Crony capitalism, the choice of 1912, and bully for you

[given unnatural long life by Lynn C. Rees]

The United States presidential election of 1912 was fought over one fundamental issue: how to handle the political repercussions of the emergence of large concentrations of economic power between the American Civil War and the turn of the twentieth century.

All power is fungible: one form of power can, with varying degrees of difficulty, be converted into another. Economic power can become political power. Political power can become economic power. This means there is ultimately only one market for all forms of power. Change in the division of economic power within an economic market is always followed by change in the division of political power within a political market. Shifts in the division of political power within a political market always impact the division of power within a political market.

Increases in large concentrations of economic power from 1861-1912 intensified an age-old problem: private wealth often finds that it can generate higher returns on investment by investing in one unit of violence than it can by investing in ten units of product improvement. Buying a congressmen or senator is frequently cheaper than building a factory. This imbalance led to many a cozy arrangement between the new men of capital and the old purveyors of political power on all levels of American government.

The three presidential candidates running in 1912 offered three different approaches to mitigating this crony capitalism within the United States’ political system:

Page 1 of 4 | Next page