The history of political controversy and discussion during the early years of the century was on the surface at least not so very different from that of previous decades; but, as we have already said, many subjects attracting wide public interest were not matters on which par ties sharply differed; both parties contained progressive elements, and with the possible ex ception of the tariff, there appeared on the whole to be no very definite issue. As the cam paign of 1904 approached it was apparent that, though Mr. Roosevelt had antagonized some of the old Republican leaders, his renomination was inevitable because of wide popular sup port; he was, therefore, nominated without opposition, Charles W. Fairbanks of Indiana being the candidate for the Vice-Presidency. The Democrats nominated Judge Alton B. Parker of New York and Henry G. Davis of West Virginia. They gave up the struggle for free silver, for their candidate was strongly opposed to the principle; they attacked "pro tectionism;' spoke out strongly against "gigan tic trusts)) and advocated the independence of the Philippines in accord with the principles of anti-imperialism. In the course of the cam paign the Democratic candidate made serious charges to the effect that large contributions had been made by wealthy corporations to the Republican treasury, and implied that the party and its nominees were put under obligations to the donors. These charges were denied; but the whole controversy stimulated the move ment for the enactment of corrupt practices acts, such as were afterward passed by the national government and some of the States. The Republicans were successful in the elec tion, with an electoral vote of 336 as against 140 polled for the Democratic candidates, and with a popular plurality of over 2,500,000.
Before the coming of the next election con ditions were considerably altered; opposition to trusts and to "big business had increased; there were demands in various quarters for laws for social betterment and relief ; and the increasing cost of living, which was credited in part to the tariff and the favoritism shown to certain industries, had awakened much com plaint. Not much of this unrest found expres sion in opposition to Mr. Roosevelt, who was classed with the progressive element of his party as against the "stand patters)) who disapproved change or recession, especially on the tariff. The Republican nominees in 1908 were William H. Taft and James S. Sherman. Mr. Bryan and John W. Kern were the Democratic candi dates, the former still appearing to be the lead ing and most influential person in his party. The Republicans, influenced by popular unrest, declared "unequivocally for the revision of the tariff by a special session of Congress imme diately following the inauguration of the next President,)) and favored the development of a permanent currency system and the greater supervision of corporations engaged in inter state commerce, while the Democrats explicitly demanded reduction of the tariff and emphati cally advocated stringent control of trusts and railroads. Once more the Republicans were successful, though by a somewhat smaller elec toral majority (321 to 162) than four years be fore and by a greatly reduced popular majority, less than 500,000 votes. The next four years were full of restless disputation. As they had promised, the Republicans took up the tariff question and passed the Payne-Aldrich bill; but the results were decidedly unsatisfactory to those who had expected a "revision down wards,)) and there was in some quarters a feel ing that the public had been betrayed, that once more the tariff had been manipulated, not really lowered, or handled with reference to the needs of the consumer as well as the manu facturer. This feeling was not confined to those who were traditionally associated with the Democrats or to those who had been con sistently tariff reformers. For this reason, and
probably because of more vague causes of dis content, the party was defeated in the Congres sional election of 1910 and lost control of the House.
For some years past the progressive or in surgent element in the Republican party had been growing in strength; unwilling to leave the party, these persons nevertheless struggled against the control of those who had been dom inant in its councils and had commonly marked out its policy. It might be said that during these years the progressive elements of the two parties — for the Democratic party was also by no means at peace — appeared to the on looker to have more in common than did the varying elements in any one party. The "in surgents)) in Congress took a determined stand against some pieces of Republican legislation and were successful (1910) in reducing the power of the speaker of the House, who had great influence on legislation and was thought to use his power to prevent free discussion or the free development of party programs and policies in legislation. There were various other evidences of dissatisfaction with the old regime in politics, many believing that President Taft, though thoroughly honest and right minded, was under the influence of reactionary forces when he ought to be pushing the party forward. The truth seems to be that he was earnestly seeking to hold the elements of the party together, but he probably did not fully appreciate the depth and vigor of popular dis satisfaction, and especially the objection enter tained to the seeming sway of certain men whose names, rightly or wrongly, were as sociated in the public mind with mechanical politics and subservience to unpopular in terest.
The result of this condition of affairs was shown at the opening of the campaign of 1912. Roosevelt, who had strongly favored the nom ination of his successor four years before, now came out against him, became a candidate for the nomination and was enthusiastically sup ported by a large portion of his party. Before the Chicago convention met, it was apparent that reconciliation between the warring ele ments in the party was almost impossible. The meeting was, however, held securely in the hands of the old practised leaders, who were vigorously denounced for using what were called °steam-roller* tactics to crush out sition and name their own candidate. When Taft and Sherman were nominated over the vehement protest of the Roosevelt followers, the insurgent elements, who were already call ing themselves °Progressives,* met in conven tion (Chicago, August) and nominated Roose velt and Hiram W. Johnson. The Democratic party had its• own difficulties, for there also contending factions struggled for control. The outcome, however, was not a breach in the party but acquiescence in the nomination of Woodrow Wilson and Thomas R. Marshall, who represented the more progressive wing. Under such circumstances there could be no real chance for either Taft or Roosevelt; but the campaign was carried on with great earn estness and much public discussion had the usually beneficial effect of arousing public at tention to vital matters. Wilson and Marshall were elected, receiving 435 electoral votes out of a total of 531, but only a minority of the popular vote (6,286,214 out of 15,031,169). The Progressives cast over 4,000,000 votes, over 500,000 more than the Republicans, who secured only eight electoral votes. In the Congressional elections the Democrats were also successful, gaining control of both houses; but the Pro gressives made no such exhibition of strength as in the vote for President; the Congress of 1913-15 contained only nine Progressives and seven members commonly classed as Progres sive Republicans.