Why Bank Rage Is Not Populism

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Does the widespread public fury over AIG bonuses constitute a populist rebellion, and signal a major shift in American political culture? That’s what the mainstream media seems to be pondering this week.Ā The Newsweek cover that hit the stands yesterday reads ā€œThe Thinking Manā€™s Guide to Populist Rage.ā€Ā Eye-catching hyperbole isĀ the stuffĀ of newsweekly covers. (Six weeks ago, Newsweekā€™s cover line was ā€œWe Are All Socialists Now.ā€) But the issue is filled with serious essays on the subject, by Michael Kazin, Eliot Spitzer, and others. And in yesterday’s New York Times, John Harwood makes similar claims, painting peopleā€™s anger at Wall Street as part of a populist resurgence. Harwoodā€™s most prominent source is, of all people, Ed Rollins, the Republican strategist whose credentials on the subject consist of working on the campaign of faux-populist Ross Perot.

One person not quoted in these pieces is the original, and still unequaled, historian of populism, Lawrence Goodwyn. He identified the first populist movementā€”the agrarian revolt of the 1890sā€”as the greatest mass movement in American history. ItĀ posed a genuine challenge to the dominant power structures, especially the banking system.Ā It was also largely anĀ unfulfilled dream. Goodwynā€™s 1978 book The Populist Moment is still in print and well worth reading, both for its stirring history and its insights into what is going on todayā€”and what isnā€™t going on.

Goodwyn traces the Populist Movement to its origins in the rural depression after the Civil War, when Southern and WesternĀ farmers formed clubs that fought the monopolistic railroad rates. By the 1870s these clubs had grown in number and size, forming themselves into Farmers Alliances, which engaged in all sorts of cooperative action, from catching horse thieves to buying supplies. By the 1890s, the alliances had a combined membership of more than one million people and were in the thick of politics. Georgia populist leader Tom Watson accused the Democrats of sacrificing ā€œthe liberty and prosperity of the countryā€¦to Plutocratic greed,ā€ and the Republicans of serving the interests of ā€œmonopolists, gamblers, gigantic corporations, bondholders, [and] bankers.ā€ He said that big business didnā€™t care about ordinary Americans ā€œexcept as raw material served up for the twin gods of production and profit.ā€

Most significantly, in relation to todayā€™s economic crisis, they demandedĀ paper money and an end to the gold standardā€”changes theyĀ believed would help wrest control of credit, and of the money supply in general, from the hands of bankers and other blood-sucking plutocrats, and place it in the hands of the farmers and laborers who were the real producers of wealth. As an alternative, the populists proposed what they called the ā€œsub-treasury plan,ā€ under which a new monetary system would be created and operated ā€œin the name of the whole people,ā€ and credit would be freely extended to farmers, small producers, and other ordinary citizens.

In the election of 1890 the movementĀ emerged with substantial blocsā€”52 congressmen, state legislatures, a handful of senators and governorsā€”and by 1892, the alliance leaders had created the foundations of a newĀ Peopleā€™s Party. They got more than one million votes in the elections that year. Cleveland won, and in 1893, rural America fell into deep depression. The populists gained favor, andĀ in 1896, the Democratic Partyā€™s nomination of William Jennings Bryan (who also opposed the gold standard) represented anĀ effort to pull in the Peopleā€™s Party.Ā 

Kingfisher Reformer (Oklahoma), November 29, 1894

Kingfisher Reformer (Oklahoma), November 29, 1894

But the revoltĀ collapsed, for a myriad of reasons: It failed in its efforts to build alliances with industrial labor unions and with black farmers in the South. And it was deprived of its driving force when economic conditions improved. Some rebellious farmers went home to the Republican Party; others splintered off into generally futile local movements. Certain populist ideas were gradually worked into the overall economyā€”railroad regulation, some banking reform, direct election of senators, postal savings banks, initiatives and referendums, and an expanded concept of currency.

But in fact, the movementā€™s co-optation into the mainstream politics of the Progressive Era was what cementedĀ its demise. Goodwyn sees these reforms as ā€œskin-deep parodies of the original ideals.ā€ AsĀ he puts it, what happened was ā€œa consolidation of our current political culture, framed by the narrow aspirations of ā€˜reform,ā€™ā€”falling within the labels of ā€˜progressiveā€™ or `liberal.ā€™ No one would ever again challenge the basic structures of the political economy.ā€ AsĀ for the farmers,Ā ā€œthe noose tightened, with smallholders being swallowed by big enterprises.ā€ It marked the beginning of the movement toward agribusiness, as well as an affirmation of the power of the industrialists, the insurance companies, and above all the banks. The public would push back at that power structure in bad financial times such as the Great Depression, but would never again pose it any serious threat.

Whatā€™s going on today bears little resemblance to the great surge of political organizing that began in and spread through the South and West in the 1890s. To begin with, it isnā€™t now, nor is it likely to become, part of any larger mass movement. Itā€™s directed at the worst excesses of the system, not at the system itself. And it doesnā€™t offer an alternative vision, beyond a few more progressive ā€œreforms.ā€ (Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh and Newsweek may say, we are definitely not all socialists now.)

SomeĀ reforms are being earnestly pursued by the Obama Administration and some members of Congress. But it isĀ clear that they haveĀ no intention of takingĀ the changeĀ any deeper. And even some of the less tepid reforms may fail. As Robert Reich wrote on his blogĀ last week:
Ā 

When the public isn’t looking, Congress reverts to its old ways. The Obama-supported plan to allow distressed homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages under the protection of bankruptcy has run into a Wall Street wall….Obama’s plan to limit itemized deductions for the richest 1.2 percent of taxpayers (including the top 1.9 percent of small business owners) to 28 percent, starting in 2011, is also in trouble on the Hill. Wealthy contributors and friends of congressional leaders involved in setting tax policy have balked. So Congress is telling the White House to look elsewhere for the $320 billion it needs over ten years to finance half of the tab for health care reform. Congressional leaders have also informed the White House that they don’t have the votes to pass Obama’s proposal for treating the earnings of hedge-fund and private-equity managers as income rather than capital gains.

Angry populism thrives on stories about the rich and privileged who use their influence to get cushy deals for themselves at the expense of the rest of us….It’s too bad the same populist outrage doesn’t extend to issues involving far more money, affecting many more people, and entailing far more insidious abuses of power.

Even if its worst abuses are reined in,Ā the system will survive largely intact and the society it dominates will remain wildly unequalā€”a far cry from the dreams of those farmers who gathered in barns and grange halls when the nation was much younger than it is today.

Anthony Weekly Bulletin (Kansa), May 4, 1894. Cartoons from web site on Populism created by Worth Robert Miller, Department of History, Missouri State University

Anthony Weekly Bulletin (Kansas), May 4, 1894. Cartoons from web site on Populism created by Worth Robert Miller, Department of History, Missouri State University.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate