Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Democracy and Elections

Now Let's Talk About Populism for Real

By Ruth Rosen, Truthdig. Posted July 5, 2008.


A new book explores the real populist vision that lies behind the shallow rhetoric to which we've been subjected during this election year.
populistvisioncover1822
poopulism
Advertisement

Although historian Michael Kazin has rightly observed that both the left and right have used populist appeals against “elites” throughout the 20th century, there was, in fact, an actual Populist movement that took root during the infamous “gilded age” of the 1880s and 1890s.

In his new book, “The Populist Vision,” Charles Postel offers an original and riveting account of the Populist vision that jump-started 20th-century social reform movements and is still relevant to our contemporary American society.

We can easily imagine how Populists viewed their world. Our generation of Americans also feels disoriented by living in a shrinking world. In the late 19th century, writes Postel, “The traumas of technological innovation, expansion of corporate power, and commercial and cultural globalization” left many Americans reeling from the speed of change. “Corporations grew exponentionally amid traumatic spasms of global capitalist development. The rich amassed great fortunes, a prosperous section of the middle class grew more comfortable and hard times pressed on most everyone else.”

Out of this alienating and disorienting experience grew a Populism that previous historians have often simplified.  Some have viewed Populists as radical visionaries who dreamed of a utopian, egalitarian American society. Still others have characterized them as nostalgic, rural reactionaries who yearned for an Edenic, agrarian past.

Postel, however, offers a far more nuanced interpretation.  Armed with a wide array of sources, he convincingly argues that American Populism, for all its flaws and failures—it eventually failed to promote racial equality—was fundamentally a modern social movement that offered a “divergent” path to the creation of a modern capitalist society.

By excavating the ideas, lives and organizational activities of Populist activists, Postel demonstrates that the women and men in the Populist movement largely valued “business methods, education and technology” and embraced the ideas of modernity and progress. He vividly describes, for example, the rich intellectual debates that rippled through the movement. “Few political or social movements,” he writes, “brought so many men and women into lecture halls, classrooms, camp meetings and seminars or produced such an array of inexpensive literature.”

By scrutinizing their politics, Postel also reveals that the Populists, who decried the corruption of the traditional political parties, sought “a new type of politics that would deliver rationalized, nonpartisan and businesslike governances.”

For the Populists, argues Postel, the Post Office represented the ideal government agency. An elaborate bureaucracy, the Post Office simply delivered a necessary service without favoring special interests or interfering with the lives of its customers. This was “the Populist vision of an alternative capitalism in which private enterprise coalesced with both cooperative and state-based economies.” The Farmers Alliance, for example, “pursued the dramatic expansion of government regulation and control in the country’s economic life. This included demands for the public ownership of railroads and the telegraph. ... At stake was who should be included and who should wield shares of power—a conflict that all concerned understood as vital to the future of a modern America.”


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: the populist vision, charles postel

Ruth Rosen teaches history at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of “The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America” (Penguin, 2006) and is a frequent contributor to Dissent Magazine and Talking Points Memo.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Finally more than two dimensions.
Posted by: StrayCat on Jul 5, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about time that historians (well, at least one) have studied and reported on the entire context and actions of the populists, and not just stopped with the conventions put forth by political parties and the business lobby. I was always repelled by the patently barren and cardboard accounts of the populist movement, and the obvious truncation of the connections with American life both before and after the flowering of that set of movements. Indeed, "populism" was not a single movement, but the confluence of a variety of movements, impulses and experiences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Populism, like democracy, is not all that special.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 5, 2008 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A nation that secures the blessings of liberty for each and every citizen is the model we need to strive for. Now, don't get me wrong: democracy can be a great tool to foster that model, but it's only a tool to select national policy at best, and at worst, it's "two wolves and a chicken voting on who's for dinner".

Like democracy, populism is a cutesy thing to ramble on about, as long as in your town of 100, you don't get your retirement savings looted because 99 of your peers thought you were living too high on the hog, what with your three meals a day, warm clothing, and medicine when you really need it.

Beyond that, we can file the word "populism" alongside synergy, paradigm, and sustainability as one of a growing number of shallow or entirely empty buzzwords.

Don't believe the hype.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

michael johnson
Posted by: joncehart on Jul 5, 2008 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One can't discuss the populist movement without reference to the monumental study, THE POPULIST MOMENT, done by Lawrence Goodwyn. He calls it the last mass democratic movement in our history and uses it as a model of a how a movement develops. He also details the brilliant democratic finance system they developed, which is one the primary reasons they were crushed politically. His introduction to the book should be required reading in every intro to Am history, Pol Sc 101, and all civics classes because it explains how democracy is withering on the vine because of our society's cultivation of mass deference.

michael johnson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

History repeats?
Posted by: jon B on Jul 8, 2008 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed the emphasis on the post office as the medium of communication for the populist movement. Could this be a hidden reference to the Internet as our modern equivalent? Certainly the web is where you get the real populism, not from the corporate media. But the web is diverse, I wonder how diverse the use of the post office was in the populist movement.

Postel also concludes populism lost to the rich. I don't entirely agree. Populism begat the progressive era and the political parties had to co-opt progressive reforms. Many inroads were made, workers rights, child labor laws, election reform, and others. But jumping to today, new inroads must be made and the degradation of the advances made back then, must be fixed.

The questions is, do we have the same perseverance and sacrifice that people did in those days? People died for the cause back then in labor strikes. I doubt it. We have just enough consumer toys to satisfy our displaced happiness and liberty to act in defiance of the power structure that gives us these things. When I see the masses out in the streets often, leaving the comforts of the soft chair and not spending all their time on populist blogging and posting or watching TV, then I'll believe we are in a new progressive era.

Post office or Internet, just tools of communication, but they don't replace action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]