I laid the morning paper on a dark red doormat. I looked up at a marbled windowsill and saw a grey old man in a bathrobe tending to his white flowers. Drops fell from a spout he was holding and patted the cold concrete I stood on. He looked down and I was met with an even colder glance from the old man.
People of this temperament were all over New York at the time. It was an age of prestige, politics, and poverty. I had received the blunt end of this sword, while haughty, rich men had wielded it for years.
Any ordinary paper boy’s job, I presumed, was much more trouble-free than the one I held. Elitist individuals in fancy white buildings had our government taught by the throat. People like this old man assured me that my insignificance was well-trained and kept unimportant. I had been on this leash my whole life.
I kept my pace, throwing newspapers to the moneyed front porches. I saw some sort of collimation in these opposed social classes. Some stand by eagerly, like the needy dog waiting for any stimulus. Some bide time, although I knew deep down their lives were only filled by drama. It gave me some kind of control. I fed them. I gave into their obvious consumption.
The corruption stood out to be clearly visible. Unfettered capitalism stuck out like a sore thumb.
Powerful billionaires, the political machine, populist politics—the term “Second Gilded Age” has been used to describe the recent American political landscape. The accuracy of this usage is debatable, but this article will explore the most prominent similarities between the current state of the U.S. and the not-so-dearly remembered Gilded Age of the late 1870s to the late 1890s.
Setting the Stage
The name “The Gilded Age” was coined by the author Mark Twain. It was the name of his book published in 1873 that pointed out the injustice and corruption of the time. The name itself highlights the inequality of the time. The word “gilded” means “covered or highlighted with gold or something of a golden color” or “having a pleasing or showy appearance that conceals something of little worth” (according to Collins Dictionary).
Twain intentionally used this word to describe the period because he wanted to foster the realization that the Gilded Age was not as prosperous as it seemed. A tangle of poverty, a lack of regulation, and a mess of living conditions were common problems for all but a few wealthy. On the surface, the period was one of opulence, but just behind the thin mask of luxury was the dense thicket of hardship and deprivation.
The Similarities are Strong
Mass political influence by wealthy individuals characterized the Gilded Age. Political campaigns solicited enormous donations to guarantee victory in elections, and politicians became responsible for satisfying their donors. Donors contributed to political campaigns, expecting politicians to tailor their platforms to those who gave the most.
The 1896 election was one of the best examples of the role of wealth in electoral politics at the time. Republican William McKinley defeated populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan. The role of wealth and money’s influence on this election can not be overstated. Wealthy donors sponsored the production and dissemination of literature that promoted the gold standard. The agenda of the rich was to disallow the “free silver” movement from becoming a reality. The gold standard would allow the wealthy to keep the lion’s share of the wealth, as currency was limited as long as it was tied to gold.
McKinley knew he had to appease his wealthy donors while still gaining support from the populace, many of whom were living in poverty. This led him to not take a strong stance on the issues of currency, which helped him in his election against William Jennings Bryan. Bryan took a strong stance as a pro-silver advocate, alienating some supporters who opted for the more moderate approach.
McKinley’s pressure from his wealthy donors directly contributed to the policies he pledged while in office. A similar situation can be seen in the current political landscape. Donors threaten to withdraw funding for political candidates if their policies do not align with what the wealthy deem beneficial. Satisfying donors is part of the political game. The success of modern campaigns is directly related to the amount of money spent on campaigning. According to a study from OpenSecrets, 93.92% of the top-spending candidates won their bids for the House of Representatives, while 87.88% of the top-spending Senate candidates were victorious.
Essentially, for candidates to have a shot at victory, they must outspend their opponents. This makes it vital for candidates to appease their donors so they will not lose their support. Unregulated contributions shaped the Gilded Age, and there seems to be a modern return to these dubious political practices. The Federal Election Commission significantly increased the contribution limit for donors to political parties in February of 2023. These increases are meant to be correlative with the inflation rate, but this increase in 2023 led to an increase in the Senate win rate for the Senate candidates who took the most money from corporations and lobbyists.
There are also new ways around the contribution limits imposed between Gilded Ages. This has led to extremely wealthy individuals donating tens of millions each. The most prominent donor in this most recent election cycle was Elon Musk. In 2024 alone, Musk contributed more than 280 million dollars to Republican candidates.
But what about the limits? Further into the weeds of campaign donorship, there is a distinction between “hard money” and “outside money”. Hard money refers to political donations that are subject to the regulations imposed by the Federal Election Commission. This type of donation is typically made directly to a campaign or political party. Outside money, however, has no regulations that limit it. These donations are made to organizations that further political causes, such as Political Action Committees (PACs). This style of donation allows for political influence without direct contributions. The goal is to influence voters via ad campaigns and voter mobilization. This can have just as large of an impact on swaying elections as direct contributions, so the contribution limits functionally do nothing. So while Elon Musk technically only donated 1,049,700 dollars to Republican campaigns, the 279 million dollars he threw in could still have influenced electoral politics last year.
The similarities between the old Gilded Age and the New Gilded Age are strong. Though the United States has made progress to stop some of the corruption and lack of regulation of the time, there seems to be a regression in the government’s role in daily life. The U.S. is returning to be more isolationist, and the government is becoming more hands off.
American politics are often on a pendulum, though, and there may be an occurrence similar to the “Progressive Era” that ended the first Gilded Age.
