Customer Reviews

A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all. Luke 6:19

There is a tendency in the U.S. today that when we think of William Jennings Bryan, if we think about him at all, we think of the aging demagogue defending Creationism at the "Scopes Monkey Trial". Bryan's image seems coextensive with the actor Frederic March's characterization of a preening, self-righteous zealot in the movie "Inherit the Wind". Michael Kazin's "A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan" does a wonderful job of capturing the political life of a man who captured the ears and hearts of millions of Americans from 1896 until his death in 1925 at the age of 65. Millions of American farmers and laborers saw virtue in Bryan and sought to touch him. Kazin goes a long way towards explaining the social and political phenomenon that was William Jennings Bryan.

Kazin's "A Godly Hero" is both well-written and meticulously researched. Bryan, known to friends and foes alike as the "Great Commoner" was the Democratic Party's candidate for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908. Kazin does an excellent job of presenting Bryan as more than a cartoon-like caricature. Although always a devout, fervent Christian Bryan rose to national acclaim not on the basis of his religious world view but on a populist platform that was more than a bit radical for his time. Kazin points out, of course, that Bryan's political views were informed by his Christian beliefs, but notes that those beliefs led him to fight as a populist for social justice. Bryan's three presidential campaigns called for support for the rights of small farmers and factory workers as they did battle against the big railroads and factory owners. He sought to nationalize the railroads, legalize the right to strike, and to be among the earliest campaigners for women's suffrage. Those beliefs led him to strike out against the incipient imperialism of the United States as it launched its first overseas military adventures in Cuba and the Philippines. Bryan's religious beliefs may also be linked to the antiwar stance he took as Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State in 1913-1914. He opposed the government's perceived movement towards war even as it stressed its ongoing neutrality.

Kazin takes pains to point out that Bryan's stern religious beliefs placed him on the side of social progress and not on the side of reaction. This is an important consideration in any historical examination undertaken in an era when strong religious convictions are often invariably linked (and often unfairly) to social and political conservatism. Kazin does an excellent job of putting Bryan's religious beliefs into the context of an era in which the progressive and populist movements grew throughout the country's urban areas and farm lands.

Bryan's meteoric rise to fame was facilitated in no small part by his oratorical skills. Both supporters and foes marveled at Bryan's ability to keep a crowd transfixed during his speeches. Kazin's description of Bryan's stunning Cross of Gold speech at the 1896 Democratic Convention brings that convention to life.

This is not a warts-free biography. Kazin notes the inherent conflict between Bryan's egalitarian instincts and his kow-towing to his southern Democratic supporters who spent most of the years from 1896-1908 disenfranchising (and lynching when necessary) black American voters in the south. This "Great Commoner" chafed at U.S. policies denying the Philippines the right of self determination while condoning the segregationist policies of the Wilson administration that resulted in eliminating blacks from all but menial federal jobs. It is here, on the great American altar of race relations that Kazin's resurrection of Bryan becomes a bit problematic. It is clear that Bryan's populist beliefs were sincere and from the heart. However, it is far from clear whether Bryan's acquiescence to the forces of racism in his party was based on a fundamental belief in the inferiority of another race or a necessary political accommodation to a powerful element of his popular base. If the former is the case one must question Bryan's judgment. If the latter is the case one must question whether this accommodation with the evil that was Jim Crow ruins his reputation for integrity.

"A Godly Hero" closes with Bryan's last moments in the public eye, at the trial of John Scopes. Called to the witness stand by famous defense attorney Clarence Darrow (who once called Bryan the "idol of morondom"), Bryan was eviscerated by a series of questions about a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. It is interesting to note that Bryan managed to avoid answering Darrow's questions directly. It seems (to me at least) that Bryan was not prepared to testify under oath than Jonah was swallowed by a while and other similar questions. This does tend to support Kazin's thesis that Bryan was not as much concerned with the teaching of evolution as with the growing line of thought by `social Darwinists' who used Darwin's teachings to espouse wars of conquest and the physical elimination of the weak by the strong.

Taken as a whole, Bryan's life is a study in contradictions. He fought for social justice while accommodating segregation. He fought for women's suffrage at the same time he led the fight for prohibition. He campaigned unsuccessfully on platforms (workers' rights and federal insurance for bank deposits for example) that helped elect liberal Democrats from FDR through LBJ but will go down in history for his assault on the teaching of evolution. Michael Kazin's "A Godly Hero" does an excellent job of sorting through these contradictions and giving us a picture of Bryan as a "man-in-full". "A Godly Hero" is a worthy addition to the history of the populist era.

I enjoyed the book without really planning on it. Kazin makes a long ago period come alive, and it is amusing looking at the years of Theodore Roosevelt from a deliberately oblique angle, as it were. As Kazin points out, Bryan and Roosevelt were nearly contemporaries, born a mere two years apart, and their lives intertwined on many levels, though they were miles apart in their views on--well, on just about everything. Everything, that is, except the power of manifest destiny and the call of the American Empire.

Kazin brings it all up close, and the gallery of American politicians, many of them long forgotten, jump into life. You can almost feel you were at one of those long-drawn-out political conventions of the turn of the century, and his cast of characters are vivid and fleshy. Do you know how in the YEARS OF LYNDON JOHNSON author Robert Caro manages to animate all manner of pols, give them flesh and blood? Kazin's style will remind you of Caro's way with a tale, only his task might be more difficult for the era was a good 60 years before LBJ's and in some ways more difficult to access. Some of the platforms men stood on seem almost to have a schizophrenic edge to them, and Jennings Bryan, as Kazin admits, has an opaque quality to his thinking that mirrors the perplexities of the common man of his day (I use the words "man" and "men" in shorthand to denote a day before universal suffrage, not that Kazin's biography doesn't include some powerful female figures, such as Bryan's acerbic, "choleric" widow Mary, who spared no one the foul side of her tongue and when she had something to say she let you have it!)

Thus Bryan shamefully stood by when Josephus Daniels urged Democrats in the Carolinas to prevent black voters from going to the polls by any means necessary. The time was ripe for a revival of lynching and, disgracefully, Bryan's policies did nothing to prevent that. And yet to all intents and purposes he was a progressive on many other fronts, a John the Baptist figure to FDR's Christ, a voice crying out in the wilderness. It was an era when ordinary people spoke in the cadences of the King Jamws version of the Bible, for approximately 80 per cent of US citizens were all intimately familiar with the contents of that one book, even those who had never cracked another book. The language of the Bible was a lingua franca, understood by all, and it might be said that Jennings Bryan exploited this situation and fairly revelled in it. He was the leading orator in an age of great ones. Unfortunately few of his speeches have been preserved on celluloid!

I was especially impressed by Kazin's coverage of Bryan's years in Miami, a period often overlooked by previous biographers. One of these days we will wake up and realize that everything bad or good to come out of the 20th century originated in Miami, a city I long one day to visit.

Professor Kazin has previously written a couple of well-regarded books on the Populist movement of the late 1800s. His very latest work demonstrates his skills again; this is a well-paced narrative with good character sketches of some of the major political figures of the time, including of course William Jennings Bryan. Most people, if they think of the Populist movement at all, think of romantic revolutionaries, people unhappy with economic instability brought by early industrialization and eager to return the US to a democratic nation of small producers and farmers. Kazin never really calls Bryan a Populist, preferring instead the term Progressive, and uses Bryan's life as a means to argue that the insurgency of the time was more complex than some believe. The result is a very passionate biography of Bryan.

Bryan never was a Populist. The Great Commoner was an agrarian Democrat who convinced the Populist Party to support him in the 1896 Presidential election, despite the fact that the Populists ran surprisingly well in 1892 on a platform that really took it to the corporate interests then running roughshod over the American landscape. Bryan's 1896 Democratic Presidential nomination also represented the Party's rejection of the conservative stand-patism of President Grover Cleveland -- really a Republican who differed from the GOP only on the issue of a protective tariff -- in favor of a platform of economic reform based primarily on the call for inflation to ease the plight of debt-ridden farmers. Bryan lost the 1896 election, one of the four or five most important in American history, to William McKinley.

1896, though, was only the start of Bryan's career. He won his Party's nomination for President twice more -- in 1900 and 1908 -- and later served as President Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State from 1913 to 1915. Bryan resigned that latter commission when it became clear to him that President Wilson's neutrality policy toward World War I bellgerants was a ruse to hide the inevitable -- the entry of the United States into hostilities in support of the United Kingdom and her allies.

Throughout, Kazin argues, Bryan served as the conscience of the Democratic Party and the poltician who served as the bridge between the conservative Cleveland, and to a lesser extent the segregationist South, and the progressive Wilson and, eventually, the more inclusive, nationalist Democratic Party. Bryan triggered this when he built upon his 1896 platform of economic justice, continually expanding the subjects that he believed needed the corrective of federal governmental intervention. Most to his credit was Bryan's very early support of women's suffrage and equality; very much to his debit was his insistent racism against African-Americans.

Kazin does not hesitate calling Bryan a racist even as he emphasizes Bryan's overall positive legacy. This is to the author's credit. Still, I'm not as convinced as Kazin that Bryan is a useful figure for finding the roots of the modern Democratic Party. First, Kazin argues that Bryan as Secretary of State was not a simple isolationist and had an approach to foreign policy based on moralism symbolized by binding arbitration of international disputes by member nations. But Kazin devotes only about 15 pages to this important area and doesn't convince me that Bryan was anything but an unrealistic, unsystematic analyzer of foreign affairs. This was in marked contrast to other Democrats of the time and later, who recognzied the need for a cohesive strategy for dealing with the inevitable -- America's growing economic, and thus political, involvement in the world. Second, domestically, he was essentially a cultural and economic anti-modernist who never systematically integrated a feasible conception of the individual's place in the modernizing world. This is not an unfair criticism of Bryan, for other politicians in his time were grappling with these issues much more productively. FDR, to me, borrowed much more heavily from his cousin TR (and Wilson) than Bryan in formulating the New Deal, and his marriage of government to industry between 1933 and 1935, and after 1939 represented a far more realistic appraisal of the economic facts of life than Bryan was ever able to muster. FDR fashioned a modern Democratic Party in that image more so than any conception borrowed from Bryan.

I'll give Kazin credit though .. he sticks by his guns. He places Bryan's famous defense of anti-evolutionary laws (in the last month of his life) in the famous Scopes Trial within Bryan's life-long commitment to religious belief. Bryan's Christianity, in turn, formed the core of his political beliefs, at root a desire to build a nation of Christian small producers, an explicitly religious, sectarian version of Jeffersonian Democracy. By linking Bryan's absurd defense of Tennessee's "anti-monkey" law to his overall matrix of Christian belief Kazin seeks to understand (justify?) Bryan's late-in-life actions. Kazin wants modern Democrats to learn from Bryan and understand the cultural roots of economic protest. This, he seems to believe, is the only way for the Democrats to win elections. This may be true, but as Kazin notes, the substance of religious belief has changed quite a bit in the meantime. The focus is now on individual salvation, not the Sermon on the Mount. Democrats still can't forsake the secular, hip, ironic, modernists living in the Blue States if they want to win and they'll lose that base if they play too much to the individualized, and quite serious, piety of the suburban and rural red states. Its hard to see Democrats and early 21-st century descendants of Tennessee's original anti-secularists coming to some sort of mutual understanding. Professor Kazin seems to think its possible; I'll defer to his optimism and hold my tongue.

Overall, I recommend this book for an understanding of the multiple influences on the 20th - and 21st - century Democratic Party. Plus its a good read.

There is no need to summarize Michael Kazin's excellent biography of William Jennings Bryan again. That has already been done competently here by L Fleisig. Instead I will focus on Kazin's important revisionist theme: that Bryan was, with the exception of his views on race and prohibition, more farsighted than his contemporary opponents -- both those inside and outside the Democratic party. That is a far cry from the image of Bryan as a sanctimonious demagogue created by H L Menchen, perpetuated by later academics, and embedded in our collective consciousness by the move, INHERIT THE WIND. Even after reading Kazin some other Amazon reviewers have adopted a dismissive tone toward Bryan. Like the late Rodney Dangerfield, "he can't get no respect".

Bryan spent his entire adult life campaigning and speaking eloquently against corporate greed, social darwinism, religious bigotry, and unjust wars, because he believed ardently that they were contrary to Christian values. For the same reason, he advocated womens' suffrage, sexual equality, workers' rights, insured bank deposits, and the income tax before any of those issues were on the agenda of either major political party. He was rewarded for championing the cause of social justice with the unwavering devotion of hundreds of thousand of ordinary Americans, though he was denounced as naive, or worse, by the media and political intellectuals of his day.

Thwarted three times in his own presidential bids, Bryan campaigned tirelessly on behalf of Woodrow Wilson, whom he believed would advance the progressive program. His enormous popularity in rural American made him essential in both of Wilson's victories. Wilson chose Bryan to be his Secretary of State, while sharing the urban intellectuals' disdain for him.
Bryan resigned when he saw that Wilson's policies on the eve of WWI were incompatible with his own pacifism. Though not an effective Secretary of State, some of his thinking was clearer and more pragmatic than Wilson's. For example, had Wilson heeded Bryan's advice after the war to accept the League of Nations Treaty with the reservations imposed by the Senate, the remainder of the 20th century might have been significantly different. It could hardly have been worse.

We are in sore need of Bryan's Christian humanism today. Far too many present-day Christian have become true believers in the social darwinism (now called "free market forces")that Bryan warned against. The common folk who once marched behind the "Great Commoner" now follow pied pipers who make greed a virtue and selfishness a Christian duty.

Even Bryan's quixotic participation in Tenn. v. Scopes, may not have been quite as misguided as we have been led to think by Mr. Mencken's reportage. Some of the material Scopes was teaching would not pass muster as evolutionary theory today. The biology textbook at the center of the trial endorsed eugenics as a way of improving mankind. Speaking of Jukes and Kallikaks, its author wrote, "...if such people were lower animals we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading." Eugenics would shortly be used to justify involuntary sterilization in this country and, within a few years, the Nazi death camps. It is too bad that we liberals who, down the years, have snickered at Bryan's performance at the trial haven't had, until now, the opportunity to read his undelivered closing argument. "Science is a magnificent material force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine". Rather than sounding like the rant of a fundamentalist luddite, those lines might fit comfortably into a 21st century lecture on scientific ethics.

Thank you, Michael Kazin, for giving them to us as part of your balanced portrait of an ADMIRABLE and godly hero.

Michael Kazin's previous work examining late 19th century American populism serves as an ideal background to write this fascinating revisionist biography of William Jennings Bryan. Bryan, famous as a perennial presidential candidate and as Darrow's straight man in "Inherit the Wind," has never received the consideration he deserved as one of the originators of the modern Democratic Party. That is a pity one people should applaud Kazin for remedying. Indeed, Kazin capably and convincingly argued that despite his defeats, or perhaps as a result of them, Bryan helped lay the groundwork for ascendancy of the Democratic Party in the 1930s.

From the middle of the 19th century through to its end, the Democratic Party rested on the bedrock first of slavery and then, after the Civil War, on racism and the grievances of the Old Confederacy. Bryan, by merging progressive ideas into the party, such as the rights of workers, Corporate taxes, progressive income taxes, safe food, and "free silver" began the long march towards the ideas that became the core of the national Democratic Party during FDR's New Deal. Of particular interest to modern readers, and more than a little ironically, he bound these ideas together with Christian theology, ideas of communal obligation, social equity, and national responsibility.

Religious language proved central to Bryan's success politically. While never winning the presidency, Kazin offers strong evidence that he integrated these ideas into the American consciousness, first into the Democratic Party and later into that of the majority of its citizens. For Bryan was not only a believer, but he shrewdly understood the power of such images as the Cross of Gold reminded people of their responsibilities to their fellow citizens and that idea's labeled radical were, in fact, central to America's dominant Judeo-Christian heritage. In a time when other party leaders saw their best hope as imitating the Republicans, Bryan understood that long term strength comes through creating contrast with ones opponents.

Unlike many biographers, Kazin does not gloss over his subjects failings. Bryan accepted, indeed embraced, the racism of the party he led, despite his identification with the common man and the oppression faced by those less powerful. Far from excusing Bryan because of his context, Kazin rightly chastises him for such positions.

More than anything, Kazin ably shows how dramatic shifts are possible in American politics. As Democrats seem to wander aimlessly as a party left in the apparent perpetual minority, Kazin offers a historic case study well worth consideration. Bryan may be long dead, but parts of his legacy are well worth further consideration.

William Jennings Bryan is often portrayed as something of a naive fool. The Scopes Trial, to a large extent, defines what people think about Bryan. And, he is also defined as a "loser," having failed in his presidential bids.

This book is a welcome corrective. Despite what some reviewers have said of the volume, it does not appear to me to slight his unfortunate views on race (although such views were not out of the mainstream for the time, needless to say).

Bryan's role in American political history is important. The Democratic Party, prior to his ascendance in it, was pretty much a conservative organization. Grover Cleveland was a not incapable President, but it is hard to distinguish his views, to a large extent, from those of his Republican adversaries. Bryan brought a whole new element into the Democratic Party. He spoke for "the common man," and built great rapport with them--south and north. The author, Michael Kazin, notes that Bryan, in a very real sense, prepared the Democratic Party for Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

His effectiveness as a perennial candidate was apparently due to a confluence of several factors: his down to earth approachability to "the common person," his religious views which were sincere and infused his politics with traditional morality, and his extraordinary ability as an orator. Some of us have doubtles heard ancient recordings, from the early days of records, of his "Cross of Gold" speech. I remember not being much impressed, but this book makes it clear that he could electrify audiences in his earlier days.

The book tells us that he was, in some senses, a professional politician without portfolio. His fling as an elected representative ended early. Thereafter, he was someone who made his living speaking and writing about politics.

In the end, as times changed, he appears to have been left behind, with the Scopes Trial leaving him looking like someone from an earlier era, out of step with the times. Not a brilliant man, by the account of this work, he nonetheless was able for a period of time to animate great support from people and move the Democratic Party toward new possibilities.

His failings are outlined nicely, such as his views on race, his sometimes inability to react to changing circumstances, and so on.

But the book does a great service by giving us a keen insight into an important American political and cultural figure.

There isn't much of substance that I can add to the many excellent reviews already posted here. But perhaps I can provide some comments in minimalist fashion that can get this important book into the hands of "a wider audience." I think there is much we 21st century Americans can learn from William Jennings Bryan. I will divide my comments into two sections: the first dealing with the literary value of the book and the second noting things we can learn from Bryan's life.

The Book -
1. The organization and pacing is excellent. Nine of the twelve chapters are divided into discreet time periods that correspond to the various political episodes of his life, which was largely defined by his participation in the political life of America. The other three chapters - his early years, his career on the Chautauqua public speaking circuit, and the response of his political admirers - work very well, never losing the focus of the book, politics and evangelical Christianity.

2. This is a good read. The level of diction and writing style is just right for a popular audience. Best of all, Kazin does not "get in the way" of his subject, Bryan. Some academics seem to want to display ALL their knowledge, whether it fits into the narrative or not (are you listening, Joseph Ellis?), but Kazin resists the temptation. I am quite certain that Kazin knows a lot more about Bryan and his times, but, thank God, he is keeping it to himself. I read a lot of history and biography and this effort would have to be in my top 10% in terms of its literary value.

William Jennings Bryan -
1. He is a very important figure for the history of the Democratic Party, but I am not sure why, even after reading this biography. Certainly, he was an important figure in the Democratic Party during an era when they transformed themselves from the conservative laissez-faire era of Grover Cleveland into the liberal activist times of FDR. If you can overlook his racism and support of prohibition (more on that below), almost all of his positions would be cheered by 21st century liberals. Was Bryan responsible for helping the party make this remarkable transition, or was he simply in the "right place at the right time", fortuitously carried along by other leaders or social forces beyond his control? In either case, he is far more important in the making of modern America than historians have heretofore recognized.

2. He is important for evangelicals who want to be engaged in politics(Self-disclosure: I am an evangelical who is vitally interested in American politics). I think he lived an exemplary life, one that other evangelicals could emulate, but what does that look like for me? It seems to me that 19th century evangelicals generally favored an activist government, working for reforms like abolition, temperance, education, care of the mentally ill, etc, yet that seemed to die after Bryan left the scene. The social gospel seemed to suck them into a new paradigm of seeking "salvation" only in this world and ignoring the next. They turned formerly evangelical denominations - Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, Evangelical Lutheran, etc. into sects that seemed to downplay Christ's gospel for the social gospel. Personally, I am disappointed in their religious direction, yet I am also disappointed in the path taken by those who stayed "true" to evangelical principals. They largely abandoned politics until the abortion controversy of the 1970s and since then, have all too often been used by economic conservatives for purely electoral purposes. I think there is a "third way", in which one defends the gospel in spiritual matters, yet also sets an independent course in political matters, all the while using scriptures as the guide to best "love your neighbor."

3. He is important for today's Democrats. He was obviously deeply committed to many issues that 21st century Dems feel are important, yet he came at these concerns from a Christians perspective. Can Dems allow this type of person to have an important place at their "table"? I'm not talking about phony rhetoric. That will not work because it will be obvious that it is not sincere. I am talking about being serious about making people of faith feel welcome in the Democrat Party. For example, could a Pro-Life Democrat ever be allowed by party bosses to run for President? Not in the past, but perhaps in the future. Secularists and secularism has controlled the party for many, many years. I feel it hurts the party very much in "fly-over" land.

4. A word about his racism and silence about the KKK. Indefensible in our day, but in his? Wilson was certainly racist, and did much to deepen Jim Crow. Why is he given a pass? (For that matter, why is Sen. Robert Byrd of West Va., former KKK organizer, given a pass on his embarrassing past?)Most people were very racist in Bryan's times, including most of the Democratic Party. So why is he singled out for censure? I think a lot has to do with his evangelical identity, and his role in the Scopes trial. Some secularists loathe evangelicals and, I think, have trouble thinking in a balanced way about someone like Bryan. Take a look at the ridiculous review of this book by Publishers Weekly on this site. How does someone read this book and produce that review?

William Jennings Bryan is somewhat of an enigmatic figure in American history. Many of his contempories saw him as a dangerous radical while today he is often seen as a fundamentalist reactionary. How in the world can one man be thought of in such vastly differing ways? In this book Michael Kazin has attempted to answer this question and at the same time he has gone a long way toward clearing the reputation of this great man.

To be sure, Bryan had his flaws and Kazin does not try to gloss over them at all. As a product of his time Bryan was not a friend of African-Americans but how many politicians of his time were? Bryan was also had a terrible problem ever admitting that he was wrong as did his fellow progressive Woodrow Wilson and both men ran into trouble because of it. Still though, when one looks at his entire career Bryan looms as a very large presence in the history of the reform movements of early twentieth century America.

Of course the biggest thing that Bryan is remembered and reviled for is the famous Monkey Trail in Dayton Tennessee. It is all too easy to look at this episode and see a reactionary rather than a progressive thinker but even on the issue of Darwinism this book shows that in some ways Bryan was very much ahead of his time. Bryan critics often fail to mention that many of the early proponents of Darwinism used Darwin's theory to justify eugenics, which is the idea of taking the weakest people out of society so that only the strongest genes will be passed on. Bryan foresaw the serious implications of this idea and it was one of the key reasons that he fought Darwinism so fervently. It was almost as if Bryan could already see Hitler and Stalin with their death camps and this aspect of Bryan's stance on this issue should never be forgotten.

Mr. Kazin has with this book given us the most balanced biography of William Jennings Bryan that I have ever come across. His close association with race bating bigots like Ben Tillman and Tom Watson is not the least bit whitewashed but then again neither are his accomplishments. This book shows us the Bryan who had his warts but who also fought long and bitter fights to gain equal rights for women, to see that free enterprise run amuck would not trample the rights of the average wage earner, and who is as responsible as anybody for the adoption current Federal Reserve System. People all over America owe Bryan a debt of gratitude every time they get their Social Security check and every time that they go to the bank feeling secure because their money is insured. Yes, this author points out Bryan's flaws but he also takes pains to remind the reader of all the positive good that Bryan did and he does so in a very pleasing way. There is not in fact a single boring page in this book. The author's arguments are clear and well defended, his writing style and research are superb and most importantly he has taken up this project with an open mind and because of this he has turned out what I consider the authoritative biography of William Jennings Bryan.

William Jennings Bryan ran for president more than most sane people would ever attempt. A devout religious figure his life was filled with tragedy. While he would never be president he would make many efforts to fight for the common man and give one of the best speeches in American political history telling his listeners that he would not be crucified upon a cross of gold. My one disappointment with this book is that it only spent a chapter on the scopes Monkey trial which I think was a fascinating time in Bryan's life and deserve more attention. Overall if you are looking for a book that can take you decade through decade of the Gilded Age this is a great way to look at it. While it does not focus on the industrialization you get a much better perspective of the common Americans from this book than any other. This is a must read for anyone studying the Gilded Age

Politics in every country are constantly evolving. In America's relatively short history, we've seen quite a bit of change. The Democratic Party, America's oldest political party, has gone through some drastic changes throughout its history. Perhaps the Democrats' most important agent of change was William Jennings Bryan.

Bryan, who's only a few years younger than the Republican Party itself, was born in the Land of Lincoln and grew up to be a loyal, passionate Democrat. Michael Kazin takes us through the life of Bryan (please refrain from additional Monty Python references) from his birth in humble Jacksonville, Illinois, to his death in humble Dayton, Tennessee. Kazin does a wonderful job of highlighting the natural oratorical gifts of the Great Commoner, and offers us a balanced view of Mr. Bryan. Kazin admits early on that, as a liberal, he's got ambivalent feelings toward the man, and I can see why. Much of Bryan's political career is devoted to equal rights, economic equality, government reform and woman suffrage. On the other hand, Bryan was also very tolerant of Jim Crow, saying nothing about the South's peculiar institution, and later in life pushed for Prohibition and pushed against Darwinism in the celebrated Scopes Monkey Trial. While reading about how Bryan is agitating for smashing trusts, campaign finance reform and free silver, it's easy to cheer him, but every now and then Kazin reminds us of the three-time candidate's tolerance of Jim Crow, which breaks the spell. Equality for all white people is certainly more a part of Bryan's day than ours, making Bryan at once a hero of progression and a symbol of an old, collapsed order that's better off old and collapsed.

Without Bryan, it could well be that the Democratic Party would have continued to be the reactionary conservative party it used to be before and immediately after the Civil War. He transformed it to a more progressive version, very similar to the Democratic Party we have today. But his racial attitudes make it difficult to hearken back to Bryan as a formative hero of the party, in spite of all the good he did. Mixed bags are difficult to celebrate.

Kazin's book is easy to follow, and compelling. He leads us through Bryan's life with several chapters devoted to a few years at a time, then leading to a general chapter about Bryan, or his followers, or his times. In the end, Kazin drives home the point that Bryan was a great leader of ideas and ideals, but that he would have made a lousy president, stuck in an office where compromise is crucial to getting anything done.

Franklin Roosevelt, a very savvy politician, picked up where Bryanism left off and got many of the reforms pushed through that Bryan never lived to help along. (Roosevelt, however, repealed Prohibition, which no doubt sent the late Mr. Bryan spinning in his grave.) To understand where the Democratic Party of the twentieth century came from, not to mention the veneer of modern populism that the Republicans have taken on, it's essential to understand William Jennings Bryan. Michael Kazin's book illuminates where the New Deal Democrats' ideas came from, as well as from where the Democrats' jus'-plain-folks image, which has been coöpted by today's Republicans. You'll come away from this book knowing America' history better, sure, but also with a more profound understanding of America today.