All panics are "good" in the sense that they represent the economy reorienting themselves to maximise returns. As you accidentally stumbled over, they are associated with the period of US history with the highest growth rate. The argument is basically that they are a necessary mechanism to purge inefficient actors from having capital. It isn't pleasant if the market tags a person as inefficient, but that is how to get to high growth.

It isn't like getting rid of the gold standard has helped the US grow, since then we've have seen them mean regress from being an unchallengeable global colossus to arguably the #2 economy. The government printing money at will and handing it out to asset owners who by rights should be going broke is a component of that.

If you'd like a computer metaphor, possibly think a program unexpectedly spitting out a stacktrace. The stacktrace is not, in and of itself, the problem. The problem is the thing causing the stacktrace and the stacktrace is actually helpful for diagnosing. In the case of economies, panics don't draw attention to the problem but actually fix it directly.

> ...that he rode his solution to the nomination

A lot of nominees around that time thought the gold standard was a good idea, which doesn't prove anything either. The opinions of nominees more than a century ago aren't really evidence. It is an appeal to authority except he wasn't an authority in any meaningful way. He didn't know much about economics and turned out not to represent the consensus of ordinary citizens either.

The US has not actually put leaving the gold standard to a vote as far as I know. In fact I don't think the current situation is a result of big deliberations, at Bretton Woods people thought they were agreeing to a gold standard and as the US's economy is eclipsed we might easily see a rethink of the global trade system where it comes back.