From La Follette to Walz: The Struggle for Progressive Reform in Gilded Ages
1883 Puck magazine political cartoon titled “The Protectors of our Industries”—the prosperity of a few built on the backs of the many.
By Madilyn Zink ‘26
“To break the combined power of the private monopoly system over the political and economic life of the American people is the one paramount issue of the 1924 campaign,” explained U.S. Senator Robert M. La Follette Sr. in his aptly-titled 1924 article “The Paramount Issue of the 1924 Campaign.” In it, he announced his third-party candidacy for the 1924 presidential election, motivated by the inadequate response by both the Democratic and Republican parties to the plights of working Americans. Almost exactly one hundred years later, America, yet again, finds itself grappling with a similar dilemma.
The parallels of the political climates surrounding the elections of 1924 and 2024 are uncanny. Today, as in the past, we endure abysmal wealth and income inequality and poor material conditions for the working and middle class, brought about by unfettered corporate influence within our political system and an unresponsive political establishment. La Follette’s description of the political realities of his own time, rooted in the continuation of Gilded Age politics, serves as a sobering reminder of how history can regress. Today, we find ourselves in what some scholars are calling a New Gilded Age.
Unmet Needs
What exactly makes the political contexts of the 1924 and 2024 elections worthy of comparison in the first place? The answer can be found in the clear parallel between the massive levels of income inequality over the two general time periods.
The era of the “Roaring Twenties” is known for its economic prosperity and material gains for America’s middle class. Unfortunately, this prosperity and economic growth was not enjoyed by everyone in society: the middle and upper classes benefited from this marked growth, having access to more luxuries than ever before. Meanwhile, corporations enjoyed lax intervention from the government and were able to cut costs on the supply side to maximize profit as a result. However, working class Americans were left to shoulder the burden of this economic expansion for those towards the top. This bears out in the economic data of the time. By 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9 percent of pretax income, while about 60% of families made less than $2,000 a year—the absolute minimum livable income for a family of five. Wages were low, hours were long, and the cost of living was high.
Our New Gilded Age of today features comparably sobering figures; in 2024, we are facing widespread inequality on a similar scale to that of the 1920s:
“Average income of America’s top 0.1% as a multiple of bottom 90% income” over time from 1925 through 2018.
Echoing the data on income inequality cited in 1928, the top 1% of earners received about 26.3% of income in 2021. Meanwhile, the average after-tax income for American families was about $71,000 in 2023. Yet, according to recent data, the average individual would need about $85,000 in pretax income to live comfortably. Another shocking figure that highlights this grim picture: if inequality levels held constant from 1975 through 2018, the average American would earn an additional $21,000 per year—equating to an additional $10.10 to $13.50 an hour. In concert, these statistics demonstrate the regrettable fact that the income and wages of average Americans struggle to keep up with today’s cost of living. The sad reality is that living in the United States is increasingly difficult to afford. Inadequate wages, staggering healthcare costs, and high prices for everyday goods make for an existence rooted in pure survival and stifled upward mobility.
But these difficulties aren’t solely affecting the working class anymore. Unlike in the 1920s during which at least the middle class was able to experience the privilege of enjoying greater economic prosperity, the U.S. is currently contending with a shrinking middle class. Today, not only is America’s working class shouldering the burden of growth, but so is our middle class. This leaves us with the vast majority of wealth in the United States circulating at the very top of the income bracket.
A Dual Trend in Washington
But why does this level of inequality exist to the extent that it’s being compared to that of the Gilded Age? The reason is a dual trend in Washington pertaining to which policies are pursued and which are neglected.
On the one hand, despite their popularity, policies that are in the best interest of regular people are perpetually neglected. In 1924, a general deregulatory, laissez-faire ethic drove political decisions. As a result, the conditions of working Americans fell by the wayside. During this time, the U.S. was an exceptionally dangerous place to be a laborer, as American workers were two to three times more likely to be injured or killed on the job than their European counterparts. Lack of proper workplace regulation led to these grueling working conditions, but also to long shifts of around 10-12 hours with no overtime pay. Along with a lack of response from both political party establishments when it came to addressing wages and inequalities, they also neglected policies that would improve the basic working conditions of their constituency.
While working conditions have come a long way since the early 1900s, today we still see a neglect of popular policies that have the potential to significantly increase our quality of life. According to the Pew Research Center, 63% of U.S. adults say the government is responsible for providing healthcare coverage for all; 64% of Americans say the minimum wage should be raised to $17 from the archaic $7.25 federal minimum wage, which hasn’t been updated since 2009; 66% say public universities should offer free tuition; 85% of voters in battleground states favor paid family leave; and 66% of voters support the legalization of marijuana at the federal level. Yet, while the Biden administration made welcome but modest progress in terms of student loan debt and moving to deschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, the Democratic establishment has taken significant liberties at every turn to attribute mysterious reasons as to why these more ambitious reforms are unfeasible and a little too extreme. And so they’re perpetually unpursued, even in the face of inadequate material conditions for the average American.
On the other hand, unpopular policies that benefit corporate interests are achieved with little resistance. In 1924, the levels of inequality and poor working conditions reflected a simultaneous pro-business, anti-labor attitude of the time period, alongside policy decisions that favored the wealthy and corporations. With the presidential terms of Republicans Calvin Coolidge and Warren G. Harding, the Overton window in Washington shifted back to the right after the brief political wins for working people during the Progressive Era of the early 1900s—reviving Gilded Age economic policies. A laissez-faire, deregulatory ethic was embraced, and the interests of the wealthy and business class were prioritized over those of the working class. This was evidenced by the cutting of estate and gift taxes, relaxing regulations on corporations, widespread union busting, and anti-labor court cases—resulting in a weak labor movement.
In 2024, we see a similar deregulatory ethic that increases corporate power through recent tax breaks, the Citizens United decision, which essentially legalized corporate bribery in elections under the guise of “free speech,” union busting, and the like.
So, it would seem that this dual trend in Washington isn’t really negligence at all—it’s an active choice. There is a glaring mismatch between the policies that average Americans care about and desire, and those which are actually fought for by our political representatives. This idea gets to the crux of La Follette’s grievance with both parties of the political establishment a whole century ago:
The rank and file membership of both old parties is progressive…both party organizations have fallen under the domination and control of corrupt wealth, devoting the powers of government exclusively to selfish special interests.
Politicians in Washington, especially those in the Democratic party who claim to be aligned with interests of working and middle class Americans, can no longer hide behind this veneer of incompetence. When they have true resolve, it’s clear they have the power to get things done. The political establishment has the ability to intervene but are not; they can intervene but are simply choosing not to, and so these important policies are not just being neglected, but deprioritized. Both parties are more responsive to corporate and special interests than the interests of regular working Americans—and that’s a shame.
I Scratch Your Back….
When we think about the practical incentive structure working against the implementation of these reforms, though, the primary reason as to why they’re not pursued isn’t too mysterious at all: corruption, to put it bluntly. The existence of powerful opposition groups that are deliberately lobbying against these popular policies acts as the brick wall that keeps us from similar material conditions to the rest of the developed world, let alone the ability to afford our current cost of living. The majority of our representatives aren’t beholden to the people, in the way democracy originally intended, but to the people they’re indebted to for their election and reelections in the first place. So much so, some go as far as to call the United States not even a true democracy, but a corporatocracy.
This dynamic mainly plays out through lobbying. This involves meetings between corporate and political officials to influence policy decisions that benefit specific industries. A mutualistic relationship is at play here: in exchange for policy concessions, corporate interest groups offer financial support through SuperPACS, campaign contributions, and other forms of backing—made possible by Citizens United. There is a revolving door between political careers and lucrative corporate positions which stand to reinforce the influence of lobbying in our political system. Corporations also have a direct hand in the legislative process, as corporate interests consult with our representatives in the process of drafting and passing legislation—providing data and “expertise” in every step of the process. On the whole, this has created something of a technocratic consensus among political elites that has come to align with corporate elites as a result, further entrenching their interests in our political process and priorities.
Indeed, change in Washington is exceptionally complex. Deep political polarization in both the electorate and rank in file and an intentionally “gummed-up” bureaucratic system are also major players in the inability to pass popular legislation. That being said, there’s no doubt that a cleaner political process could only improve Washington’s level of efficiency.
A New Hope
The issue of corporate influence in our politics gets to the very heart of what it means to enjoy a representative democracy, or even an organized governing body as a whole. It calls upon our subjective philosophies towards the fundamental role of government, and the extent to which the government has an obligation to safeguard and work to actively improve our quality of life. It is my view that a government, especially one that calls itself a liberal democracy, should be beholden to the interests of its constituents. Lamentably, in 2024 as in 1924, it seems that our representatives are instead beholden to special and corporate interests. But contrary to what these entities want us to believe, this doesn’t have to be just “the way things are and the way things will always be.”
If the progressives will but unite with a single purpose to meet this issue fearlessly and squarely, they may rely with entire confidence upon the support of the plain people who are the victims of the present system and who have the right and power, through a ballot, to control their own government.
As La Follette knew, and tried to achieve himself, in 1924: Americans need a representative that is truly aligned with their interests and isn’t compelled by the allure of more political power or appeals to technocratic talking points. The simple act of La Follette bringing attention to these inadequacies in our political process and making a third party run for office helped legitimize, destigmatize, and normalize progressive reform. He helped pave the way for FDR—one of the most popular presidents in our nation’s history, to secure office and make a substantial impact—during the New Deal era and for decades to come. Similarly, in a surprising move that goes against recent history, the simple decision of Kamala Harris to invite Tim Walz as her running mate should give us a lot of hope that things aren’t so bleak after all; that change is on the horizon. For far too long, these hopes have been met with broken promises by the establishments of both sides of the aisle, creating a status quo of stalled progress and perpetual disappointment for progressives.
That is, until the embrace of Tim Walz. This is a big deal, because this move alone gave the Overton window a pretty significant tug to the left in Washington. The idea of genuine progressive touching the Oval Office has the potential to alter our political landscape for a very long time, taking political power from corporations and putting it back into the hands of everyday people through good policy. To be sure, the road ahead, if Harris and Walz are to become president and vice president elect, will not be straightforward by any means. These powerful forces in Washington will do everything in their power to block necessary reform. But I think Americans will be surprised by how much can get done when someone who genuinely cares about the issues is in a position to boldly and courageously push for them. Whether Tim Walz is the La Follette or the FDR in this story–whether he paves the way for an FDR-type leader to come in and shake up our political landscape or does the shaking up himself—remains to be seen. Either way, we should feel optimistic about the possibility to enact real, meaningful change in people’s lives, and we should be motivated to ensure this future at the ballot box this November.