AMERICAN POPULISM
--- A CASE STUDY OF HUEY LONG AND THE 1930s POPULIST
MOVEMENT
by
Bai Jingyi
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate School and College of English
in Partial Fulfullment of the Requirements for
the Degreee of Master of Arts
Under the Spervision of Professor Wang Enming
Shanghai International Studies University
October 2011
Acknowledgements
Upon the completion of this thesis, I would like to extend my thanks to the people
who have supported me all the way through the writing of the thesis. My sincere gratitude,
first of all, goes to my respectable supervisor, Professor Wang Enming, for his careful
examination, invaluable comments, constant encouragement and enlightening criticisms at
every stage of my thesis writing. It is his unremitting devotion that helps me to clear any
confusion and make further progress in study. Moreover, his rigorous scholarship and
uprightness have exerted profound influence on me for the rest of my life.
Then, I am grateful to all the professors and teachers in SISU, who, during my six and
a half years of learning have inspired me with their instructive and illuminating lectures
and have provided individual guidance for me. My special thanks go to Mr. Gao Jian, from
whom I have received helpful counseling, valuable resources and advice on my thesis. My
heartfelt thanks also go to Professor Xu Haiming, who has done a great deal to expand my
horizon in academic research.
Above all, I owe unbounded gratitude to my parents, who have always stood by my
side when I was confronted with difficulties. It is their unconditional love and support that
has helped me to become who I am now.
Last but not least, I want to thank my fellow students in American Studies: Cai Kenbo,
Huang Yuxia, Liu Huihui and Shen Qihao who generously shared with me their ideas in
numerous seminars and provided constant support during the past two and a half years.
摘要
民粹主义在全球范围的社会变迁中再次进入人们视野，在学术领域也是一个颇有
争议的话题。从上世纪五六十年代起，美国等西方学者从不同角度结合不同国家的历
史对这一社会政治现象进行分析，试图去挖掘民粹主义的渊源和特质，但至今尚无定
论。民粹主义的两种解释体系分别来源于俄国民粹派实践和美国人民党运动。中国学
术界虽较透彻地研究了民粹主义及其对中国政治研究的意义，但多数以俄国民粹主义
为框架；美国学者关于民粹主义的著述卷帙浩繁，但大多以人民党为例，褒贬不一。
很少有学者解析为什么民粹主义这种广泛而频繁发生的政治现象在美国无法成功。本
文试以休伊·朗这一典型的民粹主义代表人物为案例，集中分析他所领导的民粹主义
运动，并结合美国自由主义传统阐述民粹主义的特性和本质。在此基础上，论文得出
结论：民粹主义无法改变美国的政治体制和政治本质，但对政府的政策制定和政党的
立场选择具有一定的影响和作用。
论文主要由三个章节构成，外加导言和结论两个部分。在第一章，笔者首先对民
粹主义的两种解释体系进行梳理，在欧美学者的概念框架下考察了 20 世纪三位美国
民粹主义的代表人物及其实践情况，并在此基础上概括出美国民粹主义的基本特点。
第二章试图回答这样一个问题，即，既然民粹主义鼓吹和拥护民主、对现行政体提出
挑战，为何它屡战屡败？为了解答这个问题，本章以 20 世纪 30 年代休伊·朗的民粹
主义运动为例，对该运动的时代背景、演变发展、政治主张、思想立场和挫折失败进
行了详尽的考察和讨论，着重分析了该运动对于民粹主义本身和美国向福利国家转型
的作用和影响。第三章在前两章的基础上阐述本论文的基本观点。第一，休伊·朗激
进的政治主张及其脱离实际的思想使民粹主义运动陷入困境；第二，美国自由主义传
统及其价值观架空了民粹主义思想，使其挑战无法改变美国的政治体制，更无力撼动
美国的政治意识形态。
关键词：民粹主义，休伊·朗，自由主义, 民主, 激进主义。
i
Abstract
Populism is enjoying a revival in the process of global social transformation and still
remains a bone of contention in the academic circle. Since the 1950s, scholars in the west
have tried to study this political phenomenon by adopting various analytical modes and
theories. However, no unanimous agreement has been achieved in terms of its definition
and characteristics. As generally accepted, populism is divided into two modes, the
Russian Narodnichestvo and American populism based on the People’s Party movement in
the last decade of the 19th century. Most of Chinese scholarship on populism has been built
upon the Russian mode. Western scholarship in this field, American scholarship in
particular, while impressive in the number of publications, has been basically confined to
the study of the People’s Party itself to weigh its contributions and weakness. Why can’t
populism achieve its ultimate goal in America after several attempts to change American
political life? This question has been addressed, to be sure, but, in the view of the author,
either not comprehensively or satisfactorily. This thesis tries to answer this question by
making a case study of Huey Long’s case in the context of American liberal tradition.
Based on the discussion and analysis above, the thesis concludes that populist movements,
no matter how fervent they may be, can hardly shake the predominant position of
American liberalism. However, the tenacity and recurrence of populism have time and
again exposed flaws and defects in American democracy, which have not only expanded
the scope of citizen participation in public affairs, but also pushed policy makers to move
in the more democratic direction.
This thesis mainly consists of three chapters, plus Introduction and Conclusion. The
first chapter intends to identify the mode of American Populism so as to put the discussion
of this subject in a meaningful context. Through the examination of the recurrence of
populism in American history, the thesis tries to find out the reasons for its repeated
downfall, even though its claim to democratic ideal seems to fit in well with basic
American creeds. The second chapter takes Huey Long-led populist movement as a case
study, examining its background, development, evolution, driving force, setbacks as well
as its significance and impact on American welfare programs. The third chapter provides
concrete explanations for the question previously raised and analyzes the radical nature of
ii
the movement itself, arguing that Huey’s personality frailty and the unrealistic vision of his
populist program were the direct causes of his defeat, but more importantly American
liberal tradition, while championing democracy and reform, rejects any radical or
fundamental change to its political system, only allowing populist ideas to be incorporated
into rather than alter the existing system. In other words, populism, however democratic it
may be, can, at best, tinker with rather than change American democratic system.
Key Words: Populism, Huey Long, Liberalism, Democracy, Radical.
iii
Contents
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................
摘要 ........................................................................................................................................i
Abstract..................................................................................................................................ii
Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 1 Populism and 20th Century American Politics ...................................................... 6
1.1 What is American Populism?....................................................................................6
1.1.1 Russian Narodnichestvo .................................................................................6
1.1.2 American Vintage Populism: The People’s Party ...........................................8
1.2 American Populist Movements in the 20th Century...............................................10
1.2.1 The Reoccurrence of American Populism Movement ..................................10
1.2.2 The Characteristics of American Populism...................................................12
1.3 Populism as a Paradox to American Democracy ....................................................15
Chapter 2 Huey Long and the 1930s Populist Movement ................................................... 17
2.1 Historical and Cultural Background .......................................................................17
2.1.1 Economic Crisis and Its Discontent..............................................................17
2.1.2 Progressive Spirit..........................................................................................19
2.1.3 Populist Tradition in Louisiana.....................................................................20
2.2 Primary Thoughts and Practices .............................................................................21
2.2.1 Louisiana Administration..............................................................................21
2.2.2 National Program--- Share Our Wealth ........................................................24
2.3 Significance of Long’s Populist Movement............................................................25
Chapter 3 Defeat of Long’s Populist Movement ................................................................. 28
3.1 Failure of Longism..................................................................................................28
3.1.1 Radical Dictator ............................................................................................28
3.1.2 Unrealistic Ideology......................................................................................31
3.2 Social Mobility and Liberal Tradition ....................................................................33
3.2.1 Social & Political Factors .............................................................................33
3.2.2 Populism in the Shadow of Social Darwinism and Capitalism ....................35
iv
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 40
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 43
v
Introduction
In the campaign season for the 2008 election in the United States, candidates, both
liberal and conservatives, vowed to fight for the “middle-class taxpayers” and against a
variety of “big man.” Mr. Edwards presented himself as the son of a mill worker and ran a
populist campaign. Mrs. Clinton consistently focused on issues like income inequality,
mortgage legacy and new trade deals to protect the common man. Mr. Obama deliberately
worked some populist themes into his campaign by calling for an end to tax breaks for
companies that move jobs overseas. All this indicates populism is reclaiming the lost
battleground in American political life.
Populism originally refers to the agrarian movement swept west-south America over
the last decade of the 19th century. It ended in failure, but the soil that nourished the origin
was rich enough to support other strains of populism down to our present time. In this
sense populism does not confine to the agrarian movement but becomes the perennial
American “ism” or a language to mobilize the ordinary people against the self-serving elite
class.
Populists’ claims to restore the equality into the hands of people even at the sacrifice
of individual benefits seem to contradict America’s democratic tradition. Their ubiquitous
coexistence in American political life, however, suggests something otherwise. As the great
historian C. Vann Woodward pointed out, “there will be future upheavals to shock the seats
of power and privilege and furnish the periodic therapy that seems necessary to the health
of our democracy” since “one must expect and even hope.”1Michael Kazin also stressed
that “Like the American dream itself, ever present and never fully realized, populism lives
too deeply in our fears and expectations to be trivialized or replaced. We should not speak
solely within its terms, but, without it, we are lost.” 2 Both historians touch on the
significant subject in association with American political culture. So, what’s the
relationship between them? Obviously, to address such a question, it is necessary to probe
into American populism in the context of American political culture and answer the
1
2
Michael Kazin, The Populist Persuasion (New York: Cornell UP, 1998), p. 260.
Ibid.
1
following questions: If American populist movements have time and again failed to meet
their goals, why do they keep occurring and reoccurring in American politics? Why is
populism so entrenched in American psych? And, finally, what are the reasons that
encourage the rise of populism and yet cause its repeated downfall?
Historically speaking, apart from populism expressed in the 2008 presidential election,
there were three typical waves of populism in the twentieth century:
Huey Long
promoted Share Our Wealth to redeem those traumatized in the Great Depression; George
Wallace claimed the lost privilege for the white middle class in the Civil Rights
Movements; and Ross Perot by organizing the grassroots, launched taxation and welfare
reform to unite the dispossessed in the shadow of globalization. This thesis takes Huey
Long-led populist movement as a case study to discuss the reasons of the reoccurrence of
populism in American history and its ultimate failure to achieve its goals in American
political life.
Huey Long, the governor of Louisiana in the 1920s brought in an explosion of change
to the oppressive conditions in the Great Depression. From his childhood, he obtained the
lifelong ambition to charge into politics to uplift the poor. In 1928, he began to transform
the physical and political landscape of the Louisiana by promoting extensive programs in
public education, healthcare, infrastructure and equal voting rights for all regardless of
property ownership. In the Great Depression, Long tried to save the common people from
the economic suffering against the strong opposition of the Democratic and Republican
parties.
Scholars tend to take The People’s Party movement as the classical case to discuss
populism in the United States, yet few efforts have been made to study Long’s case in the
light of populism. Most of scholarship on him tends to center on his demagogic rhetoric or
his dictatorial ruling in Louisiana, which will encourage bias against this historical figure.
To have a complete picture, the study of Long should be put in the context of populism
associated with the social conditions at his time. Long represents millions of people’s will
to challenge the nation’s morbid economic and political system. Only by bearing this in
mind, can we obtain a fair and reasonable understanding of Long and his populism.
Immediately after the collapse of the Populist movement in 1886, few scholars gave it
serious thought until the Progressive era, though the interest was minimal. With the arrival
2
of the Great Depression, the underlying principles of Populism became accepted with
greater enthusiasm than any other period in American history. John D. Hicks in The
Populist Revolt (1931) argues that the Populist was a positive constructive force, for it
contributed to the American heritage of freedom and democracy. Roscoe C. Martin
expresses sympathy to this movement in The People’s Party in Texas (1933). He presents a
penetrating analysis of the movement in one state, explaining the cause and the difficulties
of Populism in Texas and discussing the contributions that the Populists made to the
politics of the state. David Saposs in Development of Populism in the United States (1935)
analyzes Populism in terms of middle—class attitude. In particular, he calls attention to the
rise of several political movements in the 1930s, believing that they were evidence of the
persistent influence of the 1890s populism. Anna Rochester, in the 1940s, detects certain
parallels between Populism and Soviet socialism and attempts to rewrite American history
within a Marxist framework in the Populist Movement in the United States (1943).
However, the revisionists of the 1950s and 1960s concentrated on the negative and
antisocial aspects of Populism. Notably Daniel Bell and Richard Hofstader began to find in
it some of the roots of contemporary McCarthyism. Richard Hofstadter challenges Hicks’
interpretation in The Age of Reform(1955) by concluding that the weakness of Populism
outweighs its contributions. He stresses anti-Semitism among the Populists. Victor C.
Ferkiss insists that Populism was a forerunner of American fascism in his Populist
Influences on American Fascism (1957). C. Vann Woodward surveys the revisionist
position in a moderate and judicious manner in The Populist Heritage and the Intellectual
(1959) and raises the question whether the Middle West was a greater repository of
Populism than the South. William P. Turker finds that the analogies between American
fascism and assumed characteristic of American populism were overdrawn. His views of
Populism in relation to financial capitalism, the right of labor to organize, civil liberties
and anti-Semitism rebutted those of the revisionists. Erick F. Goodman in Rendezvous
Destiny (1953) lays bare the fears of the doctrinaire group that banded together under the
populist banner to defend themselves from presumed exploiters who threatened their rise
on the economic ladder.
Generally speaking, the Populism study in the 1970s applied sociology and Marxism
to reevaluate the People’s Party ideology and believes the cooperative culture is a
3
spontaneous response to the unfair monitory system and the corrupted oligarchy. Lawrence
Goodwyn in Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (1976) argues
persuasively that Populism obtained its firmest support from those farmers who had shared
the cooperative experience. He contends throughout the book that the doctrines of
Populism could not be diluted, and that the movement did bring about some genuine
reforms. Still, he feels compelled to admit that the radicals he so much admires were never
a majority in any state.
However, in the case of Long’s populist movement, scholarship has been few and far
between. For one thing, neither the leaders themselves nor their organizations left any
records of significance. For another, the movement occurred in an era before modern
opinion-polling practice. Consequently, many avenues to an evaluation of their strength,
behavior and character are therefore closed. Nevertheless, some sharply divisive questions
have been raised with regard to Long’s populist movement. Some believe Long’s populism
represents the most frightening tendencies of modern society: the loss of individualism and
the triumph of crude prejudice, both of which are likely to produce fascism, Stalinism and
other terror in the 20th century. Other historians argue that populist behavior can be
justified as responses to oppression and injustice. T. Harry Williams in the exhaustive
biography Huey Long (1969) describes Long as neither a fascist nor a demagogue, but a
good populist leader, a crusading force for progressive change. More interestingly, Alan
Brinkley produced a picture at odds with both views in Voices of Protest—Huey Long,
Father Coughlin and the Great Depression in 1982. His move from the perspective of
localism manifested the impulse of the Great Depression, the urge to defend the autonomy
of the individual against encroachments from the modern industrial state and the yearning
for a community where wealth and power was equally shared.
Obviously, an objective and persuasive conclusion of Long can be drawn only by a
careful study of Long and his populism in association with his times. His populist idea
echoes with that of other American populists but also has distinctive feature of that time,
representing the mass’ democratic yearning. Toward this end, a historical approach is
applied to the study of Long’s movement in the thesis. Based on this historical discussion,
efforts will be made to examine the significance and impact of Long-led populist
movement in American politics, probing into the reasons of its rise and failure in the
4
1930s.
The thesis is divided into three chapters. The first chapter introduces the populist
theory and history of American populism so as to provide a background for the discussion
of Long-led populist movement. The second chapter will have a close study of Long’s
movement in terms of cause, process and influence. The last chapter is composed of two
parts, one is to examine the reasons for Long’s failure, and the other is to discuss the
decisive influence of liberal tradition on populism. In Chapter Three, a conclusion is drawn
that populist movement will never die out in American political life and it will also never
weaken the predominant position of liberal tradition in American politics.
5
Chapter 1 Populism and the 20th Century American Politics
1.1 What is American Populism?
Populism is a social and political phenomenon which has repeatedly made its
appearance in human history of modernization. It falls short of a unanimously accepted
concept, and the working definition is pieced together by the description of the historical
movements in Russia, America and other regions. Based on the vagueness in definition, it
is roughly confined in two analytical modes: the Russian mode, due to its political reform
under the banner of intellectual elites from the 1860s to the 1880s, and the American mode,
which originated in the People’s Party movement in the 1890s. Disparate political climate
has shaped the modes, as the former took place at a time when Russian intellectuals tried to
enlighten the peasants to confront the precapital society while the latter reflected the
south-west peasants’ acute economic concern in the growing industrialization.3
1.1.1 Russian Narodnichestvo
Russian Populism embodies democratic ideologies which expressed the economic
interests of the serfs and small producers and claims that Russia, unlike the western
countries，could skip the stage of capitalist development. To differentiate its unique feature
from other forms of populism, “narodnichestvo”4 is applied to Russian populism. It covers
a long history which extends from Alexander Herzen to the revolutionaries who launched
the “go to the people movement” and the following “People’s Will” movement.5
As an enlightener of Russian Populism, Herzen, under the influence of Utopianism in
Western Europe, believed that agrarian collectivist model was the ideal social structure.
Turning from the capitalist society, he resorted to the Russian peasant commune, hoping to
find a solution of social development superior to West Europe. In his belief, the peasant
commune, not fully exposed to the industrialization, was easier to approach socialist
3
4
5
Lin Hong, Populism (Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2007), p. 1.
Nanod is the Russian root for “people.” Narodnichestvo specifically means Russian Populism.
Dennis Westlind, The Politics of Popular Identity (Sweden: Lund UP, 1996), pp. 6-9.
6
society than did the Western European workers, because the collectivism suggested in the
commune life was a predominant feature of socialism. Before achieving this goal, Herzen
realized a socialist society should be constructed by the enlightened mass after gradual
preparation through education, which became the guideline for the “go to the people”
movement.6
In many ways, his enlightened ideas came into being largely in response to the urgent
request of a perilous social reality. Russia until 1850 remained the less developed country
in Europe, where the peasants, who accounted 80% of the country’s whole population,
were victimized by social inequality and injustice under serfdom and autocracy.7 Even the
emancipation of serfs in 1861 from above proved to be far from enough.8
The populists in the early 1870s were prone to the ethical self-questioning. As
Mikhailovsky put it, it was the victory of moral obligation over one’s own rights.9 In
1873-74, they “[went] to the people” and gave priority to the serfs’ social and economic
changes by bringing into their ideology the anticapitalist aspects and a romanticized
socialist nature of commune self-government. The first populist crusade ended in failure as
the police made massive arrests and the passive peasants tended to be less receptive to the
socialist ideas than populists previously had thought. The “Land and Freedom” in the
second revolutionary stage, though more harmonized with the peasants’ immediate
interests, was ended by their failure to assassinate the tsar.
The significant feature of Russian Populism is that “it combined bourgeois democratic
radicalism with opposition to capitalism as a social system.”10 The Populist is a Janus,
Lenis wrote, for it “looked with one face to the past and the other to the future.”11 The
forward-looking face directed the democratic struggle to clear out the remnants of
feudalism; the backward-looking face followed populist socialism by stressing economic
romanticism of the precapitalist commune life and denouncing capitalism as retrogression
in Russian economy. This belief of commune supremacy blurred the progressive role of
capitalist industry and capitalist agriculture. It was more of a revolution than a reform. Its
6
Dennis Westlind, The Politics of Popular Identity (Sweden: Lund UP, 1996), pp. 19-21.
Lin Hong, Populism (Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2007), p. 208.
8
“Serfdom in Russia,” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,10 May.2011, 14 Jun.2011
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Russia>.
9
Andrzej Walicki, A History of Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to Marxism(California: Stanford UP, 1979), pp.
224-25.
10
Ibid., p. 223.
11
V. I. Lenin, Collected Works(Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1929), p. 507.
7
7
radical claim to abolish serfdom and trarist system was unmatched as compared to other
more progressive populism reforms.
1.1.2 American Vintage Populism: The People’s Party
Most of the knowledge used to explain populist movements in Western countries is
gained from the close observation of American populism. The People’s Party movement in
the United States for many scholars is the prototype of western populism. Unlike Russian
populism, American populism lacks independent and systematic theory to support the
spirited movement. However, populism’s doctrinal ingredients could be found in
Enlightenment spirit, which has been fully developed in America by Thomas Jefferson,
Andrew Jackson and James B. Weaver.
Jeffersonian democracy remains the core of populist tradition. His thought can be
generalized as “belief in a transcendent body of natural laws understandable to all men, a
willingness to trust in the wisdom and goodness of the numerical majority; and insistence
upon the sovereignty of each generation’s majority and a seemly boundless confidence in
the future of America.”12 According to Jefferson “we the people” were the ones the
ultimate sovereign should belong to. The people who tilled the soil were chosen by God to
possess virtue, honesty, incorruptibility which was valuable to the country’s liberty and
interests.13 In addition to this rural romanticism, Jefferson believed that the danger of
centralized authority always lurked around to shackle the common people. So the gradation
of authorities constructed a government of check and balance to ensure that the minority
doesn’t betray the majority’s will.
Jefferson’s disciple Jackson also espoused the democratic principle, the most eloquent
of which was the principle of “Equal rights for all, special privilege for none.”14 His
biography had a strong touch of populism. Rising from humble origins, he began his
promising political career from a lawyer to a senator and finally the President of the United
States of America, forging the legend in the Age of the Common Man. Aligned with
farmers, wage earners and small businessman, he reinforced the conviction of freedom,
12
George McKenna ed., American Populism (N.Y.: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1974), p. 7.
Andrew A. Libscomb ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Association,1903), p. 8.
14
George McKenna ed., American Populism (N.Y. : G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1974), p. 73.
8
13