Difference between revisions of "Talk:William Jennings Bryan"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Even though many of the issues are different now than they were when Bryan was alive, I think in a lot of ways, he'd still idenify with the Democrats. His economic populism, his support for a progressive income tax, his embrace of the Social Gospel, his distaste for trickle down economics, his call for class warfare, his support for unionism, all fit him in the Democratic party, even today.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 8 June 2007 (EDT) | Even though many of the issues are different now than they were when Bryan was alive, I think in a lot of ways, he'd still idenify with the Democrats. His economic populism, his support for a progressive income tax, his embrace of the Social Gospel, his distaste for trickle down economics, his call for class warfare, his support for unionism, all fit him in the Democratic party, even today.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 8 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :And, I see my edit removing the line has been reverted. Why is it doubtful that he would identify with the Democrats today? The way the sentence is structured, it makes it seem like he wouldn't be a Democrat today because he was an evangelical, but there are a lot of evangelical Democrats today.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:53, 10 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:53, June 10, 2007
Obituary
This is just vicious. I don't think we need this angry diatribe taking up the majority of the article. DanH 15:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
It is as condemnatory an obituary as I have seen - but such views of Bryan exist, and from a very influential figure, too. You could dilute it with more biographical information; if you delete it, at least leave the link for balance.
It is doubtful he would identify with the Democratic Party today
Even though many of the issues are different now than they were when Bryan was alive, I think in a lot of ways, he'd still idenify with the Democrats. His economic populism, his support for a progressive income tax, his embrace of the Social Gospel, his distaste for trickle down economics, his call for class warfare, his support for unionism, all fit him in the Democratic party, even today.--Steve 19:02, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
- And, I see my edit removing the line has been reverted. Why is it doubtful that he would identify with the Democrats today? The way the sentence is structured, it makes it seem like he wouldn't be a Democrat today because he was an evangelical, but there are a lot of evangelical Democrats today.--Steve 13:53, 10 June 2007 (EDT)