ShareThis Page

Movements come and go

| Saturday, Nov. 24, 2012, 8:58 p.m.

At the stroke of midnight on Jan. 16, 1920, a balding William Jennings Bryan, the great orator of his time, finished a soaring speech to a crowd that had packed Washington, D.C.'s First Congregation Church to celebrate the passing of the 18th Amendment.

That “triumph” of the “progressive” movement — the prohibition of alcohol sales — had begun. And, in the true spirit of American debate, tribal politics and political activism, a movement that took shape in the 1850s took only 70 years to become law.

Ten years later, it would be repealed.

First Congregation Church still occupies the same G Street corner. Once the official church of President Calvin Coolidge, it now is housed in a shiny LEED-certified “green” mixed-use building, not the stone structure where Bryan spoke.

Bryan was the Democrats' perennial wild-card presidential candidate who never made it to the White House. His first try was in 1896, in a realigning election against Ohio's former governor, William McKinley; it was Bryan's most successful race and, in subsequent attempts in 1900 and 1908, he shed support but never popularity.

Today's consumers of politics often forget perspective; they believe we are in the most tumultuous, toxic political era ever and that there is no turning back.

That is a tough statement to certify, considering that, in the 20 years which inspired Bryan to seek the presidency (1876-96), not one president served more than one term. In the same period, House majorities turned over by huge numbers, sometimes hundreds of seats — a perfect example of a toxic, unsettled electorate.

Bryan, a unique combination of populism and insurgency, appealed to voters in both parties. Without winning, he broke the stalemate of one-term presidencies and House majorities flipping every two years.

His positions were always outside the Democrats' grid: He wanted to expand the federal government's power to provide for the working class, called for a graduated income tax and demanded free-silver coinage and a bureaucratic state that would protect citizens from unrestrained corporate power.

“The Great Commoner” originated the Democrats' platform — one that still exists — of redistributing wealth and being “the party of the people.” What went overlooked was that he became quite wealthy, thanks to a lucrative speaking circuit, which put him at odds (as is true of many progressives today) with his own damn-the-wealthy rhetoric.

Lost to Bryan and progressives, as they celebrated Prohibition's start, was the economic impact of this “reform”: Alcohol was the nation's fifth-largest industry and, with the stroke of a pen, tens of thousands lost jobs in that and related industries. In short order, Prohibition's enforcement caused an enormous national financial burden, and bootlegging robbed Treasury coffers.

A congressional investigation (the Wickersham Commission) found two-thirds of the federal law-enforcement budget went to policing Prohibition.

Bryan's “progressive” movement was championed by both parties. In fact, the first attempt to enforce a national health-care law began with Teddy Roosevelt's promise of free care for all in his failed 1912 presidential campaign as head of the newly formed Progressive Party.

Like Prohibition, national health care took decades — nearly 100 years — to go from movement to law. Like Prohibition, it has swung in popularity, mostly falling on the unpopular side.

And, like Prohibition, President Obama's health-care law seems set to financially strain government, business and the “common man” that politicians so often champion.

“The reign of tears is over,” said evangelist Billy Sunday on the day Prohibition was signed into law. “The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs.”

In March 2010 in the White House East Room, Vice President Joe Biden evangelized in his own way while congratulating Obama on signing his health-care bill into law. He whispered into Obama's ear that “it's a big (expletive) deal.”

A lesson about American politics is to be learned here, one that people who live in the moment tend to forget: Political movements are just that ­­— movements, sliding in and out of favor, often without notice.

Some components of these movements last, certainly. Yet, typically, the loudest is the first to go.

Salena Zito covers politics for Trib Total Media (412-320-7879 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.