<<

Republican and Democratic presidential nominee at the presidential debate at , , 26 September 2016.

Populism, and : , inter-party and intra- party candidates in campaigns for the American presidency

Michael Dunne explores ox populi, dei. The voice of the is the voice of God. Since these words were first recorded many centuries ago, they have been used both to the complexities of celebrate the popular will and to warn against it: the contrary fate of many American presidential aphorisms.V It is a racing certainty that some commentators on the result of the current election to be the 45th president of the will succumb to the temptation political campaigning to quote this adage, particularly if Donald J. Trump defeats Hillary Rodham Clinton in the popular vote. (Technically success in the nationwide popular vote does not over the last 200 years. guarantee entry into the ; but only in very cases is the discrepancy an issue, the most recent being the ‘Dubya’ Bush- election of 2000: the first time since 1888.) A Trump victory, ‘trumping’ indeed almost all the professional pundits’ predictions when he began his latest campaign for the presidency in the summer of 2015, would be ascribed to the pent-up yet neglected anger and resentment of the majority – President ’s once ‘’ – of the American people. ‘’ would have triumphed. For those commentators with a penchant for and hostile to Trump, vox populi would be heard as vox diaboli: the voice of the Devil. American political jargon is rich and known throughout the world. The late eighteenth century gave us ‘gerrymandering’ and ‘’ from the chicanery and intrigues of ; the ‘’ came with the election of President in 1828; the Civil War-era showed Confederate- sympathising ‘copperheads’ and Northern ‘carpet-baggers’. Then the ‘’ reappeared, the 1830s sobriquet borrowed from the Algonquin language to describe self-satisfied political ‘big shots’, re-defined in 1884 to mock fastidious Republicans either reluctantly voting for Democratic candidates or sitting on the electoral fence – with their mug on one side and their rump on the other! Shortly thereafter ‘populism’ entered the American political lexicon in the . The term has never died out; it has moved abroad while remaining at home; and it has yet to shake off its early, pejorative connotations either at home or abroad.

12 The Historian – Autumn 2016 Populism as a socio-political term predated the 1890s but, Grover - presidential (1888) campaign then, the country in question was not the United States but poster about the trade policy of the two candidates. The map Tsarist . Emerging shortly after the Emancipation of the supports the work of the Harrison campaign. Serfs in 1861, the narodniki (champions of the people: narod) promoted what an American might have described as latter-day peasant-based Jeffersonianism. But any resemblance ended in the when these Russian ‘populists’ turned to more openly violence, including the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, himself the Emancipator of the Serfs. In the United States the abolition of slavery and the subsequent ‘Reconstruction’ of the South did not in themselves lead directly to populism; but the nationwide of the 1870s and the longer-term structural problems within agriculture, not least from competition in a global market, produced various social and political groupings (the Granger movement, the Greenbackers, the Farmers’ Alliance) which co-existing with the growing trade unions merged into what became the first version of American populism. The People’s Party of was formally organised in February 1892 in St Louis, Missouri. Its origins in the agricultural discontent of the previous decades were unmistakeable; and blended into the movement and soon to be part of its official programme was a mainly Western demand for devaluing the gold-based dollar, the most common remedy proposed being the re-monetising of silver (usually at a silver to gold ratio of 16:1) to reverse the ‘Crime of ’73’ abolishing the iconic silver dollar. Such deliberate inflation (or cheapening) of the currency, its advocates argued, would boost agricultural prices and so restore price ‘parity’ with the manufactured goods farmers needed to purchase in order to live and to work their land. Historians no less than contemporaries have debated the argument, invariably siding with the ‘sound-money’, gold- standard proponents of the time. For observers of intra-party struggles, the rise of third parties and populism in particular, the plausibility of the scheme is less important than its political consequences. ‘Gold bugs’ were to be found in both the 1892 People’s Party campaign poster promoting James Weaver for Republican and Democratic parties; likewise the ‘’. But President of the United States. neither in the Solid Democratic South nor in the predominantly Republican East and North did either party relish a split on (what would now be called) monetary policy. Republicans, largely identified as economic conservatives and defenders of the (and the protective tariff for manufactured goods) regained the White House in 1888 by winning in the constitutionally crucial Electoral College while losing in the popular vote by less than 1%. (The margin of Republican defeat in 1884 had been even smaller.) Of course, under the federal electoral system, winning in the more populous states was the key to winning in the Electoral College, and thus the presidency. But divisions within individual states risked the ultimate goal of garnering a majority in the Electoral College. Hence both major parties tried to straddle the issue, though various acts of Congress and executive decisions by successive administrations failed to satisfy either side in the inflation controversy. Southern discontent was least attracted to the forming of a third party, since this might help the cause of African-American equality: were determined to preserve their hold on the ‘lily white’ South, while Republicans were content with the ‘benign neglect’ (another Nixon-era phrase) of equal rights for the former slaves. Even so, in July 1892 the newly-formed People’s Party held its first national convention to nominate candidates for president and vice-president and to protest against a political and economic system which had created ‘two great classes – tramps and millionaires’.1 Heading the ticket was James B. Weaver, a former Union officer and Greenback congressman from with a reputation for monetary and corporate reform; his running-mate was James G. Field, a former Confederate officer and attorney general of Virginia. Uniting the two important ‘sections’ (or social-regional groupings) of

The Historian – Autumn 2016 13 Bryan’s famous ‘cross of gold’ speech gave him the presidential nomination and swung the party to the silver cause. the Midwest and Upper South, this pairing of one-time military adversaries constituted the classic ‘balanced’ ticket. While predominantly a rural insurgency, the People’s Party hoped to gain the support of ‘urban workmen’ in the North and East, declaring ‘the interests of rural and civic labor are the same.’ Instead Labour as a constituency backed the Democrats: the Republicans were seen to support and strike-breaking capitalists, notably in the bloody Homestead confrontation; while the Populist programme threatened to increase food prices. But Weaver (who had run on a ‘soft-money’ platform in 1880 for the ) and the Populists were not disgraced, gaining a higher percentage of the popular vote (8.5%) than any third party since the fateful election of 1860 and ’s entering the White House with barely 40% of the votes cast. Presidential elections are rarely won or lost on ‘single’ issues, 1860 being the most notable exception; and while the Populists were one extreme of the inflationary spectrum, the tried to find a middle point between them and the Republicans, softening their stance on silver in the agrarian and Western states where the late nineteenth-century version of present-day quantitative easing had its strongest supporters. (Bankers were just one of the farmers’ bogeymen, along with railroad-owners, wholesalers and mortgage-lenders.) The platforms of the two major parties in 1892 hedged on the gold-silver issue and specified many more ‘planks’ on both domestic and foreign politics than in the more focused Populist manifesto. But it was the vigour, the roughness of the Populist campaign which registered unfavourably with its opponents and gave a pejorative cast to the word itself. (The revolutionary trajectory of the Russian narodniki also played its his defeated opponent, the Republican their presidential candidate to succeed part, with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, Benjamin Harrison, had served one Cleveland, Bryan was only 36 and had speaking of a ‘vague terror’ stalking term in the White House; neither served just four years in the House the American land.) Echoing Lincoln’s was said to have much of a personal as a Representative from Nebraska. Gettysburg Address, one of the most following, one being said to lack The Democrats – to the disgust of prominent Populist campaigners, Mary , the other being described as Cleveland – had now taken up the Lease of Kansas (remembered for surrounded by enemies! What if one or silver cause. (Officially the Republicans urging farmers to ‘raise less corn and other of the major parties took up the would promote silver only as part of an more hell’), lambasted a ‘ silver cause (and monetary inflation) international agreement; and dissatisfied of , by Wall Street, and for seriously? The Democrats seemed the Westerners split off to form a National Wall Street’.2 Nor were the Populists more likely; for the gold-bug Cleveland Silver Party.) When the proposed finished. Psephologists detected the was elected along with a Democratic platform came before the Democratic Republican vote fracturing in both the Congress showing more sympathy delegates for approval, Bryan (now a agrarian and mining West, where four for re-monetising silver. Perhaps this newspaper editor in Omaha) delivered states had been won outright, with two eye-catching plank of the People’s Party one of the most famous speeches in others split. Moreover, neither candidate might become federal policy in a populist the voluminous canon of American for the two major parties had inspired (small c) administration? Step forward . His denunciation of the much enthusiasm – even among the . Gold Power culminated in language ‘regular’ leadership. Both the victor, When the Democrats assembled blending Jeffersonian with the Democrat , and in in July 1896 to nominate Christian symbolism. The terms of the

14 The Historian – Autumn 2016 inflationary debate now passed from What does the rise and fall of the Contemporary commentators Mammon and to sacrifice People’s Party of America tell us about quipped that the rough and radical and redemption. presidential electoral politics? (The Populists retreated, smartened up Populists won seats at the state level and and came out dressed as Progressives. You … tell us that the great cities are in Congress.) One point to recognise is These images were shorthand for in favor of the gold standard. We the opprobrium that was directed against acknowledging that a number of reply that the great cities rest upon the movement and dogs it still. Violence the goals set out in the manifestos our broad and fertile prairies. Burn (‘as American as cherry pie’, in another of the People’s Party, its political down your cities and leave our farms, Nixon-era phrase) was not confined or predecessors and later sympathisers and your cities will spring up again even characteristic of the Populists, as were implemented at either federal as if by magic; but destroy our farms, their contemporary detractors alleged. or state level in the early twentieth and the grass will grow in the streets (Theespoused violence of Russian century. From the reform impulse of of every city in the country. populists was another matter entirely.) the 1890s came the ‘graduated’ (we say Nor was the People’s Party programme ‘progressive’) and the popular But it was Bryan’s peroration which economically ridiculous. If it contained election of US senators (rather than resonated then with contemporaries and a fault it was to make two commodities chosen by State legislators): the XVI and still with historians: (gold and silver) joint value-carriers of XVII Amendments of 1913. The XIX last resort within a fixed ratio, when Amendment, providing equal voting Having behind us the producing the two metals fluctuated in their rights for women, though not approved masses of this nation and the world, relative quantities. The exploitation until 1920, had its earliest support in […] the laboring interests, and the of gold deposits both in the Americas the Populist-inclined areas. Federal toilers everywhere, we will answer and overseas – with a consequent fall regulation (though not ownership) their demand for a gold standard in its value – substantiated the major of the transportation of people and by saying to them: You shall not premise of the soft-money advocates. goods in the Hepburn Act of 1906 press down upon the brow of labor While the first conclusion is relevant was another legacy; while at state level this crown of thorns – you shall not politically today and the second appears ‘direct legislation through the initiative crucify mankind upon a cross of gold! to anticipate Keynesianism, the party- and ’ (as the Populists’ 1896 political trajectory is also apposite. The platform demanded) found favour in Such language turned the ante-bellum rise of the Republican Party the , as did the adoption Democratic delegates into ‘roaring reflected the inability of the Democrats of the ‘Australian’ or state-organised mob’ (wrote ) and so could and Whigs to cope electorally with the ballot and secret voting. Not a bad – if backfire.3 A senior Protestant minister problem of slavery. After the Civil War belated – legacy of a much-maligned in Bryan’s Omaha and widespread political deplored the Cross of Gold movement which failed to speech as blasphemous His denunciation of the Gold Power reach the White House. and insurrectionary, There are no precise echoing Cleveland’s culminated in language blending dates which open and denunciation of the Jeffersonian agrarianism with close the Progressive Silverites as ‘ Era.5 Whereas populist and reckless … madmen Christian symbolism. The terms of became a vague if effective and criminals’. But with term of political abuse, the Democrats adopting a the inflationary debate now passed hardly any mainstream major goal of the Populists, politician in the early their own nominating from Mammon and bimetallism to twentieth century failed convention backed the to court the designation Bryan candidacy – and sacrifice and redemption. progressive. (In ante- effectively buried their bellum days the word own People’s Party in the November the widespread and diverse discontent was used both to praise and deplore!) elections. Bryan might be hailed as the within and against the two major While its turn-of-the-century origins lay ‘Great ’, as a second Lincoln; parties became channelled into a new, partly with the Populists of the 1890s, but whereas Lincoln rhetorically cast third party – which then took only Progressivism re-emerged in 1924 when himself as the Defender of all , one, albeit a weighty one, of its planks a leading politician and Bryan went on the offensive into (what into the platform of an established yet former Republican, Robert LaFollette, he called) the ‘enemy’s country’.4 The divided party – divided on that very campaigned unsuccessfully for the November presidential election drew that issue of silver. The defeat of Bryan and presidency on an independent and area on the map. Bryan (and with him the Democrats in the 1896 presidential explicitly ‘Progressive’ ticket. Twenty- the Populist voters) won no Electoral election showed ‘two sides of the same four years later and equally unsuccessful College votes north of the Mason-Dixon coin’: how difficult it is in the American was the 1948 presidential campaign Line, their joint successes being confined political system for a new party to of Henry Wallace, former Secretary of to the Old South of the Confederacy and break in – precisely because the two Agriculture and then vice-president much of the huge geographical region existing parties are coalitions of sectional in the Democratic administrations of (relatively unimportant electorally) interests which can be compromised Franklin Delano Roosevelt but now comprising the Great Plains and Rocky at local, state and national level. But running as a ‘Progressive’. Thereafter the Mountains. As usual, the popular vote when one party cannot contain such more prominent third-party hopefuls was closer than the Electoral College fissiparous forces and truly splits, then have campaigned under blazons such as margin: William McKinley and the other contenders have a chance. This ‘Independent’, ‘Libertarian’ or ‘Reform’. Republicans winning the former by just is the lesson to be drawn from the Not until 1992 did such a candidate, H. over 4%; the latter being divided 60:40. Progressive Era. running as an Independent,

The Historian – Autumn 2016 15 appear to influence the final outcome (mainly primaries) and winning even lost heavily in the popular vote, with between the two major parties. In that in Taft’s home state of , along with a matching but not parallel tally in year, while winning 19% of the popular other electorally important states such the Electoral College; yet both major vote but not a single Electoral College as and Pennsylvania. With parties re-adjusted, each winning the vote, Perot undoubtedly took votes away this momentum, and dislodging early subsequent presidential election with the from Republican President George H. leaders in the progressive insurgency, nomination of Richard Nixon in 1968 W. Bush – arguably letting Democrat Roosevelt tried but failed to gain the and in 1976. William Jefferson Clinton into the White official Republican nomination in Now in 2016 we have the adoption of House. Far less doubtful was the impact Chicago – only to summon his forces Donald J. Trump to be the presidential of the first presidential candidate to run two months later back to the Windy candidate of the Republican party. under the Progressive banner, 12 years City and launch his Progressive Party’s has yet to reveal whether he before LaFollette. His name: Theodore challenge to Taft and the Republican becomes another Goldwater, another Roosevelt. Regulars. In its lengthy platform this McGovern, major-party candidates who Teddy Roosevelt was one of the self-proclaimed ‘new party’ openly registered post-war lows in the popular most controversial personalities in appealed to Jeffersonian Democrats no vote. (Bush, Sr, in 1992 outdistanced American history. A larger-than-life less than to Lincoln’s Republican heirs by these two men in electoral unpopularity; figure who made his name in many asserting the federal government’s prime but he suffered from the candidacy of fields before entering elective politics, responsibility to be the promotion of the Perot, who scored the highest third- TR was nominated for the Republican ‘general interest’ and ‘public ’. Yet party vote since Teddy Roosevelt.) What vice-presidential slot in 1900, partly if elections are rarely won on a single are we to make of Trump’s success in to get him out of the way of the New issue, neither are they won by elevated capturing the Republican presidential York bosses of the Grand Old Party generalities. So similar was the rival nomination? What are we to make (GOP)! Within months Roosevelt Democratic platform that even Roosevelt of the characterisation of Trump as a was propelled into the White House praised it and the Democratic nominee populist? To answer these questions we by the assassination of President as ‘progressive’. The latter was Woodrow need to return, first to the Progressive William McKinley, the sound-money Wilson, then governor of Era and then, necessarily, to the People’s Ohioan who had defeated Bryan and a former president of Princeton. Party of the 1890s. and the Populists in 1896. Elected Though Roosevelt and Wilson disagreed Nothing is more complicated in US handsomely on his own account in 1904, over the proper limits of governmental politics than the process for determining TR promoted his New : intervention, any nuances paled before presidential candidates! Until the subjecting private wealth and corporate the material impact of TR’s third party. Progressive Era presidential candidates power to the ‘right[s] of the community With the aggregate popular vote for Taft were chosen by party bosses; but the … and the public welfare’. Under and Roosevelt often topping that for development of the primaries has meant such a rubric TR promoted the federal Wilson in electorally important states that ordinary voters whittle down the control of rather than its (California, Illinois, , New Jersey, contenders at individual state level, fragmentation through ‘trust busting’ , New York, for example), either to one stand-out candidate or a – the alternative programmes of those Wilson won 435 of the Electoral College select few for final selection and then who called themselves Progressives, votes to Roosevelt’s 88 and Taft’s ratification at the quadrennial national whether inside or outside the GOP. humiliating 8 ( and ) – by nominating convention. (The less Demitting office in 1909, Roosevelt far the lowest ever for an incumbent prevalent state-wide caucuses produce felt his approach would be followed by presidential candidate. (The nationwide the same result – only in a more intricate his chosen successor, William Howard popular vote was 41.8% for Wilson, and participatory way.) Trump’s success Taft. It was not to be: at least in the 27.4% for Roosevelt, 23.2% for Taft, in outpolling and outlasting over a dozen eyes of TR. But whether or not Taft with 6% going to the Socialist candidate, would-be GOP nominees (ranging from was a ‘stand-patter’ against socio- Eugene V. Debs.) established senators and governors to a economic regulation (as TR argued), Bob LaFollette in 1924 and no-hoper neurosurgeon) is testimony to the Republican Party in Congress was Henry Wallace in 1948 showed that his appeal to large swathes of the more splitting between the Regulars and the progressive remained an attractive or less politicised Republican electorate, Insurgents in something of a replay adjective to describe a third party’s viscerally hostile to an undefined of the Western revolt of the 1890s. political programme. But after 1912 GOP Establishment, an elite which is In the 1910 mid-term congressional no third party appeared to affect the charged with betraying the interests of elections the Democrats won control of outcome of a presidential election an equally undefined American middle the House, while the Regular (Taftite) until Perot’s bid in 1992 – only to be class – though these tens of millions are Republicans lost control of the Senate. followed in 2000 by the candidacy implicitly non-Black and non-Hispanic. Outside Congress itself the two major of (Green) dividing the (TheWall Street Journal reports that parties witnessed the development of anti-Bush popular vote. (Mutatis African-Americans break over 90% in ‘primary’ elections, by which ordinary mutandis, Nader’s votes re-distributed supporting the Democrats and Hillary voters rather than party bosses in a single state, , could have Clinton, with Hispanic Americans nominated candidates for office: an sent Gore to the White House.) Aside dividing 75%:25% in her favour.) archetypal progressive device– and a key from such dissidents, history shows us But despite Trump’s scattergun plank in the platform of the National the discontented seeking though rarely targeting of the betrayers of Lincoln’s Progressive Republican League founded winning the nomination for one of the ‘plain people’ (the adopted term of the immediately after the 1910 mid-terms two established major parties – yet never Populists) by the rich and infamous, he with the aim of blocking Taft’s re- gaining the ultimate prize of the White himself is universally known as a New nomination in 1912. House. This was the story of Senator York-based , property magnate The restless and critical Roosevelt for the Republicans in and media celebrity – a self-promoter seized on this intra-party revolt, entering 1964 and Senator George McGovern for over three decades and hardly a figure a dozen pre-convention campaigns the Democrats in 1972. Both candidates who could be placed retrospectively

16 The Historian – Autumn 2016 Donald Trump signs the Republican loyalty pledge, promising to support whomever the Republican Party would nominate for the presidency in 2016 and to not run as a third-party candidate, were he not to win the nomination himself. in the ranks of the People’s Party. Even the ‘bird dog’ or of demagoguery and the dangers of mob-rule: the rampant ‘cuckoo’ Bryan would look a complete unknown in populist beast avant la lettre. (‘’ was, of course, comparison. Certainly Bryan’s Democrats called for banning the pejorative word the ancient Athenians used to describe the ‘importation of foreign pauper labor’ to protect wages; but such politicians as or , who misled their such a demand cannot be equated with the overt xenophobia fellow citizens in the demos, unlike the peerless Pericles.) But displayed in Trump’s particular castigation of Mexicans and it took the passing of the revolutionary heroes for the second Muslims – the latter even if home-grown American citizens. (Jacksonian) in the 1820s to begin the nostalgia If a historical ancestor of this racial and religious is for a golden age and gifting candidates the trope of restoring sought, it would be in the ante-bellum American or Know- American greatness almost two centuries before the Trumpite Nothing Party, whose supporters targeted Roman Catholics slogan, itself well-worn by previous presidential hopefuls, most and recent immigrants. (Like the Whigs, the Know-Nothings notably and successfully . – the ‘nativist’ party par excellence – split and vanished over Of course, the concerned citizen-voter will approach the slavery.) On more traditional indicators, the People’s Party’s November ballot with due regard for the morality, feasibility call for governmental control and even ownership of natural and sheer cost of building a Chinese Wall along 2000 miles of monopolies is scarcely Trumpite; likewise the Populists’ the Mexican-US border to prevent illegal ; with a championing of Labour, rural and urban, against Capitalism. personal analysis of the economic advantages of maintaining Of course, Trump pitches his appeal to the real American the North American Area (in which is a people and undoubtedly appeals to large sections of the actual partner); with a discriminating eye to the merits of the putative American people. But so does Hillary Clinton – though not so Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the obviously as Donald Trump. How her campaign-team wishes USA and the (minus the ); she would be so popular – but without, it is understood, being with a set of questions about recent and likely US policy in the so populist! Middle East and practical measures to counter ‘’ – all To understand Trump, his supporters and detractors, we the while evaluating the ‘leadership’ qualities of Establishment- need to look not so much to his policies – which, by his own insider Clinton against the insurgent ‘demagogue’ Trump. admission, will be refined, modified, even dumped should he But historians in the future would be well advised to conduct reach the White House. Rather we should see him, his friends their evaluations of the outcome of the November presidential and enemies, as part of a tradition in which the Populists election without resort to terms and concepts which tend to and Progressives were but examples. Railing against the obscure rather than illuminate the true differences between Establishment and its synonymous historical embodiments is political movements and those who seek political office in their as ‘American as cherry pie’. Such divisions created the Early name. Or will retrospection have to resort to Latin once again ’s first party system of Jeffersonians vs Hamiltonians. should Trump win? Will he be adjudged simply ‘one of a kind’: Contemporaneously dismissal of Democratic- a unique – and successful – presidential candidate? Donald J. Republican anti-Establishment types resounded with charges Trump, sui generis?

The Historian – Autumn 2016 17 Further Reading David Cay Johnston, The Making of Gil Troy et al., eds, History of American M. Dunne,-‘The Long Winding Donald Trump ( and London: Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 3 Road to the White House: caucuses, Melville House, 2016). vols, 4th edn (New York: Facts on File, primaries and national party Michael Kazin, The Populist 2012). conventions in the history of Persuasion: an American history R. Hal Williams, Realigning America: American presidential elections’ in (Ithaca & London: Cornell University McKinley, Bryan, and the remarkable The Historian, 115 (Autumn 2012), pp. Press, 1998). election of 1896 (Lawrence: University 6-22. Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher, Press of Kansas, 2010). M. Dunne,-‘US Presidential Elections: : an American journey two centuries of constitutional REFERENCES of ambition, ego, money and power 1 Donald Bruce Johnson & Kirk H. Parter, National continuity and political change – with (New York and London: Simon and Party Platforms, 1840-1972 (Urbana & London: an analysis of the olitical geography of Schuster, 2016). University of Illinois Press, 1973), pp. 89-93. ’s re-election campaign’ 2 Paul F. Boller, Jr, Presidential Campaigns (New Ken Lawrence, ed., The World York & Oxford: , 1984), in Political Quarterly, 84 (April-June according to Trump: an unauthorized pp. 163-4. 3 Daniel J. Boorstin, ed., An American Primer 2013), pp. 265-77. portrait in his wwn words (Kansas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. J. Clark Archer et al., Historical Atlas of City: Andrews McMeel, 2005). 593-604. 4 Paul W. Glad, McKinley, Bryan, and the People U.S. Presidential Elections, 1788-2004 Kenneth C. Martis, The Historical Atlas (: Lippincott, 1964), p. 174. (, DC: CQ Press, 2006). of Political Parties in the United States 5 pace John D. Buenker & Edward R. Kantowicz, eds, Historical Dictionary of the Progressive Era, Paul F. Boller, Jr, Presidential Congress, 1789-1989 (New York & 1890-1920 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Campaigns (New York & Oxford: London: Macmillan, 1989). 1988). Oxford University Press, 1984). National Party Conventions, 1831-2008 (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010). Michael Dunne taught for most of his Walter Dean Burnham, Critical career at Sussex University. He has Elections and the Mainsprings of Charles Postel, The Populist Vision lectured widely in the United States American Politics (New York: Norton, (New York & Oxford: Oxford and on the continent, especially in Italy, 1970). University Press, 2007). where his topics have included British Herbert Eaton, Presidential Timber: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr et al., history and politics. He is currently a a history of nominating conventions, Running for President: the candidates visiting member of the Department 1868-1960 (New York: , and their images, 2 vols (New York: of Politics and International Studies at 1964). Simon & Schuster, 1994). Cambridge University. New for November

Anxious about the US Want to learn about Presidential Election? England before 1066? Why not learn how it Professor Sarah Foot is all began… here to help… From Revolt to Republic: From Alfred to Æthelred: In this In this podcast Professor Dr Rachel Herrmann Sarah Foot of Christ of the University of Church College, Oxford, Southampton looks at looks at the development the key challenges faced by the United of Anglo-Saxon England from 871 to 1000. States after winning the War www.history.org.uk/go/AlfredtoAethelred of Independence. www.history.org.uk/go/RiseoftheUS

Have a listen to hundreds of other HA podcasts here: www.history.org.uk/podcasts