Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The first big incarnation, the "People's Party", endorsed William Jennings Bryan in 1896. Here's something of his from a stump speech:
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/w_bryan_white.html
No one can travel among the dark-skinned races of the Orient without feeling that the white man occupies an especially favored position among the children of men, and the recognition of this fact is accompanied by the conviction that there is a duty inseparably connected with the advantages enjoyed.
There is a white man's burden -- a burden which the white man should not shirk even if he could, a burden which he could not shirk even if he would. That no one liveth unto himself or dieth unto himself, has a national as well as an individual application. Our destinies are so interwoven that each exerts an influence directly or indirectly upon all others.
Sometimes this influence is unconsciously exerted, as when, for instance, the good or bad precedent set by one nation in dealing with its own affairs is followed by some other nation. Sometimes the influence is incidentally exerted, as when, for example, a nation, in the extension of its commerce, introduces its language and enlarges the horizon of the people with whom it trades.
There is a white man's burden -- a burden which the white man should not shirk even if he could, a burden which he could not shirk even if he would. That no one liveth unto himself or dieth unto himself, has a national as well as an individual application. Our destinies are so interwoven that each exerts an influence directly or indirectly upon all others.
Sometimes this influence is unconsciously exerted, as when, for instance, the good or bad precedent set by one nation in dealing with its own affairs is followed by some other nation. Sometimes the influence is incidentally exerted, as when, for example, a nation, in the extension of its commerce, introduces its language and enlarges the horizon of the people with whom it trades.
Later, the populist movement of the 1920s hitched its star to Robert M. LaFollette, who pushed eugenics into Wisconsin social policy. A decade later, the standardbearers of populism were Huey P. Long and Fr. Charles Coughlin, whose racism (I hope) needs no introduction. Long and Coughlin both railed constantly against FDR for giving away too much of the New Deal to minorities (modern thinkers tend to fault him severely for the fact that the New Deal barely included nonwhites at all; even that was too much for the populists of the day) with the result that both broke with FDR by 1936 after supporting him in 1932. FDR, remember, was a Bourbon Democrat, not a populist, at least in terms of the voting coalition he brought to the party.
This era (the 1920s and 1930s) also saw the second resurgence of the KKK, largely in the midwest; the Klan was every bit a "populist" and "progressive" movement in its day (and at this point, Strom Thurmond was a "progressive" Democrat who opposed many of FDR's policies because they involved to some extent white tax money going to blacks -- the progressives and populists wanted a fully functioning social democracy for whites only).
The next populist national leader was George Wallace, who admittedly had a "dynamic" view on racial issues, but only achieved populist success as a virulent racist. This gets to my premise on Bernie: the history of populism has not been of racist demogogues turning aggrieved whites against blacks and immigrants, but of racist aggrieved whites pushing their leaders into increasingly racist positions -- c.f. Wallace's vow never to be "out-n****red" by an opponent again.
The more recent appearance of populism as a self-identified movement hit public attention in 1992 with the Perot fans, who are essentially the same people as the current Tea Party.
Populism -- at least its core ideas -- did precede Bryan (consider the anti-Masonic and anti-immigrant "Know Nothings" of the middle 19th century), but the 1890s was the first time I know of that a movement consistently called itself "populist". At any rate, the consistent theme, at least to my eyes, has been that of aggrieved working class/poor whites, generally rural, and increasingly "ethnic white" as time progressed (and as the "ethnics" became "white"
.
It is a truism, variously attributed to many writers, that if America were entirely white we would have the most socialist government in the developed world, and that's probably true; for an entire book on that question, see Katznelson's "Fear Itself" on the role white supremacy played in the establishment of the New Deal. But the fact remains: government programs that are seen as helping white people (SS, Medicare, SSDI) are viewed highly positively by poor whites, while government programs that are seen as helping nonwhites (SSI, TANF/AFDC, SNAP) are viewed highly negatively by poor whites (in general, of course).
For some longer-form arguments than this, I can think of some very good books:
Fear Itself by Ira Katznelson
Democratic Promise by Lawrence Goodwyn (this is more about monetary policy but mentions race; the two subjects are inseparable in the late 19th century US)
The Radical Middle Class by Robert D. Johnston, a study of Portland, Oregon, during the Progressive era and the rise of populism, progressivism, and the Klan.
