Connect with us

Economics

The rich history of Chicago national conventions offers hope to both parties

Published

1 year ago

on

This is the introduction to Checks and Balance, a weekly, subscriber-only newsletter bringing exclusive insight from our correspondents in America.

James Bennet, our Lexington columnist, considers what the history of the Chicago national conventions teach both parties today

We’re all going to be hearing a lot this summer about the Democrats’ storm-tossed convention in Chicago in 1968, since the party is convening there again this August. Given the uproar on college campuses, I tried to beat the rush by writing this week about how echoes of ’68, and the anti-war protests of that year, are resounding through national politics. But so much history has been made at Chicago conventions that the violent, divisive convention of ’68 is really only one of several potential touchstones. Herewith, for both parties to consider, are some more hopeful precedents and themes.

Realising the promise of America: The first national political convention in Chicago was in 1860, and the Republicans who gathered there chose the least-known of three candidates, a former one-term congressman named Abraham Lincoln. (In another Chicago political tradition, skulduggery, Lincoln’s operatives used counterfeit tickets to pack supporters into the convention site, the Wigwam, and on the third ballot they secured him the nomination by flipping some Ohio delegates’ votes with promises of patronage, apparently without the candidate’s knowledge.)

Connecting with rural voters: In 1896, when Democrats gathered in Chicago towards the end of a deep depression, another former congressman, just 36 years old, won the nomination with perhaps the most electrifying populist speech in American history—certainly the most electrifying one about monetary policy. “You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!” thundered William Jennings Bryan. (Bryan lost to William McKinley, who tapped big business for huge contributions.)

Achieving profound reform: After failing to take back the Republican nomination from William Howard Taft in Chicago in 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt bolted to create the Progressive Party. He split the Republican vote and threw the election to the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, but helped guide America up the path to women’s suffrage and the direct election of senators, among other changes.

Overcoming a depression, winning a world war and building an enduring coalition: Democrats picked Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York on the fourth ballot in Chicago in 1932. He broke tradition by accepting the nomination in person, saying one task of the Democrats should be “to break foolish traditions”. He also, in more famous words, pledged them “to a new deal for the American people”. (It was also in Chicago that, in 1940, Democrats nominated Roosevelt to a third term—please do not tell Donald Trump.)

Of course, the days when party conventions delivered big surprises are over, or at least appear to be. This was another legacy of the 1968 convention, where delegates picked a nominee, Hubert Humphrey, who had not even competed in a single primary. To democratise the choosing of nominees, first the Democrats and then the Republicans took authority away from the conventions, with their smoke-filled rooms, and handed it to voters in primaries. As I wrote in January, the unintended consequence was to empower party activists, who tend to pick candidates who do not inspire a broad majority of Americans. Come to think of it, maybe 1968 is, unavoidably, the correct touchstone for this year’s contest.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Economics

The fantastical world of Republican economic thinking

Published

3 hours ago

on

June 2, 2025

By

The elites of the American right cannot reconcile the inconsistencies in their policy platform

Continue Reading

Economics

People cooking at home at highest level since Covid, Campbell’s says

Published

8 hours ago

on

June 2, 2025

By

A worker arranges cans of Campbell’s soup on a supermarket shelf in San Rafael, California.

Getty Images

Campbell’s has seen customers prepare their own meals at the highest rate in about half a decade, offering the latest sign of everyday people tightening their wallets amid economic concerns.

“Consumers are cooking at home at the highest levels since early 2020,” Campbell’s CEO Mick Beekhuizen said Monday, adding that consumption has increased among all income brackets in the meals and beverages category.

Beekhuizen drew parallels between today and the time when Americans were facing the early stages of what would become a global pandemic. It was a period of broad economic uncertainty as the Covid virus affected every aspect of everyday life and caused massive shakeups in spending and employments trends.

The trends seen by the Pepperidge Farm and V-8 maker comes as Wall Street and economists wonder what’s next for the U.S. economy after President Donald Trump‘s tariff policy raised recession fears and battered consumer sentiment.

More meals at home could mean people are eating out less, showing Americans tightening their belts. That can spell bad news for gross domestic product, two thirds of which relies on consumer spending. A recession is commonly defined as two straight quarters of the GDP shrinking.

It can also underscore the souring outlook of everyday Americans on the national economy. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index last month fell to one of its lowest levels on record.

Campbell’s remarks came after the soup maker beat Wall Street expectations in its fiscal third quarter. The Goldfish and Rao’s parent earned 73 cents per share, excluding one-time items, on $2.48 billion in revenue, while analysts polled by FactSet anticipated 65 cents and $2.43 billion, respectively.

Shares added 0.8% before the bell on Monday. The stock has tumbled more than 18% in 2025.

Continue Reading

Economics

Why stricter voting laws no longer help Republicans

Published

1 day ago

on

June 1, 2025

By

“The Republicans should pray for rain”—the title of a paper published by a trio of political scientists in 2007—has been an axiom of American elections for years. The logic was straightforward: each inch of election-day showers, the study found, dampened turnout by 1%. Lower turnout gave Republicans an edge because the party’s affluent electorate had the resources to vote even when it was inconvenient. Their opponents, less so.

Continue Reading

Trending