The Populist Movement

- Britannica: 

. . . in U.S. history, politically oriented coalition of agrarian reformers in the Midwest and South that advocated a wide range of economic and political legislation in the late 19th century. Throughout the 1880s, local political action groups known as Farmers’ Alliances sprang up among Midwesterners and Southerners, who were discontented because of crop failures, falling prices, and poor marketing and credit facilities. Although it won some significant regional victories, the alliances generally proved politically ineffective on a national scale. Thus, in 1892 their leaders organized the Populist, or People’s, Party, and the Farmers’ Alliances melted away.


- People's Party (United States):

The People's Party, also known as the Populist Party or simply the Populists, was a left-wing agrarian populist political party in the United States in the late 19th century. The Populist Party emerged in the early 1890s as an important force in the Southern and Western United States, but collapsed after it nominated Democrat William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 United States presidential election. A rump faction of the party continued to operate into the first decade of the 20th century, but never matched the popularity of the party in the early 1890s.


- National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry.

. . . a social organization in the United States that encourages families to band together to promote the economic and political well-being of the community and agriculture. The Grange, founded after the Civil War in 1867, is the oldest American agricultural advocacy group with a national scope. The Grange actively lobbied state legislatures and Congress for political goals, such as the Granger Laws to lower rates charged by railroads, and rural free mail delivery by the Post Office.


- Farmer's Alliance:

The Farmers' Alliance was an organized agrarian economic movement among American farmers that developed and flourished ca. 1875. The movement included several parallel but independent political organizations — the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union among the white farmers of the South, the National Farmers' Alliance among the white and black farmers of the Midwest and High Plains, where the Granger movement had been strong, and the Colored Farmers' National Alliance and Cooperative Union, consisting of the African American farmers of the South.


- The Gilded Age: 

In United States history, the Gilded Age is a term coined by Mark Twain and used by some historians to refer roughly to the period from 1877 to 1900, which occurred between the Reconstruction Era and the Progressive Era. It was a time of rapid economic growth, especially in the Northern and Western United States. As American wages grew much higher than those in Europe, especially for skilled workers, and industrialization demanded an increasing unskilled labor force, the period saw an influx of millions of European immigrants.

- Third Party System.

The Third Party System was a period in the history of political parties in the United States from the 1850s until the 1890s, which featured profound developments in issues of American nationalism, modernization, and race. This period, the later part of which is often termed the Gilded Age, is defined by its contrast with the eras of the Second Party System and the Fourth Party System.

Left Wing Populism and Right Wing Populism

What is left and right wing? 

- Left–right political spectrum.

- Left-wing politics.

- Left-wing populism.

- ECPS: Left-Wing Populism.

- Right-wing politics.

- Right-wing populism.

- ECPS: Right-Wing Populism. 

What is Populism?

Definitions: 


- Britannica:  

. . . political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favorable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labor parties.

The term populism can designate either democratic or authoritarian movements. Populism is typically critical of political representation and anything that mediates the relation between the people and their leader or government. In its most democratic form, populism seeks to defend the interests and maximize the power of ordinary citizens, through reform rather than revolution. In the United States the term was applied to the program of the Populist Movement, which gave rise to the Populist, or People’s, Party in 1892. Many of the party’s demands were later adopted as laws or constitutional amendments (e.g., a progressive tax system). The populist demand for direct democracy through popular initiatives and referenda also become a reality in a number of U.S. states.


- ECPS: Populism.

. . . refers to a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of “the people” and often juxtapose this group against “the elite”. The term developed in the 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, although has rarely been chosen as a self-description. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.

A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents “the people” as a morally good force and contrasts them against “the elite”, who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how “the people” are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. In other words, as Jan-Werner Müller stated in an article that the populist decides who the real people are; and whoever does not want to be unified on the populist’s terms is completely and utterly excluded — even if they happen to have a British or an American passport.


- Explainer: Populism - Left and Right, Progressive and Regressive.

It is difficult to definitively characterize populism, but one helpful definition describes it as “reflecting a deep suspicion of the prevailing establishment, which is believed to conspire against the people instead of working in their interests.” Populists believe that the people, however defined, are the “true repositories of the soul of the nation.” Donald Trump’s frequent references to his supporters as “real” Americans are a classic populist rhetorical move.

The concept of populism has a distinctly pejorative connotation. It is a label that politicians apply to their opponents, but rarely claim for themselves (as Mudde and Kaltwasser aver). The fundamental claim of populism is that there is a singular “people” who are in opposition to “the elite.” The populist claims to be the representative of “the people.” In this way, a populist movement would describe itself as authentically democratic⁠—in contrast with the “politics as usual” that only supports the interest of “the elite.”

Populists can be from the right or left of the political divide; left-wing populists (also known as social populists) combine left-wing politics with populist themes and rhetoric while right-wing populists (also known as national populists) do the same on the right side of the political spectrum.


- Wikipedia: 

. . . a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group with "the elite". It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment. The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties and movements since that time, often as a pejorative. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.

A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". Populist parties and social movements are often led by charismatic or dominant figures who present themselves as "the voice of the people". According to the ideational approach, populism is often combined with other ideologies, such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum, and there exist both left-wing populism and right-wing populism. 


- History Channel: Populism in the United States: A Timeline.

From NPR: Republicans Consider Lasting Impression Of Trump On Their Party

A few leading figures in the party offer their thoughts. Will "Trumpism" survive Trump?

- Click here for the article.

Some highlights:

. . . without Donald Trump, Trumpism falls flat. Without the showmanship, the TV star personality, Trumpism a dead letter.

The establishment in Washington, in my view, has increasingly grown out of touch about where it was getting its votes from. Donald Trump, I think, understood where our votes were coming from. . . . whatever happens, I think it's going to be very hard for the Republican Party to go back to the agenda that it had before.

I see the Republican Party as a conservative party that has a stronger populist strain than it's had since the Bushes. Whether Trump wins or loses . . . the GOP will never again be the party of entitlement reform, open borders, nation-building and big trade deals. But in order for this new Trumpist agenda to appeal to a broad range of Americans it has to appeal to young people, minorities and suburban women, all groups that Trump himself has alienated with his raw appeals to white identity politics.

. . . if you break Trumpism away from some of the toxic comments about immigrants, some of the race-baiting comments, at least when it comes to birtherism - if you break it away from that, does it still have the same appeal?

More on Trumpism:

-  TPM: Will Trumpism Survive Trump? (Hint: Yes).
- Washington Post: Why Trumpism could be with us for a very long time.

From the Financial Times: America’s Middle-class Meltdown: Core shrinks to half of US homes Society splinters as bedrock of postwar economy is ‘hollowed out’

Perhaps this is related to the previous story.

- Click here for the article.

America’s middle class has shrunk to just half the population for the first time in at least four decades as the forces of technological change and globalisation drive a wedge between the winners and losers in a splintering US society.

The ranks of the middle class are now narrowly outnumbered by those in lower and upper income strata combined for the first time since at least the early 1970s, according to the definitions by the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan think-tank in research shared with the Financial Times.

The findings come amid an intensifying debate leading up to next year’s presidential election over how to revive the fortunes of the US middle class.

The prevailing view that the middle class is being crushed is helping to feed some of the popular anger that has boosted the populist politics personified by Donald Trump’s candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. “The middle class is disappearing,” says Alison Fuller, a 25-year-old university graduate working for a medical start-up in Smyrna, Georgia, who sees herself voting for Mr Trump.

Pew used one of the broadest income classifications of the middle class, in a new analysis detailing the “hollowing out” of a group that has formed the bedrock of America’s postwar success.

The core of American society now represents 50 per cent or less of the adult population, compared with 61 per cent at the end of the 1960s. Strikingly, the change has been driven at least as much by rapid growth in the ranks of prosperous Americans above the level of the middle class as it has by expansion in the numbers of poorer citizens.

Authoritarian Populism

That's term the authors of the Monkey Cage use to describe the Trump phenomenon. They think it is a growing trend.

- It’s not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why.

Populist authoritarianism can best be explained as a cultural backlash in Western societies against long-term, ongoing social change.

Over recent decades, the World Values Survey shows that Western societies have been getting gradually more liberal on many social issues, especially among the younger generation and well-educated middle class. That includes egalitarian attitudes toward sex roles, tolerance of fluid gender identities and LGBT rights, support for same-sex marriage, tolerance of diversity, and more secular values, as well as what political scientists call emancipative values, engagement in directly assertive forms ofdemocratic participation, and cosmopolitan support for agencies of global governance.

This long-term generational shift threatens many traditionalists’ cultural values. Less educated and older citizens fear becoming marginalized and left behind within their own countries.

Politico: Trump's 6 populist positions. His challenges to GOP orthodoxy spur soul-searching among party elites about how to snag working-class voters.

"Populism" was one of the terms we discussed in 2305 when we looked at ideology.

- Click here for the article.

Donald Trump may be blowing up Republican politics as we know it, but his most lasting impact may be more substantive — he has pushed the GOP into a much more populist corner on policy, challenging the party’s platform on everything from free trade to entitlements.

Trump’s populist positions on Wall Street (“Hedge fund managers are getting away with murder”), free trade (“We need fair trade, not free trade”) and immigration (“We’ll have a great wall”) are resonating at a time when conservatives are openly grappling with how to reach working- and middle-class voters when the GOP platform best reflects The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

“We have to develop policy ideas that deal directly with their concerns,” said longtime GOP pollster and strategist Glen Bolger.

John Brabender, political strategist to former Sen. Rick Santorum who sought unsuccessfully to appeal to working class voters in his presidential campaign, said GOP elites who covered their eyes eight months ago are paying attention to Trump now.

Here are the specific policy areas they cover. It might be worth discussing what the populist positions are in each of these.

Immigration

Trade

Entitlements

Taxes

Education

Defense/National security

"isms" in the news

The section ideology in 2305 covers pertinent terms. Here's an example of their use in the media.

These are limited to progressivism, populism, libertarianism and democratic socialism. Scroll them if you wish - we might want to talk about how the terms are used, and if they jive with any of the dictionary definitions we would have covered in class.

- The Clinton-Sanders Fight: What Does It Mean to Be Progressive?
- Democrats Debate: What Is A Progressive And Who Wants To Be One?
- The progressive crack up.
- Bernie Sanders and the New Populism.
- Toward a Conservative Populism.
- Rand Paul's Campaign Proved Libertarianism and Conservatism Are Antithetical.
- With Rand Paul’s Exit, Has the “Libertarian Moment” Died Once Again?
- Most are democratic socialists; just don’t know it.
- Democratic socialism might be inevitable in America, even if Bernie Sanders loses.
- The Libertarian Populist Agenda.

Is Donald Trump a Populist?

I'm in the process of editing the content of GOVT 2305's section on ideology (section 3) and I'm modifying the content on populism. American politics is defined by periods when populist candidates gain traction because some group is ticked off at elites of some sort.

Since some argue that Donald Trump is best thought of as a populist, I thought its worth looking at this material to see how the word is used in this context.

Not everyone agrees with the appraisal.

- The New Republic: Donald Trump Is Not a Populist. He's the Voice of Aggrieved Privilege.
- Salon: Sanders the populist, Trump the fascist: The truth about comparing two unlikely presidential contenders.
- The Guardian: Donald Trump's candidacy: a populist, celebrity-driven first in US politics.
- The Huffington Post: Donald Trump Is A Plutocrat Populist From Hell.

"middle-class populism"

That seems to be the phrase used most often to refer to the proposals the president made in Tuesday's speech - so it's the new hip political buzzword. It stems from the multiple proposals the president made the direct resources and benefits to the middle class - as opposed to the wealthy or the poor. These proposals include tax credits and no tuition for community college. Both parties seem attuned finally to the fact that middle class wages have stagnated for several decades.

The section on ideology discusses populism - here's are a few definitions, some positive, some negative:

- "A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite."

- "A political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people."

- "An egalitarian political philosophy or movement that promotes the interests of the common people."

- "A political doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general people, especially contrasting those interests with the interests of the elite."

The Tea Party is often described as a middle class populist movement as well, so perhaps these proposals are intended to defuse the movement a bit - perhaps bring some back into the Democratic fold. Obama is out of office in two years so any animosity towards the party that is based attitudes toward him will likely dissipate - assuming Democrats nominate a candidate that doesn't punch the same nerves as Obama has with that part of the electorate.

Here's a sampling of news items using the phrase "middle-class populism."

- Time: Barack Obama Is Ready to Rejoin the Battle.
- Vox: America just got its first glimpse at Hillarynomics — here's what it looks like.
- Michael Gerson: The reality conservatives must face.
- The Brooklyn Rail: WHITHER THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? The 2014 Election and the Future of Capital’s “A-Team”

Not a nation of moderates - and little evidence of a political realignment

The Dish flags a paper by some political scientists who challenge the idea that we are a nation of moderates. It depends on how you measure moderation. They also argue against the notion the recent elections - like Obama's reelection in 2012 - indicate a political realignment is underway that will likely favor the Democratic Party. These two arguments are related.

If you measure it alone one dimension - for example social or economic ideology - then moderates rule, but reality is more complex. The political world not contains your standard liberals and conservatives, it also contains libertarians, populists and moderates. The former two complicate things. Libertarians are liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, populists are the reverse. People may be moderate on economic issues, but extreme on social issues, or vice versa. People who are moderate on both social and economic issues are very rare.

This graph purports to explain that fact:

Can Elizabeth Warren drive a wedge within the Democratic Party?

Most of our attention in class has been focused on the wedge between the business and Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, but the Massachusetts Senator might do something similar to the Democratic Party.

Business interests have been as cozy with centrist Democrats as they have been with Republicans. Bill Clinton - and presumably Hillary - have been supported by them, and have each beaten back attempts by the left wing in the party to impose restrictions on business activities. Warren's repeated attacks on the financial sector - and the support they've enjoyed - have raised the possibility that a left wing populist movement might emerge to challenge Clinton, and perhaps divide the party.

We've used to drive home the idea that each of the two parties are coalitions composed of various factions that more or less see eye to eye - though they come into conflict often about what the party should stand for and how it should achieve its objectives.

Some readings:

- Could Elizabeth Warren beat Hillary Clinton?
- Elizabeth Warren’s populist insurgency enters next phase

Public Perception v. Reality

Bruce Bartlett finds evidence that Tea Party members, on average, cannot correctly answer questions about taxes.

This is not a surprising result. As my 2301's dive into public opinion we'll see that people often distort facts to justify their image of the world. Tea Partiers are no different than anyone else.

Political Mythology

Michael Lind places the Tea Party/Obama conflict in historical perspective. My 2302's should be able to follow his historical references. He claims that our current political debate comes down to archetypes that have persisted over the centuries.

David Brooks picks up from this argument and argues ties the current tea party devotees to the radicals of the 1960s. Each believed that the pure innocent masses were being unduly persecuted by elites.

More Populist Rage?

This time focused on the Supreme Court and the Citizens United decision?

Will Populist Rage Take Down Ben Bernacke?

From the NYT.

The Tea Party Movement Set to Takeover the Republican Party

For 2301 mostly:

Here's a terrific story about how members of the tea party movement are working from the ground up to takeover the Republican Party, which they see as too "establishment" and "liberal" and ensure that it only promotes candidates they find acceptable.

It begins with taking over precinct chairs an works its way up from there. The only potential strategic problem is that they may, as has been observed before, pull the party so far to the right that it becomes less competitive in general elections. But perhaps the general population is more conservative than thought. It'll be interesting to watch.

Commentators often equate the tea partiers with populist movements, fueled by anger at elites (any elite). American history is peppered with such movements. A key question is going to be how long the movement can survive. All movements have life cycles. The establishment can be very patient.

Populism and Publis Policy

As I write this the furor of the AIG bonuses is working its way through whatever it will work its way through. The more interesting question being asked is whether populist furor over the bonuses will interfere with the government's ability to deal with the current crisis?

Thomas Friedman thinks so:

Let me be specific: If you didn’t like reading about A.I.G. brokers getting millions in bonuses after their company — 80 percent of which is owned by U.S. taxpayers — racked up the biggest quarterly loss in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy, you’re really not going to like the bank bailout plan to be rolled out soon by the Obama team. That plan will begin by using up the $250 billion or so left in TARP funds to start removing the toxic assets from the banks. But ultimately, to get the scale of bank repair we need, it will likely require some $750 billion more.

The plan makes sense, and, if done right, it might even make profits for U.S. taxpayers. But in this climate of anger, it will take every bit of political capital in Barack Obama’s piggy bank — as well as Michelle’s, Sasha’s and Malia’s — to sell it to Congress and the public.

Recall that the authors of the Constitution did not have a high opinion of the mass public and designed government institutions in order to limit their direct involvement. The passions of the public were to be removed from policymaking. The instability infused into government by mass hatred was to be prevented. I think this is a great example of what they were talking about.

On Huckabee and Economic Populism

If Rod Dreher is right, Huckabee's success so far among Republicans (as well as Ron Paul's I'd add) does not bode well for Wall Street. Each spouts a brand of economic populism not favored by the country club set.

For many years commentators have wondered why some lower class and middle class people voted Republican despite the fact that their economic platform (low taxes, low services, cuts in social programs, anti labor union, anti minimum wage) worked against their interests. The answer was that their commitment to the Republican social agenda outweighed these material concerns.

Turns out that economic interests were not being forgotten, just placed on the back burner.

Dreher points to this Pew Research Center poll from a few years back which spotted this rise in populism. The question now is how Wall Street will respond (a Michael Bloomberg candidacy most likely) and if this faction within the party might bolt to the Democrats if the Republicans do not respond to their needs.