William McKinley versus Donald Trump: Does Mr. Trump Really Need to Be So Nasty?

Interesting CNN article by John Kirby about William McKinley and tariffs. With President Donald Trump taking an anti-free trade stance, conservatives are now beginning to think that free trade is bad after all. They're probably wrong, but that's a story for another time.

For most of his career, President McKinley favored protection, which was a code name for high tariffs imposed on imported goods. McKinley attributed the Depression of 1893 to low tariffs. Modern economists would attribute the Depression of 1893 to a bank panic combined with excessively tight monetary policy.

Kirby interviewed conservative author Robert Merry. Merry took the attitude that protection is not always harmful and that free trade isn't always good. Merry isn't actually an economist, but, then, neither am I.

I wrote about William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan's public speaking during their 1896 presidential campaign. (See link at left.) Both men were far more powerful orators than Trump because they appealed to the voters' better natures, just as Trump appeals to people's fears and ignorance. 

So, instead of hassling about the tariff, let's compare and contrast McKinley's rhetorical approach with Trump's. McKinley was unifying; Trump is divisive. To be blunt, McKinley was a far more positive politician than Trump.

Trump is divisive on purpose. It's his main appeal. Consider his recent (inaccurate) claim that the USA has a trade deficit with Canada:

That tweet implied, probably wrongly, that the EU is harming the United States and that the trade deals are grossly unfair.

These statements persuade by sowing division, by making the United States out to be a victim.

Consider McKinley's unifying approach to foreign trade. During his 1896 campaign, he called his candidacy: “this great fight of 1896 for a protective tariff, for a good currency, for peace and law and order, and the triumph of right and justice.” That didn't necessarily make any more sense than what Trump said, but it was a positive, not hostile message. 

In another campaign speech that year, he said, according to a report in the Canton Repository:

"Nothing is more vital to the standing and progress of a country than the preservation of its credit and financial honor. (Applause and cries of 'that’s right.') Nothing is more vital to the standing and progress of a country than that the currency of the country shall be so honest that it can cheat nobody. (Great cheering.) Nothing is of greater moment to the welfare of the country than the adoption of a policy which will give to labor and capital constant employment with fair returns. (Applause and cries of 'good.')."

See the difference? McKinley argued that everyone shared the same interests. He did not directly criticize his famous opponent, William Jennings Bryan. He put capital and labor on an equal footing, pledging to respect both, and putting neither at odds with the other. Unlike Trump, McKinley at least made an effort to bring people together.

And, guess what? With this unifying style, full of positive message, McKinley won the presidency.

Do candidates today need to be nasty to win? I think not. It's just that the nasty ones have won some elections in the past, and people now think it's the only way to go.

Here's the problem: to be an effective leader, Mr. Trump needs to inspire enough Americans to accomplish his goals. But his consistently nasty rhetoric offends at least as many people as it inspires, and, then, the people he has offended don't want to implement his policies. Divisive rhetoric is overrated.