How Did Grover Cleveland Affect The Economy

818 Words4 Pages

I would like to know how politics were like back then and what were the economical struggles were at the time. I feel like Grover Cleveland would be a good person during that time period for this, he was the only democratic in an republican dominate political system he was unique in his own way compared to presidents today. He had a reputation for being being honest, destroying corruption, and supporting government reform. During a time when the new progressives like Theodore Roosevelt were rising to power he kept to the old ways of the constitution. He was considered a Bourbon Democrat that believed in limited government and opposed special interest groups. In his first term he pledged “to be guided by a just a unstriated construction of the …show more content…

I believe he would answer by saying he had to evolve to the America’s problems. Having a president between him that signed some bills, laws or acts that he did not agree with, the only way he could get rid of them was to have more influence on throwing them out by using more executive power. An example is when he influence the congress to throw out the McKinley Tariff Act because how badly it was effecting the american people. I would like to know what was the main economic conflict during that time? I believe he would answer with, the biggest economic problem was during the second term when the nation’s gold supply shrank causing economic downfall affecting businesses, banks, workers and farmers. Another question I would like to ask him if he believes special interest group effects much of politics at that time? History showed that he didn't care for special interest groups many of the bills he vetoed were help for special interest groups. I believe he would say something along the lines that big businesses that interfere with US politics is not a good thing and is effecting with the common American. The last question I would ask would be, How much power should the U.S. President should have? I think he would have to think hard about this question but ultimately would say a little power as possible for the president is better. He is a strong believer in the original guidelines to the presidents in early america but in his second term he abused much of his presidential