Connect with us

Economics

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

Published

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.

Continue Reading

Economics

Marco Rubio, MAGA and the State Department’s new look

Published

on

SOMETHING STRANGE happened on April 22nd. A top member of America’s cabinet announced big changes to his department—and it did not represent a MAGA-inspired overhaul. At a time when Donald Trump’s worst instincts are dominating public policy, it is notable that Marco Rubio’s reforms at the State Department resemble what might have come out of a conventional Republican administration.

Continue Reading

Economics

If Trump wants rate cuts, he would likely need to replace the Fed’s full board

Published

on

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 21, 2025.

Leah Millis | Reuters

President Donald Trump’s public criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell has fueled concern that he will try to fire the central bank chief, but even that historic and legally questionable move may not be enough for Trump to bend monetary policy in his preferred direction.

Even firing Powell won’t necessarily get Trump the rate cuts he wants, according to multiple economists.

“In all likelihood, however, firing Powell would just be the first step in dismantling the Fed’s independence. If Trump is set on lowering interest rates then he will have to fire the other six Fed Board Members too, which would trigger a more severe market backlash, with the dollar falling and rates at the long end of the yield curve rising,” said Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics, in a recent note.

Powell is chair of both the Fed board of governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets interest rate policy. Ashworth pointed out that, while FOMC members usually choose to make the president-appointed board of governors chair to lead them, they can buck Trump and choose someone else as head of the rate-setting committee. And JPMorgan’s chief U.S. economist, Michael Feroli, said in a note Monday that “most of the power of the leadership stems from the historical deference” rather than the actual mechanics of the job.

Deutsche Bank senior economist Peter Sidorov echoed the idea that individual Fed members might vote against the wishes of a new leader if they feel Trump has overstepped.

“Note that while the Fed Chair has significant influence over the FOMC, monetary policy actions are taken by a majority vote so removing Powell could lead to increased pushback from other members against pressure on the Fed to deliver easier policy,” Sidorov said in a note to clients Tuesday.

This discussion on Wall Street comes after Trump has criticized Powell multiple times in recent days, including calling the Fed chair “a major loser” in a social media post Monday that rocked financial markets. White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said last week that the president and his team were exploring the possibility of removing the Fed chair.

It is unclear whether Trump even has the authority to remove Powell before his term as board of governors chair ends next year. Powell has previously said he does not believe it is legally allowed for the president to fire him. The Supreme Court is set to hear an appeal about Trump’s firing of board members at other federal organizations in a case that could shed light on what’s next for the Fed.

The speculation about changes at the Fed, along with the ongoing tariff uncertainty, appears to have hurt investor confidence in the United States. U.S. stocks, bonds and the dollar have all fallen in recent weeks.

Wall Street pros worry that changes at the Fed could lead to further sell-offs and fears of higher inflation.

“Any reduction in the independence of the Fed would add upside risks to an inflation outlook that is already subject to upward pressures from tariffs and somewhat elevated inflation expectations,” Feroli said in a note to clients.

“It has been hoped that these adverse consequences would dissuade the president from threatening Fed independence, though so far the president has often followed through on his intentions,” he added.

— CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed reporting.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Economics

ECB’s Lagarde says she hopes firing of Fed’s Powell is not on table

Published

on

Christine Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), comments on the central bank’s latest interest rate decision to journalists.

Photo by Andreas Arnold/picture alliance via Getty Images

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde on Tuesday said she hoped that the prospect of U.S. President Donald Trump firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell was not on the table.

Asked by CNBC’s Sara Eisen if that scenario was a current material risk to markets, Lagarde said: “I certainly hope not … I hope that it is not a risk.”

Speaking on the sidelines of the IMF World Bank Spring Meetings, Lagarde told CNBC that she would not comment on the market implications of an event she hoped was “not on the table.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has been ramping up pressure on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell to reduce interest rates, warning the U.S. economy could slow down otherwise.

Powell had in turn last week suggested that Trump’s trade war could weigh on growth and fuel inflation. He did not indicate his expectations for the interest rate path ahead, but noted that “for the time being, we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.”

Trump appointed Powell during his first presidential mandate, but is now looking into whether the Fed chief can legally be sacked before him term expires.

The ECB and the Fed have been diverging on monetary policy.

The euro area’s central bank has consistently cut rates as inflation closes in on its 2% target and economic growth in the bloc appears lackluster. The Fed has meanwhile been keeping rates steady this year, after enacting three consecutive cuts between September and December last year.

The ECB last week cut interest rates by a further 25 basis points, making its third reduction of 2025 and its seventh trim since it began easing monetary policy last summer. In its monetary policy statement, the central bank warned of a weakened growth outlook linked to the global trade uncertainty stoked by U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff policy.

Continue Reading

Trending