humanity became divided into rich and poor in the period of
civilization, there has never been a society without a division of
labor between the rulers and the ruling class as a whole--that is,
no really "participatory democracy" has ever prevailed as a method
of class rule.

The exception of the New England town meeting may come to mind. But
even this, insofar as it was real, was not very extensive. And the
much-vaunted Greek democracy of several centuries BC was
interspersed with dictators--appropriately named "tyrannos"--who
were either elected or took power by coup. Most important, the
democracy itself was exercised by only about one-sixth or
one-seventh of the male population. The rest were slaves.

Representative government is almost by definition a matter of
division of labor and specialization. Dictatorial governments, on
the other hand, whether of kings, queens, generals, or civilians of
the right or left, tend to embody the art of statecraft in one
person.

Even instances of one-person rule usually rely on a surprising
number of lesser-known figures who have to learn the politician's
trade. One of their most obvious but less appreciated functions is
that of lightning rod, so to speak, to take the heat off the big
leaders and lead it harmlessly into the ground as people get
dissatisfied with the "politicians" and disregard the faults of the
real oppressors behind them.

However, it is significant that from 1860 to 1884 the politicians
were the exclusive leaders of the U.S. government. Big business had
to operate from the outside rather than the inside of government.

Regardless of all the corruption on the national level and even the
bold takeover of some state legislatures by corporate bribery,
there was no one in this period who even attempted to play the role
William Whitney later did in the national government.

MORE IMPORTANT TO MAKE MONEY

On the one hand, this may be said to be the "progressive" period of
U.S. capitalism--that is, progressive in the sense that it was
expanding and booming and optimistic. It hadn't yet shut out small
entrepreneurs and it was developing the means of production at home
without having to exploit other countries--always excepting the
super-oppression of its own semi-colony in the South.

On the other hand, the biggest figures in the ruling class itself
wanted to give their undivided attention to making money. And the
times were so competitive, the competition so dangerous if one lost
and so rewarding if one was victorious, that government was not a
profession that multimillionaires usually wanted to absorb
themselves in. This is probably the secret reason for the relative
lack of top Wall Street figures in the Cabinets at that time.

The U.S. Senate was an important exception. But in those days even
the Senate was generally composed of less wealthy individuals who
then made their million or two while in "public service." Nelson
Aldrich, probably the star performer in that respect, had built a
fortune of $50,000 as a wholesale grocer in Rhode Island. He came
out of the U.S. Senate 30 years later with $12 million.

By 1885, however, Wall Street had moved into the Cabinet. William
Whitney (Secretary of the Navy, 1885-89) began to play a central
role that would last until 1897, while Levi P. Morton, the
country's second biggest banker, could become vice president
(1889-93), although not in quite the role of Whitney, to be sure.
There would seem to be some more fundamental explanation than just
individual energy, ambition or caprice.

A NEW STAR WAS RISING

What makes this question the more crucial is the fact that while
Whitney was at his peak with the Democrats, a new star of the same
type was rising among the Republicans. This was Mark Hanna of
Cleveland. Just as Grover Cleveland was Whitney's protege, so
William McKinley was Mark Hanna's.

Whitney was in the Rockefeller political stable and tied to the
Rockefellers by the massive Standard Oil fortune of his wife's
family (the Paynes). He had big financial ventures of his own with
loose ties to some J.P. Morgan interests. It is possible that his
king-making job was made easier and his maneuvers less penetrable
because he was a Democrat and the Democrats were not generally
identified as the Wall Street party.

Mark Hanna, however, was almost a caricature of a Republican
businessman--swaggering, paunchy, bullying. Cartoonists loved to
portray him with dollar signs all over his suit. He was also known
as a Rockefeller man, but like Whitney he was wise enough (or maybe
he did it instinctively) to look after the interests of the whole
of big business rather than just those of the Rockefeller group.
While he of course did not neglect them, he was no mere messenger
of the Rockefellers but a big operator on his own.

There is no question that his motivation was definitely to become
top political leader and king-maker. He did not become a U.S.
Senator himself until 1897, the year McKinley took office. Hanna
finally bought his membership from the all too willing Ohio state
legislature.

He was well trained, having mainly schooled himself in the
intricacies of politics. He founded the Ohio Republican
Businessman's Clubs as early as 1880; these were copied throughout
the country. His acquaintance with the wheelers and dealers of
local politics stemmed from an early date when he was involved in
the streetcar and surface railway business.

For example, he outmaneuvered another streetcar capitalist named
Tom Johnson. Johnson, a radical follower of Henry George, had been
elected mayor of Cleveland whereupon he reduced the fare for
Cleveland streetcars from five to three cents, proving that a fare
cut was possible. But Hanna, through judicious bribery and
well-planned publicity, was able to get the City Council to negate
all Johnson had done and monopolize the street car business
himself.

The voters could hardly be blamed for stupidity here. They elected
Johnson not once but twice, but they were helpless against the
machinations of the other politicians in the city who were in the
pay of or under obligation to Mark Hanna and his gang.

EMPIRE OF BIG CAPITAL

Hanna was also the owner of a whole fleet of Great Lakes ore boats
and wheat boats. He had a chain of iron and steel plants, several
coal mines and was also president of a bank. All this gave him
entree to the offices of a large section of the aristocracy of big
business.

In addition to all this, he did not hesitate to use his money with
the most telling effectiveness. He said to a group of fellow
plunderers--shocking them somewhat with his frankness--"All
questions of government in a democracy are questions of money."
(Thomas Beer, "Hanna," 1929, p. 168)

This might be called ordinary street wisdom today and be regarded
merely as an excess of cynicism. But a hundred years ago this
king-maker saw the power of money in elections and law-making and
shared his insight with his friends. "He believed in monopoly more
honestly than most men believe in religion," says historian F.C.
Howe. ("Confessions of a Reformer," p. 151)

HANNA MEETS MCKINLEY

Hanna first became acquainted with McKinley when the latter was
still a member of the House of Representatives and Hanna was
supporting Joseph P. Foraker for governor of Ohio, grooming him for
president. Hanna had a falling out with Foraker and latched onto
McKinley as the better of the two politicians.

For one thing, McKinley was a passionate devotee of the high tariff
so beloved by big business and its Republican supporters at that
time. He defended and rationalized it better than most people and
even most Republican politicians.

After failing by a hair's breadth to get his man in as Speaker of
the House, Hanna was instrumental (putting it politely) in getting
McKinley appointed chairman of the strategic House Ways and Means
Committee. He later spearheaded McKinley's campaign for governor of
Ohio. Everybody at the time understood that Hanna was behind
McKinley's victory.

As a senator, McKinley made more friends and was careful for some
time not to antagonize the free silver people. But he finally, at
the beginning of his presidential campaign, took a clear and
definite position supporting gold alone as the standard for U.S.
currency.

HOW HANNA SEWED IT UP

Hanna sewed up the Republican convention for McKinley by purchasing
the votes of the Black Southern delegates (who now had practically
no other political function than to give or sell their support to
Republican presidential candidates at conventions). He did this
long before the convention and before McKinley's factional rivals
were awake to what was happening.

He also rounded up the white delegates of several Western states in
similar fashion. And this, too, was long before the actual
convention date. (Primaries did not then exist on any real scale.)
His machine was efficient, smooth and effective. The "professional"
politicians were dumbfounded.

The majority of the Wall Street crew had wanted to put the banker
Levi Morton in the presidency. Under the conditions prevailing in
1896, this would not have been such a smart move, since the
opposition to Wall Street was so intense.

After the convention, however, all the barons of high finance got
behind McKinley. The threat of Bryanism was a very real one and the
struggle was one for the supremacy of big capital. True, Bryan
would not have led a socialist revolution. Nor would any of the big
fortunes have been really shaved down, at least not immediately.
But a Bryan victory would have been a real setback for big
business.

Accordingly, Hanna was able to collect what was a staggering sum in
those days--at least $16 million. He got it mainly by assessing
every Wall Street business a percentage of its profits for the
year. If nothing else was revolutionary in the 1896 election, that
was.

(Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if
source is cited. For more info contact Workers World,46 W. 21 St.,
New York, NY 10010; "workers@mcimail.com".)

 -----
 NY Transfer News Service
 Modem: 718-448-2358  nytransfer@igc.apc.org  nyxfer@panix.co


     The N.Y. Transfer News Service 718-448-2358, 718-448-2683
 nyxfer@panix.com * All the news that doesn't fit * nytransfer@igc.org
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive