Does History Repeat Itself?

Do you think history repeats itself; it is a common refrain that is widely accepted to be true; but is it accurate? I have typically believed that statement to be true, but I am not sure that it is. To recite history and conclude it will repeat itself; you must have a good grasp of what occurred and what variables impacted the event or series of events. Unfortunately, history, and the retelling of it, has many subtleties, and isn’t always black and white. For example, you can read various histories of Winston Churchill and based on the perspective of the writer have two different conclusions about the man. One conclusion is he was a brilliant architect of the defense of the free world from the Nazis and responsible for saving us all from Hitler’s tyranny. Another documented view is less than noble and concludes Churchill’s policies and statements supporting imperialism, specifically, as it relates to India, reflect a deeply flawed person. As is often the case, people tend to choose whichever narrative they prefer and that becomes their version of Churchill’s place in history. It is also possible, and I think it is correct, to conclude that both perspectives can be true at the same time.

The point is history has many layers, and thus not always an easy marker to accurately predict the future. However, I do believe history can guide the future and there is much to learn by looking at the past.

I am particularly interested in exploring what might happen in the US as the range between what could be called the “haves”, and the “have-nots” widens. Since the early 1970’s the gap in wealth between the bottom and the top earners has been growing at an astonishing rate; this has led to the standard of living being lower for most of the population. Further, the number of individuals who fit into the “have-not” camp is growing and the number of “haves” is getting smaller compared to the overall population. I am not talking about millionaires, which have become the new upper middle class—roughly 22 million Americans are millionaires—, I am talking about the super-rich; the small number of individuals who have wealth that exceeds the GDP of some countries.

Mega-wealth rests with a small possie of individuals who have founded companies that have grown to monopoly status, they include Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin. The billionaire elite reside comfortably in the technological and financial worlds, both sectors that have an outsized influence on everything that happens to and on behalf of people in the world; these people have power, real power that hasn’t been witnessed in decades.

This has happened before; as the calendar flipped and the 20th century began, the US was dominated by several titans of industry: Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and J.P. Morgan, collectively controlled steel, oil, railroads, and finance. Often referred to as the Gilded Age these leaders were either called robber barons, due to their ruthless business practices or captains of industry who drove economic growth. As with Churchill, your view of these men drives your conclusion about their impact.

What isn’t disputed is what resulted from their wealth and power creation; a growing populist movement developed among the population; as the common man became tired of working hard but failing to get ahead, while a select few grew richer and richer. In 1890 the Sherman Anti-trust act was signed into law to address monopoly activities; however, the first twelve years after the act it was nothing more than a thin piece of paper. After Teddy Roosevelt became President things changed. A republican, Teddy was determined to bring down the mighty barons, and he wasted no time. In February 1902, his administration went after JP Morgan invoking the anti-trust act. This was the first of many actions which ultimately led to splitting up of economic control and a redistribution of wealth to a broader group of Americans; hard-working, capitalists at heart who couldn’t break through the anvil the barons had on their neck. Go back and look at economic history and its impact on politics in the first twelve years of the 20th century and you can easily draw comparisons to today.

It begs the question is there anything to be learned? Today, the anger felt by voters is focused on economic misalignment; there are certainly those who are not economically impaired who voted the way they did in November, but the lion-share of voters for Trump are angry, disenfranchised citizens who espouse populists’ views because they are tired of falling behind.

History tells us that whenever wealth is concentrated in a small group, it doesn’t go well; in fact, history shows concentrated wealth is ultimately redistributed by the government, as was done by Teddy Roosevelt, or through more dramatic events, like civil unrest. I remember being at a private breakfast ten years ago with a handful of people who could be described as fitting into the very small class of uber-wealthy and the topic for the day was; when will the efforts to redistribute wealth occur and in what form.

I have often wondered about that day and have found myself reading whatever I can about the first decade of the 20th century trying to see parallels; in my view there is a lot to connect the periods. As I have explored this, I am struck by an interesting phenomenon that seems prevalent in the US. We are optimists and want to believe things that aren’t always true; specifically, most people who believe they are a “have”, are in fact a “have-not” when it comes to power and control. The future of this country, and in fact, our future is being influenced by a very small group of people. We want to believe otherwise, we want to think Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg think like the well-healed people, but do they?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, I don’t even know what the breaking point is; I do know we are reaching levels of economic disparity on par with the early 20th century. One hundred and twenty years ago, the country had Teddy Roosevelt and his commitment to upsetting the apple cart; to reducing the power of a few and giving it to capitalists to run with it. What do we have today? The polls and data support that Trump was elected by the masses to solve economic inequality like Teddy did; that is what voters expect, things will get better, and things will get better for them. That is Trump’s mandate; is he ready or able to do that? He is a man of the people when he talks, but when he looks in the mirror, I think he believes he is already one of the economic elites; he appears to want to be more like the robber barons than anything else.

I believe in trickle-down economics; but what happens when the trickle becomes an intermittent drip? What happens when people have had enough.

I have reflected a great deal about why I am so concerned about Trump and in time I have come to understand the basis of what bothers me. Trump promises to do things for people that look like my family; the people I grew up with that have always fought to keep their head above water. He speaks to people I care about, and they desperately want him to be the answer; is he? I don’t believe history repeats itself, I believe it informs. We have been here before, admittedly with different variables and issues, but this isn’t new. We have a population that has had enough, what are we going to do about that?