What do you think?
Rate this book
Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy
It doesn’t take a pundit to recognize that the Democratic Party has changed. With frustrating losses in the national elections of 2000 and 2004 and the erosion of its traditional base, the party of Jefferson and Jackson has become something neither would recognize.
In this intriguing book, Jeff Taylor looks beyond the shortcomings of individual candidates to focus on the party’s real its philosophical underpinnings have changed in ways that turn off many Americans. Rank-and-file party members may still hold to traditional views, but Taylor argues that those who finance, manage, and represent the party at the national level have become nothing less than Hamiltonian elitists—a stance that flies in the face of the party’s bedrock Jeffersonian principles.
Where Did the Party Go? is a prodigious work of scholarship that converts extensive research into an accessible book. Taylor offers up a unique twelve-point model of Jefferson’s thought—as relevant to our time as to his—and uses it to appraise competing views of liberalism in the party during two key eras. Bypassing the well-worn assessments of high-profile Democratic presidents, he shows instead how liberalism from 1885 to 1925 was distinctly Jeffersonian as exemplified by the populism of William Jennings Bryan, while from 1938 to 1978 it became largely elitist under national leaders such as Hubert Humphrey who embraced a centralized state and economy, as well as imperial intervention abroad.
In the first book to look closely at the ideologies of these two midwestern liberals, Taylor chronicles Bryan’s battles with the conservative wing of the party—putting today’s conflicts in sharp historical perspective—and then tells how Humphrey followed those who rejected Jeffersonian principles. By demonstrating how Jefferson’s legacy has gradually weakened, Taylor clearly shows why the party has lost its place in Middle America and how its transformation has led to widespread confusion. His provocative look at the post-Humphrey era considers why so many of today’s voters on both the Left and the Right agree on issues such as economic policy, foreign relations, and political reform—united against elitists of the Center while rarely recognizing their common kinship in Jeffersonian ideals.
If party leaders have wondered where their traditional supporters have gone, they might well consider that those very voters have asked what became of the party they once knew. Taylor’s book forces many to question where the party of Jefferson has gone . . . and whether it can ever come back.
In this intriguing book, Jeff Taylor looks beyond the shortcomings of individual candidates to focus on the party’s real its philosophical underpinnings have changed in ways that turn off many Americans. Rank-and-file party members may still hold to traditional views, but Taylor argues that those who finance, manage, and represent the party at the national level have become nothing less than Hamiltonian elitists—a stance that flies in the face of the party’s bedrock Jeffersonian principles.
Where Did the Party Go? is a prodigious work of scholarship that converts extensive research into an accessible book. Taylor offers up a unique twelve-point model of Jefferson’s thought—as relevant to our time as to his—and uses it to appraise competing views of liberalism in the party during two key eras. Bypassing the well-worn assessments of high-profile Democratic presidents, he shows instead how liberalism from 1885 to 1925 was distinctly Jeffersonian as exemplified by the populism of William Jennings Bryan, while from 1938 to 1978 it became largely elitist under national leaders such as Hubert Humphrey who embraced a centralized state and economy, as well as imperial intervention abroad.
In the first book to look closely at the ideologies of these two midwestern liberals, Taylor chronicles Bryan’s battles with the conservative wing of the party—putting today’s conflicts in sharp historical perspective—and then tells how Humphrey followed those who rejected Jeffersonian principles. By demonstrating how Jefferson’s legacy has gradually weakened, Taylor clearly shows why the party has lost its place in Middle America and how its transformation has led to widespread confusion. His provocative look at the post-Humphrey era considers why so many of today’s voters on both the Left and the Right agree on issues such as economic policy, foreign relations, and political reform—united against elitists of the Center while rarely recognizing their common kinship in Jeffersonian ideals.
If party leaders have wondered where their traditional supporters have gone, they might well consider that those very voters have asked what became of the party they once knew. Taylor’s book forces many to question where the party of Jefferson has gone . . . and whether it can ever come back.
392 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2006
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 19, 2011
I enjoyed this history of the Democratic party from the 1890's until today. Dr. Taylor compares and contrasts William Jennings Bryan and Hubert Humphrey as men from similar parts of the country (the Midwest) and claiming a Jeffersonian heritage. The author makes no bones about the fact that he's a populist and expresses his greater appreciation for Bryan (a true populist) than Humphrey (a pseudo-populist).
The book is well researched and informative, in addition to the fact that it was written in a mostly readable style. One does need a background in political history to understand all the characters and issues involved (Populist movement, bimetalism, Vietnam war) to appreciate the challenges these two men faced. The purpose of the book is to look at how the Democratic party has changed as a whole over the last 100 years and it fulfills that.
While I disagree with how some of the Presidents are lumped together (Grover Cleveland was not a big-business lackey in the vein of William Howard Taft) as well as the glowing view of Bryan, it is a good book for understanding how the Democratic party has changed, and certainly not for the better.
The book is well researched and informative, in addition to the fact that it was written in a mostly readable style. One does need a background in political history to understand all the characters and issues involved (Populist movement, bimetalism, Vietnam war) to appreciate the challenges these two men faced. The purpose of the book is to look at how the Democratic party has changed as a whole over the last 100 years and it fulfills that.
While I disagree with how some of the Presidents are lumped together (Grover Cleveland was not a big-business lackey in the vein of William Howard Taft) as well as the glowing view of Bryan, it is a good book for understanding how the Democratic party has changed, and certainly not for the better.
Read
August 1, 2013'Taylor’s book, rich in detail, forensically forceful, is no routine exercise in comparative politics. Where Did the Party Go? amounts to a populist reinterpretation of the 20th-century Democratic Party. The author is both an exhaustively thorough researcher and a pleasingly partisan writer: he is on the side of the old America of “puritans and populists, of anabaptists and anarchists,” and laments its paving over by midcentury “Democratic and Republican leaders [who] agreed on the ends of American life: anticommunism and economic growth.” The possibility that these might represent the end, and not the ends, of American life never bubbled up into the effervescent oratory of Hubert Humphrey. But it would have been gospel to William Jennings Bryan.'
Read the full review, "Disappearing Democrats," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Read the full review, "Disappearing Democrats," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
May 22, 2022
Jeff Taylor writes some of the most prolifically researched books I've ever read. If he does this much research in the Iowa Senate, his constituents should be impressed. Jokes aside, Taylor's "Where Did the Party Go?" is a citation-filled work about the Jeffersonian tradition in the Democratic Party. It's mostly good but has some looming shortcomings. Taylor spells out the tenets of Jeffersonianism, which seems slightly difficult to imagine in today's political climate. Lower debt and greater state autonomy tend to be championed by today's right, but the left still clings to some degree of anti-corporate sentiment (especially on its left populist wing) and ideas of equality and open democracy.
Taylor then examines both William Jennings Bryan and Hubert Humphrey's records, contrasting their relationships to the Jeffersonian paradigm. Taylor argues that Bryan adhered to Jefferson's ideas more than Humphrey, who he portrays as a large-government progressive. For him (as for many paleoconservatives) Woodrow Wilson and FDR broke from the old school of thought on the left. While I have my issues with that claim, Taylor pivots more towards his two subjects. Where Bryan stuck to his guns and challenged his own party frequently, Humphrey was more acquiescent. Where Bryan emphasized anti-monopolism, Humphrey accepted the role that big business played in the postwar order. Where Bryan brought his faith and morals into politics on behalf of the common people, Humphrey relied on a more technocratic approach. Where Bryan excoriated imperialism, Humphrey played along with the Vietnam War.
Taylor's argument is decently convincing, except on equality issues. There, he gives short shrift to the immense good Humphrey did on racial issues. While Taylor admits that Humphrey outclassed Bryan on this issue, racial prejudice was definitely Bryan's greatest shortcoming a shortcoming that needed to be grappled with in more detail. Moreover, some people Taylor cites in passing and some politicians he discusses had bad records on Jeffersonianism's equality prong. The painful, prejudice-filled history of race in America complicates this segment of Taylor's argument. He could make a more convincing case by engaging with its complexity. This book could use a more thorough discussion of civil rights and their importance. For example, activists like Fanie Lou Hamer were among the best proponents of decentralism and small farms as forms of freedom! That sounds as Jeffersonian as you can get.
Taylor ends with a discussion of how the Democratic Party has lost its Jeffersonian heritage. I can't disagree that the Democrats have lost many voters by becoming more pro-corporate and failing to reach Middle America. But I'm not convinced that the Democratic Party rejected Jeffersonianism by not giving into the New Left's decentralist tendencies. Taylor probably overplays those tendencies. In reality, the Democrats actually spurned working-class voters through the McGovern-Fraser commission's undermining trade union representation and similar changes. The party opened itself up to attacks on "amnesty, acid, and abortion" which is part of why middle American voters began to flee the Democratic ticket. Republican strategists like Kevin Phillips seized on this shift. It was the less-Jeffersonian (larger) elements of the New Left that drove the Democrats' cultural turn, the same turn that propelled the party to the left on social issues. A kind of inclusive Jeffersonian populism could've helped Democrats retain the New Deal coalition and add new voters. To me, this was RFK's calling card until his assasination.
This book builds our understanding of a political tradition once represented in both parties (progressive Republicans, Burton Wheeler, Frank Church) but now often forgotten. I've read a few books in this vein, from biographies of Wheeler and Wayne Morse to a book about progressive Republicans in the New Deal era to Herbert Agar's history of the Democratic Party. In an era of growing inflation, forever wars, a gridlocked Congress, and corporate domination, there's something in this tradition for today's party. Perhaps a return to some Jeffersonian principles (combined with Humphrey's racially inclusive stances, the ones I would have liked to read more about) could help Democrats recover their strength among working-class voters of all races.
Taylor then examines both William Jennings Bryan and Hubert Humphrey's records, contrasting their relationships to the Jeffersonian paradigm. Taylor argues that Bryan adhered to Jefferson's ideas more than Humphrey, who he portrays as a large-government progressive. For him (as for many paleoconservatives) Woodrow Wilson and FDR broke from the old school of thought on the left. While I have my issues with that claim, Taylor pivots more towards his two subjects. Where Bryan stuck to his guns and challenged his own party frequently, Humphrey was more acquiescent. Where Bryan emphasized anti-monopolism, Humphrey accepted the role that big business played in the postwar order. Where Bryan brought his faith and morals into politics on behalf of the common people, Humphrey relied on a more technocratic approach. Where Bryan excoriated imperialism, Humphrey played along with the Vietnam War.
Taylor's argument is decently convincing, except on equality issues. There, he gives short shrift to the immense good Humphrey did on racial issues. While Taylor admits that Humphrey outclassed Bryan on this issue, racial prejudice was definitely Bryan's greatest shortcoming a shortcoming that needed to be grappled with in more detail. Moreover, some people Taylor cites in passing and some politicians he discusses had bad records on Jeffersonianism's equality prong. The painful, prejudice-filled history of race in America complicates this segment of Taylor's argument. He could make a more convincing case by engaging with its complexity. This book could use a more thorough discussion of civil rights and their importance. For example, activists like Fanie Lou Hamer were among the best proponents of decentralism and small farms as forms of freedom! That sounds as Jeffersonian as you can get.
Taylor ends with a discussion of how the Democratic Party has lost its Jeffersonian heritage. I can't disagree that the Democrats have lost many voters by becoming more pro-corporate and failing to reach Middle America. But I'm not convinced that the Democratic Party rejected Jeffersonianism by not giving into the New Left's decentralist tendencies. Taylor probably overplays those tendencies. In reality, the Democrats actually spurned working-class voters through the McGovern-Fraser commission's undermining trade union representation and similar changes. The party opened itself up to attacks on "amnesty, acid, and abortion" which is part of why middle American voters began to flee the Democratic ticket. Republican strategists like Kevin Phillips seized on this shift. It was the less-Jeffersonian (larger) elements of the New Left that drove the Democrats' cultural turn, the same turn that propelled the party to the left on social issues. A kind of inclusive Jeffersonian populism could've helped Democrats retain the New Deal coalition and add new voters. To me, this was RFK's calling card until his assasination.
This book builds our understanding of a political tradition once represented in both parties (progressive Republicans, Burton Wheeler, Frank Church) but now often forgotten. I've read a few books in this vein, from biographies of Wheeler and Wayne Morse to a book about progressive Republicans in the New Deal era to Herbert Agar's history of the Democratic Party. In an era of growing inflation, forever wars, a gridlocked Congress, and corporate domination, there's something in this tradition for today's party. Perhaps a return to some Jeffersonian principles (combined with Humphrey's racially inclusive stances, the ones I would have liked to read more about) could help Democrats recover their strength among working-class voters of all races.
July 8, 2020
This is a hacky, pseudo-intelligent book for people who believe Democrats are the elitist party and everyone to the left of Tucker Carlson is a liberal. It paints anti-New Deal New Democrats as the heirs to FDR, which is laughable and sees the racially problematic fundamentalist 1920s agrarians as the true friends of the poor. Any book that uncritically sees the pseudo-populist wing of the Southern Democratic Party as friends of the common man should be read with a lot of caution. The Civil Rights movement is portrayed as a move away from the Jeffersonian wonderfulness of William Jennings Bryan, which is incredibly telling. Any book that quotes Sam Francis affirmatively and sees Pat Buchanan as a kind of hero is way beyond being problematic. It's a book that is paleoconservative in the worst kind of way. Celebrating States Rights without any hint of clarification or condemnation is shallow at best and racist at worst. Avoid this book!
July 24, 2016
Enjoyable read on the devolution of the American democratic party.
Jeff Taylor describes with mournful nostalgia the "old-blue" Jeffersonian legacy that came to a zenith with William Jennings Bryan’s unsuccessful bids for the presidency, then service under Woodrow Wilson in the office of Secretary of State.
*Bryan stepped down after Wilson entered World War I on false terms.
Taylor contrasts the democratic agrarian localism of Bryan with Hubert Humphrey who sold-out to international interests.
Humphrey is often seen to have laid claim to the inheritance of Bryan's mantle in his "second coming" succession to leadership.
The Democratic Party irreversibly altered in constitution since the World Wars, which is a main point of contestation here.
William Jennings Bryan’s principle cause of bimetallism is (of course) immortalized in his fiery “Cross of Gold” speech on the soapbox circuit.
The monetary issues of Gold Standards, monopolistic legal tender laws, or free silver, now seem archaic in the present political milieu.
History will prove (I think) that the monetary issue (from Grover Cleveland to the contemporary moment) lies at the heart of the American institution of constitutional government.
Taylor's book is an interesting thoughtfully-written narrative by an academic who seems to truly care about the subject.
Jeff Taylor describes with mournful nostalgia the "old-blue" Jeffersonian legacy that came to a zenith with William Jennings Bryan’s unsuccessful bids for the presidency, then service under Woodrow Wilson in the office of Secretary of State.
*Bryan stepped down after Wilson entered World War I on false terms.
Taylor contrasts the democratic agrarian localism of Bryan with Hubert Humphrey who sold-out to international interests.
Humphrey is often seen to have laid claim to the inheritance of Bryan's mantle in his "second coming" succession to leadership.
The Democratic Party irreversibly altered in constitution since the World Wars, which is a main point of contestation here.
William Jennings Bryan’s principle cause of bimetallism is (of course) immortalized in his fiery “Cross of Gold” speech on the soapbox circuit.
The monetary issues of Gold Standards, monopolistic legal tender laws, or free silver, now seem archaic in the present political milieu.
History will prove (I think) that the monetary issue (from Grover Cleveland to the contemporary moment) lies at the heart of the American institution of constitutional government.
Taylor's book is an interesting thoughtfully-written narrative by an academic who seems to truly care about the subject.
March 13, 2009
Argues that the pro-freedom, decentralist, pacifist Democratic Party sold out to the big government/big business/war hawks. Humphrey is the pivotal figure. There's undoubtedly some truth to the account, but it's a bit one-sided.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews