The Return of the Gilded Age — A Concern for Conservatives
Corporate influence in politics has led to the accumulation of power and wealth, but it has also sparked significant backlash.
TroibNews 
During his second inauguration, President Donald Trump vowed to lead America into a new "golden age," surrounded by a select group of tech billionaires whose companies make up about one-fifth of the market capitalization of U.S. public equities. This gathering strongly indicated that the second Trump administration would be driven by wealthy titans, suggesting that his vision of a golden age closely resembles a modern-day Gilded Age.
The Gilded Age, a period in the late 19th century, was characterized by the overwhelming influence of business and industry on American life. While it brought unprecedented economic growth and technological advances, it also resulted in significant economic consolidation and rising wealth inequality. Powerful industrialists exercised considerable control over political institutions, while ordinary Americans struggled with the rapid changes happening around them. As wealth disparities widened, political culture reacted with increased coarseness and even violence.
Today, as then, widening income and wealth gaps have created a divide in society, allowing a small cadre of elites to gain significant power and influence. Industrial tycoons from the Gilded Age, such as John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, dominated public life much like today's tech CEOs, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Political corruption and patronage were prevalent in the past, laying the groundwork for current concerns over corporate influence in politics. Both eras are marked by intense political polarization and social unrest stemming from deep societal divisions.
Despite Trump's appeal among white working-class voters — and gains among working-class voters from other racial backgrounds — his close relationships with billionaires like Musk and his focus on economic policies that favor the wealthy suggest that his presidency may benefit modern-day magnates more than the average worker. This dynamic suggests that the onset of America’s second Gilded Age could serve as a cautionary tale for the GOP. By the 1890s, the extreme focus on wealth and industry destabilized America’s social fabric. In reaction, a wave of progressive reform swept the nation from the 1890s to the 1910s, fundamentally changing the relationship between citizens and government. If Trump and his allies follow through on unpopular changes, the resulting counter-revolution could define the political landscape of the 2030s and beyond.
The emergence of the Gilded Age was significantly influenced by the Civil War, which hastened America’s transition from a nation of small towns and farms to an industrial powerhouse. The need to support two million soldiers fueled industrial growth, leading Congress to borrow heavily and introduce the first national paper currency. This monetary expansion spurred economic development across the North and the Northwest. Concurrently, a new class of industrialists became wealthy through government contracts, including figures like Philip Armour, who transformed canned goods, Rockefeller, who innovated in oil refinement, and Thomas Scott, a pioneer in railroad management.
Economic development continued aggressively, particularly with the passage of the Pacific Railroad Act, which granted substantial federal resources and assistance to private railroad companies. This led to the establishment of a transcontinental rail system, allowing for substantial economic growth and expansion into the West. As a result, industrial production surged by 75 percent between 1865 and 1873, positioning the United States as a leader in manufacturing, second only to Britain.
The economic boom created ripe opportunities for fraud. The Crédit Mobilier scandal in 1872 implicated numerous members of Congress and the Vice President in a scheme involving fraud connected to the Union Pacific Railroad. In the following years, the Whiskey Ring scandal revealed extensive kickback operations involving federal revenue agents. Corruption was pervasive at local levels too, notably highlighted by William M. Tweed’s infamous reign over Tammany Hall in New York City, which became a symbol of the era’s graft, as illustrated by cartoonist Thomas Nast.
While this economic growth benefited a select few, it often came at the expense of countless workers. The perception among business elites that their success stemmed solely from personal talent ignored the realities of labor contributions and government support. Figures like Leland Stanford and Collis Huntington profited from federal land grants, while industrialists like Carnegie and J.P. Morgan thrived on lucrative wartime contracts.
This pattern is now repeating itself, as many among Trump's circle of tech CEOs are also reaping significant government benefits. Companies such as Thiel’s Palantir and Bezos’s AWS depend heavily on government contracts and taxpayer funding. Reports indicate that Musk’s businesses have received substantial government aid, totaling at least $38 billion. Just days into Trump’s presidency, potential conflicts emerged when it was reported that an advertising firm felt pressured to promote Musk’s social media platform due to the administration's influence over a significant merger.
Similar to the aid received by industrial titans in the Gilded Age, today’s wealthy figures benefit from government resource allocations, with programs like the Timber Culture Act and the Desert Land Act providing land rights to those who could pay to develop it. The Mineral Land Act allowed mining companies access to valuable resources at nominal prices, further consolidating wealth among a few.
By the end of the 19th century, approximately 300 corporations controlled nearly two-fifths of U.S. manufacturing, leading to a massive concentration of power that spilled over into politics. Politician Charles Francis Adams pointed out that "the system of corporate life is a new power for which our language contains no name." His observations reflected how the Senate had become a battleground for corporate interests, filled with members deeply tied to wealthy industrialists. Senators often represented corporations directly, a situation that fostered rampant corruption and economic disparities.
William McKinley’s election in 1896 epitomized the potency of corporate power, fueled by large donations from industrialists like Rockefeller and Carnegie who feared populist movements. This financial backing allowed McKinley to dominate his opponent in campaign spending and secure support from urban and business communities. His policies reflected his benefactors' interests, indicating a troubling fusion of wealth and politics that characterized the late 19th century.
The Gilded Age also witnessed significant labor unrest as industrial workers faced dire conditions, falling wages, and widespread exploitation. Poor safety standards led to numerous workplace accidents. As tensions grew, labor movements emerged, facing brutal crackdowns from both business owners and the government, exemplified during events like the Great Railroad Strike of 1877.
Later, outbreaks of violence marked labor movements, such as the Haymarket Riot in 1886 and the Homestead and Pullman Strikes, which drew federal troops. The collaboration between industrialists and government authorities consistently prioritized economic growth and corporate power over workers' rights.
Like the Gilded Age, today’s populist anger may not align into a cohesive political force. While many laborers supported the Democratic Party, divisions such as ethnicity, geography, and loyalty influenced their affiliations. Similarly, Trump’s GOP has found traction among working-class voters, yet the potential for backlash against excessive corporate influence remains.
Striking parallels exist between today’s political stage and the Gilded Age, with a handful of billionaires shaping policy and governance, echoing the influence of figures like Hanna over McKinley. Trump and his party maintain a focus on pro-business policies, such as tax cuts for the rich and weakened regulations, reminiscent of laissez-faire attitudes toward industries during the late 19th century. The present economic climate, coupled with labor unrest and inequality, suggests that the conflicts of that era are reemerging.
The potential conflicts of today are exemplified by Musk's involvement in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a role that gives him significant influence over federal policies despite receiving substantial government contracts himself.
Today's political culture also reflects the hypermasculinity prevalent in the Gilded Age, amid fears surrounding changing gender norms and economic instability. This cultural obsession manifests in various modern figures who emphasize traditional notions of masculinity, akin to sentiments during the late 19th century when anxiety over male identity surged.
Railroad corporations once wielded so much influence that they determined time zones for the nation. The railroads established standard time arrangements to facilitate operations, reflecting the significant power they held over the federal government and society.
The current atmosphere suggests that tech leaders, like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, might share similar ambitions to reshape societal structures dramatically. For MAGA supporters and their Silicon Valley counterparts, however, it is crucial to remember the lessons of history: the extreme economic inequalities and rampant corporate excesses of the Gilded Age eventually provoked widespread calls for reform.
In the early 20th century, reform movements emerged across federal, state, and local levels, leading to regulatory measures against monopolies and improvements in social conditions. Legislation such as the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts targeted monopolistic practices, while other reforms promoted elections, women’s suffrage, and labor rights aimed at curbing the excesses of industrial capitalism.
This historical example illustrates how public outrage can effectively challenge corporate dominance and reshape governance. If the current political landscape continues to mirror the excesses of the second Trump administration, it may provoke a revival of reform movements, particularly among working-class individuals who recognize the link between their challenges and the policies being pursued.
While Trump's connection with working-class voters may persevere, he must heed the lesson that gilded appearances can mask deeper issues—and that the public is likely to take notice. When Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner penned their satirical novel, *The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today,* they aimed to critique the corruption and inequality of their time—not to offer praise.The historical trajectory of American politics and economics suggests that periods characterized by extreme inequality and excessive corporate power do not last indefinitely. Eventually, societal pressures build up and demand change—a shift that could very well lead to renewed reform movements reminiscent of the Progressive Era. If discontent amplifies among everyday Americans who feel forgotten by the political system, it could lead to a re-evaluation of policies promoted by Trump and his allies, opening the door for a new wave of reformers ready to challenge established norms.
Moreover, the past provides ample roadmaps for potential resistance. The corruption, exploitation, and discontent that marked the Gilded Age and led to the Progressive Era reformers found resonance among citizens who recognized the deepening rift between their experiences and the interests of the wealthy elite. These reformers sought to level the playing field, instigating changes aimed at dismantling monopolies, ensuring fair labor standards, and expanding democratic practices.
In addition to calling for regulatory changes, contemporary movements related to labor rights, environmental justice, and income inequality share similar motivations with earlier efforts. The rise of grassroots organizations advocates for workers’ rights, pushing for higher wages, better working conditions, and comprehensive labor protections that echo the sentiments of late 19th and early 20th century reformers.
The reacquisition of political power by those traditionally relegated to the margins is also becoming more pronounced. Younger generations, in particular, are increasingly engaged with social movements, utilizing digital platforms to organize protests and campaigns that challenge existing power structures. Social media serves as a powerful tool for collective action, providing a space for discourse and mobilization that earlier activists could only dream of.
The intersections of climate change and economic inequality further complicate the current political landscape. As communities around the country confront the devastating impacts of environmental degradation—often disproportionately impacting lower-income neighborhoods—the call for accountability grows louder. The fossil fuel industry, akin to the monopolies of the Gilded Age, faces mounting pressure as the public demands a transition to sustainable energy, holding corporations accountable for their contributions to ongoing crises.
As elements of the new economy emerge, such as the rise of artificial intelligence and automation, concerns regarding job displacement and economic access intensify. The potential for a technological elite to wield unchecked power parallels the historical context of corporate monopolies, suggesting that new regulatory frameworks and labor rights advocates will be essential in navigating these challenges.
Furthermore, as inequality continues to escalate, political factions on both sides of the aisle may be forced to respond to the shifting sentiments of the electorate. The lessons learned from history indicate that a palpable connection exists between the concentration of wealth and the mobilization of discontent. If working-class Americans perceive systemic issues as leading to their disenfranchisement, both parties may need to recalibrate their platforms to resonate with a citizenry increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo.
As the nation stands at this crossroads, those in power would do well to heed the warnings echoing from history. Should the excesses of the impending second Gilded Age mirror those of its predecessor, the consequences are likely to provoke calls for reform, as citizens rally to reclaim their voice within a system that has oftentimes prioritized corporate interests over the welfare of the public. A resurgence of progressive movements could soon follow, manifesting a new political reality that captures the spirit of accountability, equity, and democratic engagement.
In conclusion, while the landscape may seem dominated by affluent elites and entrenched corporate interests, the potential for change remains robust. The spirit of the Progressive Era teaches us that social and economic justice is not merely a reaction to the status quo but rather a powerful movement fueled by widespread dissatisfaction. If history serves as any guide, the growing discontent among the working class may catalyze an era of reform that reshapes American society once again, ensuring that the lessons from past injustices resonate through time and into the future. As we reflect on the dynamics of power and class in contemporary America, we must recognize our shared responsibility to stand vigilant against the threats posed by inequality, leveraging our collective power to cultivate a more just and equitable society for all.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
The Gilded Age, a period in the late 19th century, was characterized by the overwhelming influence of business and industry on American life. While it brought unprecedented economic growth and technological advances, it also resulted in significant economic consolidation and rising wealth inequality. Powerful industrialists exercised considerable control over political institutions, while ordinary Americans struggled with the rapid changes happening around them. As wealth disparities widened, political culture reacted with increased coarseness and even violence.
Today, as then, widening income and wealth gaps have created a divide in society, allowing a small cadre of elites to gain significant power and influence. Industrial tycoons from the Gilded Age, such as John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, dominated public life much like today's tech CEOs, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Political corruption and patronage were prevalent in the past, laying the groundwork for current concerns over corporate influence in politics. Both eras are marked by intense political polarization and social unrest stemming from deep societal divisions.
Despite Trump's appeal among white working-class voters — and gains among working-class voters from other racial backgrounds — his close relationships with billionaires like Musk and his focus on economic policies that favor the wealthy suggest that his presidency may benefit modern-day magnates more than the average worker. This dynamic suggests that the onset of America’s second Gilded Age could serve as a cautionary tale for the GOP. By the 1890s, the extreme focus on wealth and industry destabilized America’s social fabric. In reaction, a wave of progressive reform swept the nation from the 1890s to the 1910s, fundamentally changing the relationship between citizens and government. If Trump and his allies follow through on unpopular changes, the resulting counter-revolution could define the political landscape of the 2030s and beyond.
The emergence of the Gilded Age was significantly influenced by the Civil War, which hastened America’s transition from a nation of small towns and farms to an industrial powerhouse. The need to support two million soldiers fueled industrial growth, leading Congress to borrow heavily and introduce the first national paper currency. This monetary expansion spurred economic development across the North and the Northwest. Concurrently, a new class of industrialists became wealthy through government contracts, including figures like Philip Armour, who transformed canned goods, Rockefeller, who innovated in oil refinement, and Thomas Scott, a pioneer in railroad management.
Economic development continued aggressively, particularly with the passage of the Pacific Railroad Act, which granted substantial federal resources and assistance to private railroad companies. This led to the establishment of a transcontinental rail system, allowing for substantial economic growth and expansion into the West. As a result, industrial production surged by 75 percent between 1865 and 1873, positioning the United States as a leader in manufacturing, second only to Britain.
The economic boom created ripe opportunities for fraud. The Crédit Mobilier scandal in 1872 implicated numerous members of Congress and the Vice President in a scheme involving fraud connected to the Union Pacific Railroad. In the following years, the Whiskey Ring scandal revealed extensive kickback operations involving federal revenue agents. Corruption was pervasive at local levels too, notably highlighted by William M. Tweed’s infamous reign over Tammany Hall in New York City, which became a symbol of the era’s graft, as illustrated by cartoonist Thomas Nast.
While this economic growth benefited a select few, it often came at the expense of countless workers. The perception among business elites that their success stemmed solely from personal talent ignored the realities of labor contributions and government support. Figures like Leland Stanford and Collis Huntington profited from federal land grants, while industrialists like Carnegie and J.P. Morgan thrived on lucrative wartime contracts.
This pattern is now repeating itself, as many among Trump's circle of tech CEOs are also reaping significant government benefits. Companies such as Thiel’s Palantir and Bezos’s AWS depend heavily on government contracts and taxpayer funding. Reports indicate that Musk’s businesses have received substantial government aid, totaling at least $38 billion. Just days into Trump’s presidency, potential conflicts emerged when it was reported that an advertising firm felt pressured to promote Musk’s social media platform due to the administration's influence over a significant merger.
Similar to the aid received by industrial titans in the Gilded Age, today’s wealthy figures benefit from government resource allocations, with programs like the Timber Culture Act and the Desert Land Act providing land rights to those who could pay to develop it. The Mineral Land Act allowed mining companies access to valuable resources at nominal prices, further consolidating wealth among a few.
By the end of the 19th century, approximately 300 corporations controlled nearly two-fifths of U.S. manufacturing, leading to a massive concentration of power that spilled over into politics. Politician Charles Francis Adams pointed out that "the system of corporate life is a new power for which our language contains no name." His observations reflected how the Senate had become a battleground for corporate interests, filled with members deeply tied to wealthy industrialists. Senators often represented corporations directly, a situation that fostered rampant corruption and economic disparities.
William McKinley’s election in 1896 epitomized the potency of corporate power, fueled by large donations from industrialists like Rockefeller and Carnegie who feared populist movements. This financial backing allowed McKinley to dominate his opponent in campaign spending and secure support from urban and business communities. His policies reflected his benefactors' interests, indicating a troubling fusion of wealth and politics that characterized the late 19th century.
The Gilded Age also witnessed significant labor unrest as industrial workers faced dire conditions, falling wages, and widespread exploitation. Poor safety standards led to numerous workplace accidents. As tensions grew, labor movements emerged, facing brutal crackdowns from both business owners and the government, exemplified during events like the Great Railroad Strike of 1877.
Later, outbreaks of violence marked labor movements, such as the Haymarket Riot in 1886 and the Homestead and Pullman Strikes, which drew federal troops. The collaboration between industrialists and government authorities consistently prioritized economic growth and corporate power over workers' rights.
Like the Gilded Age, today’s populist anger may not align into a cohesive political force. While many laborers supported the Democratic Party, divisions such as ethnicity, geography, and loyalty influenced their affiliations. Similarly, Trump’s GOP has found traction among working-class voters, yet the potential for backlash against excessive corporate influence remains.
Striking parallels exist between today’s political stage and the Gilded Age, with a handful of billionaires shaping policy and governance, echoing the influence of figures like Hanna over McKinley. Trump and his party maintain a focus on pro-business policies, such as tax cuts for the rich and weakened regulations, reminiscent of laissez-faire attitudes toward industries during the late 19th century. The present economic climate, coupled with labor unrest and inequality, suggests that the conflicts of that era are reemerging.
The potential conflicts of today are exemplified by Musk's involvement in the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a role that gives him significant influence over federal policies despite receiving substantial government contracts himself.
Today's political culture also reflects the hypermasculinity prevalent in the Gilded Age, amid fears surrounding changing gender norms and economic instability. This cultural obsession manifests in various modern figures who emphasize traditional notions of masculinity, akin to sentiments during the late 19th century when anxiety over male identity surged.
Railroad corporations once wielded so much influence that they determined time zones for the nation. The railroads established standard time arrangements to facilitate operations, reflecting the significant power they held over the federal government and society.
The current atmosphere suggests that tech leaders, like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, might share similar ambitions to reshape societal structures dramatically. For MAGA supporters and their Silicon Valley counterparts, however, it is crucial to remember the lessons of history: the extreme economic inequalities and rampant corporate excesses of the Gilded Age eventually provoked widespread calls for reform.
In the early 20th century, reform movements emerged across federal, state, and local levels, leading to regulatory measures against monopolies and improvements in social conditions. Legislation such as the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts targeted monopolistic practices, while other reforms promoted elections, women’s suffrage, and labor rights aimed at curbing the excesses of industrial capitalism.
This historical example illustrates how public outrage can effectively challenge corporate dominance and reshape governance. If the current political landscape continues to mirror the excesses of the second Trump administration, it may provoke a revival of reform movements, particularly among working-class individuals who recognize the link between their challenges and the policies being pursued.
While Trump's connection with working-class voters may persevere, he must heed the lesson that gilded appearances can mask deeper issues—and that the public is likely to take notice. When Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner penned their satirical novel, *The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today,* they aimed to critique the corruption and inequality of their time—not to offer praise.The historical trajectory of American politics and economics suggests that periods characterized by extreme inequality and excessive corporate power do not last indefinitely. Eventually, societal pressures build up and demand change—a shift that could very well lead to renewed reform movements reminiscent of the Progressive Era. If discontent amplifies among everyday Americans who feel forgotten by the political system, it could lead to a re-evaluation of policies promoted by Trump and his allies, opening the door for a new wave of reformers ready to challenge established norms.
Moreover, the past provides ample roadmaps for potential resistance. The corruption, exploitation, and discontent that marked the Gilded Age and led to the Progressive Era reformers found resonance among citizens who recognized the deepening rift between their experiences and the interests of the wealthy elite. These reformers sought to level the playing field, instigating changes aimed at dismantling monopolies, ensuring fair labor standards, and expanding democratic practices.
In addition to calling for regulatory changes, contemporary movements related to labor rights, environmental justice, and income inequality share similar motivations with earlier efforts. The rise of grassroots organizations advocates for workers’ rights, pushing for higher wages, better working conditions, and comprehensive labor protections that echo the sentiments of late 19th and early 20th century reformers.
The reacquisition of political power by those traditionally relegated to the margins is also becoming more pronounced. Younger generations, in particular, are increasingly engaged with social movements, utilizing digital platforms to organize protests and campaigns that challenge existing power structures. Social media serves as a powerful tool for collective action, providing a space for discourse and mobilization that earlier activists could only dream of.
The intersections of climate change and economic inequality further complicate the current political landscape. As communities around the country confront the devastating impacts of environmental degradation—often disproportionately impacting lower-income neighborhoods—the call for accountability grows louder. The fossil fuel industry, akin to the monopolies of the Gilded Age, faces mounting pressure as the public demands a transition to sustainable energy, holding corporations accountable for their contributions to ongoing crises.
As elements of the new economy emerge, such as the rise of artificial intelligence and automation, concerns regarding job displacement and economic access intensify. The potential for a technological elite to wield unchecked power parallels the historical context of corporate monopolies, suggesting that new regulatory frameworks and labor rights advocates will be essential in navigating these challenges.
Furthermore, as inequality continues to escalate, political factions on both sides of the aisle may be forced to respond to the shifting sentiments of the electorate. The lessons learned from history indicate that a palpable connection exists between the concentration of wealth and the mobilization of discontent. If working-class Americans perceive systemic issues as leading to their disenfranchisement, both parties may need to recalibrate their platforms to resonate with a citizenry increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo.
As the nation stands at this crossroads, those in power would do well to heed the warnings echoing from history. Should the excesses of the impending second Gilded Age mirror those of its predecessor, the consequences are likely to provoke calls for reform, as citizens rally to reclaim their voice within a system that has oftentimes prioritized corporate interests over the welfare of the public. A resurgence of progressive movements could soon follow, manifesting a new political reality that captures the spirit of accountability, equity, and democratic engagement.
In conclusion, while the landscape may seem dominated by affluent elites and entrenched corporate interests, the potential for change remains robust. The spirit of the Progressive Era teaches us that social and economic justice is not merely a reaction to the status quo but rather a powerful movement fueled by widespread dissatisfaction. If history serves as any guide, the growing discontent among the working class may catalyze an era of reform that reshapes American society once again, ensuring that the lessons from past injustices resonate through time and into the future. As we reflect on the dynamics of power and class in contemporary America, we must recognize our shared responsibility to stand vigilant against the threats posed by inequality, leveraging our collective power to cultivate a more just and equitable society for all.
Alejandro Jose Martinez for TROIB News
