From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign

Abstract

Drawing on extensive newspaper accounts of the campaign, author William D. Harpine, a professor of communications at the University of South Carolina-Aiken, demonstrates that the rhetoric of a campaign-what candidates focus on, thus attempting to "frame" the issues of the day-plays a major role in public perceptions of candidates and in an election's outcome.

Harpine, William D. From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2005. 240 pp. $21.95.

This book focuses on the political rhetoric of the 1896 presidential election, detailing and analyzing the speeches of the two key candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. Drawing on extensive newspaper accounts of the campaign, author William D. Harpine, a professor of communications at the University of South Carolina-Aiken, demonstrates that the rhetoric of a campaign-what candidates focus on, thus attempting to "frame" the issues of the day-plays a major role in public perceptions of candidates and in an election's outcome.

That may, of course, seem obvious, but Harpine uses that basic framework to provide a richly detailed revisionist account of the 1896 election. He contends that McKinleys rhetorical skill was much greater, and much more successful, than most historians have recognized. In contrast, he argues that Bryan's oratory in 1896, long characterized as energetic and masterful, really was so divisive that it doomed the "great commoner's" cause.

Harpine's study of McKinley depicts a smart, highly strategic, and disciplined candidate who regularly linked his political views with broader themes of national unity and patriotism. He lacked the fiery charisma of Bryan, but his earnestness and his congeniality wore far better on the public over the course of the campaign than did Bryan's almost apocalyptic message. He contends that McKinley's exceptional ability to make himself seem like ordinary folks did much to deflect his image as the puppet of big business.

McKinley, and his managers, engaged both the public and the media well. His speeches, most of which covered the same key themes, continued to remain fresh because he provided comments tailored especially to each delegation (e.g., noting manufacturing conditions or some other fact about a delegation's home town). His managers also turned each speech into a major event, with colorful parades, music, and cheering throngs. Newspaper reporters always had a colorful or even inspiring story from Canton, and so McKinley got a great deal of news coverage.

In contrast, Bryan was an almost dogged campaigner, but persistence and hard work could not make up for the lack of a thoughtout campaign strategy. Unlike Bryan, McKinley tried to talk about so many issues that the public lost a clear sense of him (other than his opposition to the gold standard). He kept up a frenzied campaign pace, giving as many as fifteen to twenty speeches a day; in such a sprint, there was little time (even had Bryan been so inclined) to tailor his talks to local interests and concerns. Harpine recognizes Bryan's remarkable oratorical skill; there is no doubt that speeches such as the "Cross of Gold" were vivid and inspiring to many. But he failed to link his populist views to the good of all. He also offered a divisive message rather than a unifying one, and this was, of course, all the more compounded by linking the entire eastern U.S. with the enemies of democracy. Thus, his rhetorical splashes got far ahead of good sense. Harpine writes that his oratory helped him get the Democratic party nomination, but "his divisiveness and defensiveness may have served him poorly in the long run."

Harpine's major focus is on the speeches of each candidate, but he goes beyond textual analysis to demonstrate a strong contextual understanding of the campaign and of each candidate's performance. He notes the advantage that McKinley's "front porch" campaign afforded the candidate: only dedicated supporters would undertake the pilgrimage to Canton. In contrast, Bryan's nationwide campaign brought him into contact with hecklers as well as supporters, and his angry responses to taunts and protests only seemed to reinforce an image of a divider rather than a unifier. Harpine draws extensively on newspaper accounts of the campaign, and makes good use of newspaper commentary to inform his analysis of the impact of the candidates' rhetoric.

While the book does not directly focus on journalism, it is an excellent account of the election campaign and thus is required reading for journalism historians focusing on the 1890s. It also is a superb source for any scholar looking at campaigns and media coverage. The efforts of candidates to control the public agenda-and thus to shape media coverage and public perception-are well detailed and relevant to any scholar interested in broader questions of media and campaigns.