Digby reposts a piece she wrote taking a long look at the problems with such an alliance, foremost among which is the inherent nativism that fuels the fires of populist political passion. Populists have a tendency to bash elites–not just the financial elites, but progressives, whom they perceive as elites because of their cosmopolitan sanctimony. Populists don't like being dealt with self-righteously by progressives who disapprove of their a racism and hatred of the drunken, swarthy masses who have been invading and ruining the country since the mid-19th Century :
Bashing immigrants and elites at the same time has a long pedigree and it is the most efficient way to bag some of those pick-up truck guys who are voting against their economic self-interest. There seems to be little evidence that bashing elites alone actually works. And that's because what you are really doing is playing to their prejudices and validating their tribal instinct that the reason for their economic problems is really the same reason for the cultural problems they already believe they have — Aliens taking over Real America — whether liberals, immigrants, blacks, commies, whoever. And it seems that rural folk have been feeling this way forever.
Populists might agree with progressives on many issues, but Progressives don't "get it", when the it to get is the tribalism that defines us as us and them as them.
When I was reading Digby's piece, I was reminded of the Tom Watson story. He was a very interesting guy who came up as an eloquent advocate for the Farmer Alliances in the 1880s, ran as the populist party candidate for Vice President in 1896 when the Populists endorsed Bryan who ran as a Democrat, and ran as the Populist presidential candidate in 1904 and 1908. Here's a brief summary of his career from the New Georgia Encylopedia.
In an era in which northern influences for capitalism over agrarianism were challenging regional traditions, Watson emerged as a voice for the agrarian tradition. He appealed to Georgians as a defender of the old way of life when he was first elected to the state legislature, representing McDuffie County, in 1882. Watson discovered that the support of the black voting population was necessary to win. Once in office he supported the elimination of the state's convict lease system, favored taxes to support public education, and championed the needs of poor farmers and sharecroppers of both races.
As the New South emerged from the chaos of Reconstruction, so did discontent among farmers throughout the region. The Farmers' Alliance organized to voice this resentment, and it was within that organization that Watson became a powerful leader, although he never formally joined the alliance. Issues at the forefront of the Farmers' Alliance platform included the reclamation of large tracts of land granted to corporations, the abolition of national banks, an opposition to paper money, an end to speculation on farm commodities, and a decrease in taxes levied on low-income citizens. On this platform he campaigned and won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Georgia's Tenth District, in 1890. In Congress he pushed for legislation to enact various Alliance goals, but he was successful only in instituting an experimental program of bringing free delivery of mail to rural areas.
The Farmers' Alliance itself was not well received by proponents of the New South. Atlanta Constitution managing editor Henry W. Grady and Georgia governor Alfred H. Colquitt opposed much of its platform. Watson presented the platform in terms of an idyllic pastoral country life contrasted with the evils of industrialization and urbanization. As these differences were publicized and his frustration with the indifference of Congress toward his legislative initiatives grew, Watson increasingly distanced himself from the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
In 1891 Watson refused to support the election of fellow Georgian Charles F. Crisp, a far more conservative Democrat than Watson, as Speaker of the House. By then, the Populist, or People's, Party had evolved as the political organization of the Farmers' Alliance, and Watson was nominated as its candidate for the speakership. Although he was widely criticized for abandoning the Democrats, he won a vast new following of farmers in Georgia and across the South. He also earned the support of many rural black voters in his 1892 bid for reelection to Congress through his condemnation of lynching and his protection of a black supporter from a lynch mob in the final days before the election. Nevertheless, he was narrowly defeated by his Democratic opponent, as he would be again in 1894, when there was substantial evidence of election fraud, and thereafter divisions increased between the Democrats and the Populists.
Although Watson had long supported black enfranchisement in Georgia and throughout the South, he changed his stance by 1904. Resentful of Democratic manipulation and exploitation of black voters and strongly opposed to the increased visibility and influence of such leaders as W. E. B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington, Watson endorsed the disenfranchisement of African American voters, and no longer defined Populism in racially inclusive terms. During his 1908 presidential bid he ran as a white supremacist and launched vehement diatribes in his magazine and newspaper against blacks.
Watson also launched an aggressive campaign against the Catholic Church. He took issue with the hierarchy of the church and railed against abuses by its leaders. He mistrusted the church's foreign missions and its historic political activities. The Catholic Church responded by putting pressure on businesses that advertised in Watson's publications, resulting in an effective boycott. In 1913, during the trial of Leo Frank, Watson's strong attacks on Frank and on the pervasive influence of Jewish and northern interests in the state heavily influenced sentiment against Frank, who was lynched by a mob in 1915.
Watson continued to speak of oppressed working people (farmers) who were opposed by capitalism (industrialists) long after those ideals inspired political support. Although he shunned Socialism and worked to maintain Populism's distinction from it, with the outbreak of World War I in Europe in 1914, Watson grew increasingly sympathetic to the insurgent Socialist Party in the United States, and supported its opposition to American entry into the European conflict. As a result of his Socialist association and his continued criticism of the war after American entry into it in 1917, the U.S. Post Office refused to deliver the publications in which his attacks were published, thus bringing them to an end. In 1918 he made a late bid for Congress but lost to Carl Vinson, who had been a strong supporter of American involvement in the war.
In 1920, he won a seat in the U.S. Senate, but died two years later. So there you have the whole Populist package. A quasi socialist who, despite his advocacy for black rights early in his career, ended his life as a racial bigot and nativist. It's a fairly complex picture, full of contradictions and ambiguities that seem so difficult for cosmopolitan types to understand.
Watson, I think we can safely assume, was always a racist/nativist, but in the 1880s
he understood that poor farmers couldn't succeed if they remained
racially divided. At least early on, when there was hope for the
Alliance/Populist cause, he was willing to bracket his racism in
support of his political agenda.
So what's the takeaway here? I'd answer with another question: Which do you think is more important for most Populists–the anti-corporate narrative or the bigot/nativist narrative? I'm not sure, but I'd guess that while the nativist extremists are getting the headlines, there are far more people who might be tribally affiliated with the nativists, but who are more concerned about the economic issues, and as such could be persuaded to join with progressives who are willing to bracket their political correctness and seek common ground where it's to be found.
One other thing that needs to be said: despite the tendency of so many progressives to disdain the influence of religion, evangelical Protestantism in Canada, in England, and in 19th Century America has been a progressive force. Why it became captured by the economic Right in the rural Midwest and South is an interesting, complex story, but there is a latent progressivism to be worked with there. That latency, and the inherent anti-tribalism at the heart of the Gospels needs to be awakened and nurtured.
I see this as an essential to any strategy for effecting an alliance between Progressives and Populists. I am personally convinced that nothing happens in this country until the latent progressivism in rural Evangelical Christianity and urban/suburban Catholicism is activated and harnessed to pull the country toward a sane, humane future. The European, secular progressive model simply will not get it done in this country.
Leave a Reply