Ohio’s Kingmaker: Mark Hanna, Man and Myth (review)

William T. Horner, a political scientist, raises an important historiographical question in this work—how does the journalistic image of a well-known historical figure like Mark Hanna relate to historians’ portrayals. Distressed by the disparity between the two, Horner blames journalists of Hanna’s day, particularly William Randolph Hearst, and journalists and political commentators from today’s magazines, newspapers, and TV for perpetuating an inaccurate portrait of Hanna. Horner’s interest in this issue arose when the media compared Karl Rove’s influence on George W. Bush to that of Hanna on William McKinley—each seen as a behind-the-scenes manipulator of a weak president on behalf of wealthy corporations.

This controversy began when Karl Rove told reporters of his desire to create a majority Republican era, much as had occurred after the election of 1896. Horner points out numerous times that Rove, because of research conducted under Lewis Gould, did not carry the analogy further; Hanna, in short, was not his hero. Yet numerous journalists and political pundits mistakenly compared Hanna and Rove, as noted in a lengthy concluding chapter detailing their errors. While Horner believes that Hanna is unfairly portrayed as a Svengali, he admits it will be years before historians can provide a proper assessment of Rove’s influence on Bush.

Horner examines thoroughly the most recent biographies of McKinley by Lewis Gould and Margaret Leech, as well as many other secondary sources on the Gilded Age. He agrees with their contention, backed by Herbert Croly’s biography of Hanna, that William McKinley was not Hanna’s puppet. Horner uses these sources, as well as primary documents, to portray McKinley as an adept politician who kept his own judgments but often relied on other advisors, particularly George W. Dawes. We learn further that Hanna’s influence did not produce much control over patronage, nor did Hanna support the suppression of labor unions, as was widely believed. Horner is most upset with the portrait of Hanna as Dollar Mark, because the practice of soliciting corporate campaign donations had already started under Benjamin Harrison. In the context of the times, Horner insists, the raising of such funds was not illegal, immoral, or sinister.

Although this work is an interesting tale of how popular interpretations can continue to influence political dialogue, it tends to be overly repetitive of the central theme. Also, Horner defends perhaps too much. For instance, he accurately notes that McKinley reluctantly intervened in Cuba but rather injudiciously underplays McKinley’s addition of the Philippines and Hawaii as imperialistic. Horner fails to mention, for instance, McKinley’s comments about the night he spent in prayer before deciding that the Filipinos were in need of civilizing and Christianization. Rather he asserts that if McKinley became an imperialist, it was “because circumstance dictated its necessity” (249). Horner then cites a Croly quote, painting Republican traditions and party commitment to national expansion as the supposedly objective circumstantial elements. A working definition of imperialism is clearly missing here, as is an explanation of how the expansionists were not seeking economic advantages. Horner concludes this section with Dawes praising McKinley because the public supported his actions, hardly an argument that clears him of imperialism.

In conclusion, Horner has written a relevant and interesting study that legitimately challenges some members of the media for failure to use historical studies to inform their political judgments, but the lengths to which he carries his defense of McKinley and Hanna weakens an otherwise intriguing work.