Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Populism is Not a Style, It's a People's Rebellion Against Corporate Power
When I lived in Washington, DC, in the 1970s, I got a call from a friend of mine who worked for the Congressional Research Service--a legislative agency that digs up facts, prepares briefing papers, and otherwise does research on any topic requested by members of Congress.
My friend could barely speak, because he was hooting, howling, and guffawing over a research question he'd just received. It was from the office of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, the aloof and patrician Texas Democrat who was known on Capitol Hill primarily as a faithful emissary for Wall Street interests. At the time, Bentsen was contemplating a run for the presidency, and apparently he was searching for a suitable political identity. "What is a populist?" read the research query. "The senator thinks he might be one."
Uh...no sir, you are not.
Bentsen was closer to being "The Man in the Moon" than he was to being a populist. Yet, he was hardly alone in trying to cloak himself as "The People's Champion" while remaining faithful to the plutocratic powers. These days, there's a whole flock of politicos and pundits doing this--from Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich to Glenn Beck.
They are abetted by a media establishment that carelessly (and lazily) misapplies the populist label to anyone who claims to be a maverick and tends to bark a lot. Although the targets they're usually barking at are poor people, teachers, minorities, unions, liberals, protestors, environmentalists, gays, immigrants, or other demonized groups that generally reside far outside the center of the power structure--the barkers are indiscriminately tagged as populist voices.
First of all, populism is not a style, nor is it a synonym for "popular outrage." It is a historically grounded political doctrine (and movement) that supports ordinary folks in their ongoing democratic fight against the moneyed elites.
The very essence of populism is its unrelenting focus on breaking the iron grip that big corporations have on our country--including on our economy, government, media, and environment. It is unabashedly a class movement. Try to squeeze Lord Limbaugh into that philosophical suit of clothes! He's just another right-wing, corporate-hugging, silk-tie elitist--an apologist for plutocracy, not a populist.
Fully embracing the egalitarian ideals and rebellious spirit of the American Revolution, populists have always been out to challenge the orthodoxy of the corporate order and to empower workaday Americans so they can control their own economic and political destinies. This approach distinguishes the movement from classic liberalism, which seeks to live in harmony with concentrated corporate power by trying to regulate its excesses.
We're seeing liberalism at work today in Washington's Wall Street bailout. Both parties tell us that AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and the rest are "too big to fail," so taxpayers simply "must" rescue the management, stockholders, and bondholders of the financial giants in order to save the system. Populists, on the other hand, note that it is this very system that has caused the failure-so structural reform is required. Let's reorganize the clumsy, inept, ungovernable, and corrupt financial system by ousting those who wrecked it, splitting up its component parts (banking, investment, and insurance), and establishing decentralized, manageable-sized financial institutions operating on the locallycontrolled models of credit unions, co-ops, and community banks.
A movement
Not only is American populism a powerful and vibrant idea, but it also has a phenomenal history that has largely been hidden from our people. The Powers That Be are not keen to promote the story of a mass movement that did--and still could--challenge the corporate structure. Thus, the rich history of this grassroots force, which first arose in the late 1870s, tends to be ignored entirely or trivialized as a quirky pitchfork rebellion by rubes and racists who had some arcane quibble involving the free coinage of silver.
The true portrait of populism is rarely on public display. History teachers usually hustle students right past this unique moment in the evolution of our democracy. You never see a movie or a television presentation about the movement's innovative thinkers, powerful orators, and dramatic events. National museums offer no exhibits of its stunning inventions and accomplishments. And there is no "populist trail of history" winding through the various states in which farmers and workers created the People's Party (also known as the Populist Party), reshaped the national political debate, forced progressive reforms, delivered a million votes (and four states) to the party's 1892 presidential candidate, and elected 10 populist governors, six U.S. senators, and three dozen House members.
This was a serious, thoughtful, determined effort by hundreds of thousands of common folks to do something uncommon: organize themselves so--collectively and cooperatively--they could remake both commerce and government to serve the common good rather than the selfish interests of the barons of industry and finance.
While the big media of that day portrayed the movement as an incoherent bunch of conspiracy-minded bumpkins, the populists were in fact guided by a sophisticated network of big thinkers, organizers, and communicators who had a thorough grasp of exactly how the system worked and why. Most significantly, they were problem solvers--their aim was not protest, but to provide real mechanisms that could decentralize and democratize power in our country. The movement was able to rally a huge following of hard-scrabble farmers and put-upon workers because it did not pussyfoot around. Its leaders dared to go right at the core problem of an overreaching corporate state controlled by robber barons. Populist organizers spoke bluntly about the need to restructure the corporate system that was undermining America's democratic promise.
"Wall Street owns the country," declared Mary Ellen Lease at an 1890 populist convention in Topeka, Kansas. A powerhouse orator who took to the stump and wowed crowds at a time women were not even allowed to vote, Lease laid out a message her audiences knew to be true, for they were living what she was so colorfully describing. "It's no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street," she roared. "Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags....The people are at bay, let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us beware."
These populist voices tapped directly into people's anger. But, still, how could common farmers and laborers--largely impoverished and powerless folks--possibly take on Wall Street, the railroad cartels, corporate trusts, and lobbyists, as well as the politicians that these powers owned? Well, even the smallest dog can lift its leg on the tallest building, and--after all sorts of starts-and-stops--populists found five ways to organize the movement and make their mark.
ECONOMIC. In 1877, before populism even had a name, it had a mission, which was to do something--anything--about the spreading economic plight of farmers all over the country. They faced not only the usual disasters of weather and bugs, but also the unnatural disasters of rampant gouging by bankers, crop-lien merchants, commodity combines, railroad monopolies, and others. Government was worse than unresponsive; it sided with the gougers.
An economic alternative was needed, and it came out of Texas. Known as the Farmers Alliance, it created a network of cooperative enterprises that could both buy supplies for farmers in bulk and pool their crops to sell in bulk, bypassing the monopolists, getting better prices, and giving farmers a modicum of control over their destinies. It was an idea that worked.
The first Texas Alliance quickly spawned 2,000 sub-alliances around the state with a total of 100,000 members. Alliances were soon being formed throughout the South, in all of the Plains states, in the upper Midwest, and all across the West to California, bringing more than a million farmers into a common economy. This was a vast, multi-sectional structure of radical economic reform, creating a new possibility that its leaders called a "cooperative commonwealth."
CULTURAL. The Alliance gave the movement a solid structure, as well as essential credibility, through its delivery of tangible benefits to members. But it also created something much larger and more important: the means for ordinary people to learn what a democratic culture really is and to implement a vision of an alternative way to live.
These were working-class families of very modest means. They had little formal education, lived in isolated communities, and were treated as nobodies by the influentials who ran things. But--whoa!--now these outcasts were running something, and they mattered, both individually and as a group.
It was transformative for them. Lawrence Goodwyn, author of Democratic Promise, the definitive book on the populist phenomenon, sees this cultural awakening as the key triumph of the Alliance: "[The cooperative experience] imparted a sense of self worth to individual people and provided them with the instruments of self-education about the world they lived in. The movement gave them hope--a shared hope--that they were not impersonal victims of a gigantic industrial engine ruled by others but that they were, instead, people who could perform specific political acts of self-determination."
It was not all about business, either. Parades of farm wagons and colorful floats, day-long picnics, brass bands, song fests (Mary Ellen Lease was a renowned singer, as well as an orator), dances, poetry, and other social/cultural events enlivened and deepened the Alliance community, creating what Goodwyn calls a "mass folk movement." In addition, the Alliance ran a massive grassroots education program throughout rural America, providing everything from literature networks to adult-ed classes.
MEDIA. To stay connected and provide a steady flow of energy, the movement relied on a concerted program of education and communication--not only to enlighten and invigorate its widely dispersed members, but also to bring in new recruits. This required the Alliance to create its own media, for the establishment outlets offered only scorn and ridicule for the populist cause.
Books, over a thousand populist magazines, newspapers, and hundreds of popular songs and poems flowed from the movement. The communication lynchpin, however, was the Alliance Lecture Bureau, a stable of trained, articulate speakers--40,000 strong!--who regularly traversed the country from New York to California, bringing information, insight, and inspiration to all corners of Populist Nation. Goodwyn notes that this amazing system of reliable messengers was "the most massive organizing drive by any citizen institution of nineteenth century America."
COALITIONS. Though it created serious tensions in various Alliance chapters, the movement kept trying to broaden its base by joining hands with other groups that were also confronting corporate power. Early on, its leaders reached out to the emerging labor movement. While there were Alliance leaders who thought of farmers as Jeffersonian, small-scale capitalists, many others (and many more rank-and-file members) viewed farmers essentially as working stiffs battling the same robber barons that labor was confronting. In 1885, the Knights of Labor were on strike against two companies in Texas, and several county alliances in that state voted to boycott the companies. This stand was a defining moment for the Alliance, for it heralded the co-op movement's shift into a more radical political phase.
By 1892, the Alliance's political arm, the Populist Party, fully embraced the relationship with industrial workers. Ignatius Donnelly of Minnesota electrified the national delegates to the party convention that year with a speech pointing directly to a shared cause with the union movement: "The urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self-protection; imported pauperized labor beats down their wages; a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down....The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes....From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed two great classes-paupers and millionaires."
An even tougher match-up for the leadership was with black farmers, who had organized their own Colored Farmers National Alliance with about a million members. Aside from the obvious barrier that entrenched racism presented to this possible coalition, there was another degree of separation: white Alliance members tended to be farm owners (albeit heavily-mortgaged owners), and black Alliance members were mostly field hands, renters, or sharecroppers. Yet, there was such a strong feeling of a shared fight that real and successful efforts were made to join together.
In A People's History of the United States, author Howard Zinn writes, "When the Texas People's Party was founded in Dallas in the summer of 1891, it was interracial and radical." A white leader at that meeting demanded that each district in the state include a black delegate, pointing out that, "They are in the ditch just like we are." Two black Alliance members were then elected to the party's executive committee. Alliances in Arkansas, Georgia, and North Carolina also made notable advances in interracial actions, and eminent historian C. Vann Woodward has said flatly that, "Never before or since have the two races in the South come so close together as they did during the Populist struggles."
The Alliance also included what was, at the time, a remarkable number of women activists. They made up roughly one-quarter of the membership and held many key posts.
POLITICS. By the mid-1880s, the Alliance reached a point where it had to abandon its original stance of non-partisanship and start flexing its political muscle. The big commodity brokers and railroad barons were brutalizing the co-ops with predatory pricing and other monopoly tactics, and bankers were squeezing the Alliance's marketing co-ops by refusing to provide loans. The major political parties, which were in harness to these moneyed interests, offered no relief from the corporate assault, while also refusing to advance any of the Alliance's broader reform agenda.
For about six years, Alliance members held countless local meetings, debates, and consultations on how to proceed politically. Finally, Alliance delegates met in Omaha on July 4, 1892, for the founding convention of the People's Party of America, proudly branding themselves "The Populists."
Now, they could run their own people for offices up and down the ballot, campaigning on a broad platform to counter the "corporations, national banks, rings, trusts...and the oppression of usurers" in order to advance the common interests of the "plain people." The Knights of Labor were a part of this founding, and the preamble to the party's 1892 platform declared that "The interests of rural and civil labor are the same; their enemies are identical."
Yes, the Populists called for the "free and unlimited coinage of silver" to provide both debt relief and economic stimulus for small enterprise, but the snickering cynics who try to marginalize populism by defining it in terms of this narrow (though important) issue ignore the party's broader and amazingly progressive agenda, including these provisions:
- The first party to call for women's suffrage.
- An eight-hour day for labor, plus wage protections.
- The abolition of the standing army of mercenaries, known as the "Pinkerton system," which violently suppressed union organizers.
- The direct election by the people of U.S. senators (who were chosen by state legislatures at the time).
- A graduated income tax.
- Legislation by popular initiative and referendum.
- Public ownership of railroads, telephones, and telegraphs.
- No subsidy of private corporations for any purpose.
- Prohibition of speculation on and foreign ownership of our public lands and natural resources.
- A free ballot and fair count in all elections.
- Civil-service laws to prevent the politicalization of government employees.
- Pensions for veterans.
- Measures to break the corrupting power of corporate lobbyists.
What happened?
Ultimately, the Populists were undone, not by their boldness, but by leaders who urged them to compromise and to merge their aspirations into the Democratic Party. In the presidential election of 1896, they nominated the Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan, whose "cross of gold" campaign focused on the monetary issue, avoiding the much more appealing structural radicalism of Populism. Outspent five to one, Bryan lost a close race to William McKinley, the Republican who was financed and owned by Wall Street.
The People's Party, having surrendered its independence and soul at a time the Alliance was being gutted by the money interests and the press, lost favor with its own faithful--and withered into a parody of itself.
Nonetheless, the Populists had successfully energized, organized, educated, and mobilized one of America's few genuine mass movements, striking fear in the flinty hearts of such barons as J.P. Morgan, who railed against that "awful democracy."
The party was killed off, but not the Populist spirit. Persevering in separate political forms, the constituent components of populism--including unionists, suffragists, anti-trusters, socialists, cooperativists, and rural organizers--continued the struggle against America's economic and political aristocracy. Indeed, populists defined the content of national politics for the first third of the 20th century, forcing the Democratic Party to adopt populist positions, spawning the Progressive Party, elevating two Roosevelts to the presidency, and enacting major chunks of the agenda first drawn up by the People's Party.
Though the Powers That Be don't want us connecting with this stunning "Populist Moment" in our democratic history, a majority of folks today hold within them the live spark of populism--which is an innate distrust of corporate tycoons and Wall Street titans and an instinct to rebel against them. The moment can come again. As Goodwyn tells us, "the triumph of Populism...was the belief in possibility it injected into American political consciousness."




62 Comments so far
Show AllBring America Back !!!!
***Would you mind putting a comments screen on for the Nader post right below this one ???? !!! Please and thank you ?
Oregoncharles
Why doesn't the Nader article on single-payer health care have a comments screen today?
The masses have softened and no longer have the courage ...too conditioned....too comfortable.....more indifferent...more propagandized...A third party can barely garner 1%. . The term itself has already been bastardized....THEY are always a hundred steps ahead of us.....I like Hightower, but he lives on the opiate of HOPE....What the majority of the people want is no longer considered. In a Nader article on CD today, he mentions how single payer is OFF the table even though the majority of the populace and the medical practitioners are all for it. Eight or so protestors raised their voices at a committee meeting for health care to bring single payer to the table and were arrested. Who of us can afford to be arrested? I care for my 91 year old mother. If I go to jail, who will care for her? We need MASSIVE numbers to storm the gates of this corporatocracy. If the false flag of 9/11 and eight years of Bush did not get our citizens on their feet, what will? Everyone wants to know if everyone else will do it...how do we overcome this attitude?
They were actually dragging doctors off to jail from that meeting!
I think we overcome this attitude by watching things get even worse. Hard as it is to do. All we can do as individuals is keep trying to get the word out. I got an email last night from Ni4D. I was so excited. They are asking for contributions to keep their website going. www.vote.org Just think. If we could pass the National Initiative, we can pass Single Payer healthcare, the EFCA, outlaw foreign excursions, write a progressive tax law, provide free education through college, RUN our own country! So let's get on board with this.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
hell they arrested people for thinking about demonstrating at both the gop and dem conventions
the controllers are reduced to brutish strength - this is the country we live in today - not unlike banana republics
the stakes are high - the consequences serious
better to resist than to obey no matter what
give me liberty or give me death
Oregoncharles
angryoldman
http://ni4d.us/
Take a look at the above website. It's a link to the National Initiative site. I learned about it through Ralph Nader and Mike Gravel during the election campaign.
A lot of people are more terrified of their country men and women than they are their government or the government's corporate rulers. That makes our job more difficult because we don't have a corporate media to sell our ideas, our progressivism. All we have are our voices and our isolated websites where we discuss these issues with other members of the choir.
How often do any of us comment on conservative websites? We should be doing that - and very carefully. Remember, most people are ordinary working people (if they're lucky) and would be served by a progressive agenda far better than the one they've been sold. It's our job to convince them that this is true. In lieu of the bankster bailouts, corporate health care being shoved down our throats, expanded wars, etc, THE TIME IS RIPE!
What websites would you suggest? I commented on FreeRepublic some years ago and then found myself blocked. I wasn't rude, didn't use naughty words, just said something critical of GWB.
Rainborowe
Unless you are either a hypocrite or obfuscate you will not be given access to many of these sites, but I agree it does little good, in most cases, to preach to the choir, but like Rainborowe says: What websites would you suggest?
Look, the people are instructed daily to pursue material wealth, pretend they are fulfilled by that, and ignore any thread of fulfillment from the better things in life. There is a range of course, such that some do appreciate a "balance" between the good things, and the material things. Look closely at this. They continue to pursue the material things, sooth their guilt by balancing it with the better things, and yet the material pursuit has enabled/created the catastrophes we've seen past eight years, illegal military occupations/destruction without end, massive wealth consolidation, massive public debt, depletion of our economic base, defiance of the people's will on crucial issues of the day, catastrophic environmental destruction and major breakdown of the rule of law.
You can hear the elites plot their "public relations" messages: Be good and Santa will reward you with a nice big fat 3.5 ton SUV!! Win! Win! It's merely another layer of triangulation that Demoks are famous for. In fact, the Demok party is the key channel of guilt relief across the USA as the machine rages on.
Fortunately, we on the far left, representing the good side of human nature, have a lot of use for Hightowers' enlightening history of USan populism, coupling it to the populist rage spawned by this most recent gilded age. We can re-charge the world-wide peasant movement with some new USan energy as Saint O'Bamba hits the skids.
We far lefters have many assets working for us now that the 19th century populists didn't have: Elite-induced global warming, peak oil, massive public debt, industrial maturation (enabling localism), mountains of evidence of elite destructivity, a communications medium that allows for easy dissemination of facts and ideas, and racial and gender emancipation, allowing for greater numbers of activists who value individual independence.
We should be able to shift the individualist energy in the USA into anti-elite, localist energy. It won't be easy but it's necessary because the individual's dependence on the elite establishment is the fuel for the elites' fires. The 19th century populists coop network was not the sole element in the populists' success. It served mainly to guide anti-elite behavior among the individual coop members. Other ways to guide anti-elite behavior exist. It can happen at the grass roots level, parents teach children, friends teach friends, to shift one's demands in the markets and civic sphere away from elite production/policies to local production/policies, serving the public interests. Get to work people!
The Populist movement is one of those episodes of American history one is not likely to learn of until a college American history class (or an AP American history class in a properly financed high school). There is a very good reason why this is an omitted episode from most history textbooks: it confirms what most people know in their guts about America -- the money class has been screwing over everybody else and one of their tools is keeping the populace ignorant.
It seems to me that most teachers must also be ignorant of this episode of American history. Teachers are as downtrodden, villified and mistreated as most of the other 95% of the population and would surely want to bring these ideas to their students - even if it were necessary to do so off-campus.
I doubt that most qualified teachers are ignorant of the episode in question: it is probably more a matter of curriculum determined by administrators and school boards, & the textbooks the state of Texas approves (Texas is one of the largest markets for textbooks in the USA, therefore, their "standards" become America's by the precedent for subject matter they dictate to publishers). The fact that they probably already know better, but can not due to factors beyond their control must make for a very frustrating profession.
This article deals with corporate political power. It does not deal with corporate military power. The Pentagon has more paid propagandists than the State Department has people, as I seem to recall reading somewhere.
I do soooo enjoy watching games of the San Diego Padres in their camo uniforms, the game brought to us by the US Army.
"Legislation by popular initiative and referendum."
If we get that one, we get everything.
A great notion! How?....Any ideas?........ We can barely get a third party on the ballot. Basically, the vast majority of Americans do not give a crap. What does it take to overcome this tremendous lethargy and fear?
Oregoncharles
Check out some of the above comments about the National Initiative.
http://ni4d.us/
I first heard about it from Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader. Sure it would be messy for a while, considering that powerful corporations and our government mis-leaders still have the larger stage - but we could change that! Ordinary Americans, conservative and progressive, are in the same boat. The powers that be want us to be divided into many facets so they can more easily control us, one against the other.
We the People have the right to petition our government. That should be our first priority if we want our priorities given top priority.
As seen on http://ni4d.us/, for Gravel, Nader and Chomsky, ongoing binding referendums should be one of the first things we demand from our representatives.
The right to petition was taken to SCOTUS and they would not hear the case...by Schulz (sp?) and the We the People group...less than a year ago if I am correct..
They put much money and effort into the cause...here's their site.....
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
Be careful what you wish for. This has enacted some truly horrible legislation in California. I'm unaware of anything good that's come of it, but surely something decent has happened. Are you knowledgeable on this? I am curious.
When I moved to Oregon in 1993, Bill Sizemore was writing slews of initiatives that sounded good, but had disastrous consequences (not by accident). The Oregon public fell for it at first, but has learned to be careful about what they wish for. So yes, there likely will be some growing pains with a National Initiative, but people will learn, and the beauty is they can always undo what they do in error. Meanwhile, they become a more thoughtful and informed electorate.
We're going to have to dig ourselves out of this hole, and as many have noted, democracy is messy.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
The binding referendum has given the Swiss one of the highest per capita incomes in the world despite their having few natural resources, no boom and bust economy, no wars in over 150 years despite being surrounded by warring nations, no War on Drugs and no drug problem, few immigration problems, a healthy environment, the best education and healthcare, etc.
Latin American countries have also been using the referendum successfully.
Since the referendum is pure democracy in action, arguing against it is arguing that politicians know what's best for you.
I understand that the California initiative on gay marriage was subverted by Mormon money, money that more easily corrupts politicians. Sometimes the people are wrong, but people by far prefer democracy over oligarchy, hegemony, theocracy or any other dictatorship. And it is much more difficult to bribe and coerce the public than a politician.
Lots more info on referendums here: http://ni4d.us/
Having been a "gast arbeiter" in Switzerland, it is necessary to give a bit of first hand context.
Switzerland has one of the highest rates of intravenous drug use in Europe, which conversely led to one of the highest rates of HIV infection in Europe as well. 25% of Switzerland's labor force are foreigners, has a large number of asylum seekers, & the SVV (Swiss People's Party) has used anti-foreigner sentiment to great electoral effect. As for Switzerland's economic "success," its' companies are not subject to anti-trust legislation, its' banks were formerly notorious for being repositories of the world's "black money," & recently, cigarette companies have moved their headquarters to Switzerland in order to escape the legal consequences of their products. While there is much wrong with the USA, the grass is not necessarily greener in Switzerland or any other country.
Oregoncharles
During the presidential campaign, Nader and Mike Gravel talked about what's called National Initiative. It may be at least a partial solution. But things take time to emerge and evolve. Just because some good idea flops in the public domain, doesn't mean it should immediately be tossed out. It means we need to work on the nuts and bolts. Check out the website:
http://ni4d.us/
Democracy is messy and when you throw in the powerful elements of corporate mass media and government manipulations, it gets even worse. However, people need to work out these things on their own. Nothing is perfect. The system we have today - where the very wealthy design the game and make all the rules - is an abomination, certainly not a democracy that is useful to ordinary people.
Right EZ. The People can't be in rebellion --- we can be in a mood to toss the corporations, and their bought and paid for congress, out on their collective long ears.
"The People's Champion": These days, there's a whole flock of politicos and pundits doing this--from Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich to Glenn Beck.
If a populist is defined as a red, white and blue beer hall brawler with dueling scars on both cheeks, fond of throwing university professors off balconies, then the four mediocre and/or mentally disturbed people's champions above are indeed populists. What about Brock Alabama? Is he a populist? No! He is The Wizard of Oz disguised as a yuppie.
And for most voters, the CURTAIN is still closed, eh?
"Ignore the man behind the curtain!"
The voters are the people behind the curtains of their polling booths and it's the politicians who are doing the ignoring!
I would like to see a new Declaration of Independence from the military, industrial, banking, congressional, media, complex as that is now worse than King George and the British were in the 1700"s. A new Constitutional Convention ratified by millions of American citizens is what is needed. From my perspective, everyone I talk to loves America and its ideals, but unfortunately, the people in power have done a Coup D'Etat on the Constitution, which they take a solemn oath to uphold and which makes them culpable of the highest treason. The ideals that so many of my friends and relatives have fought and died for because they loved their country, means nothing to these traitors to America! 1776 was a violent revolution, but I believe we need a non-violent revolution because the Constitution and The Bill of Rights still are beautiful documents that we need to adhere to and uphold.The vast majority of Americans are good people who love their country, but many fear and are disgusted with what their government has become.
Those who are interested in the idea of a new Constitution may enjoy my essay, "Constitution 2.0."
http://radicalpantheist.blogspot.com/
"Ultimately, the Populists were undone, not by their boldness, but by leaders who urged them to compromise and to merge their aspirations into the Democratic Party."
You mean by the coordinator class.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com
Oregoncharles
Exactly what Jim Hightower did in the last campaigns!
Why can't people on progressive websites use the word socialist, and socialism a lot more than just progressive and populist. I think that US progressives should call themselves socialists and communists instead of "progressives"
Because it is socialism and communism what we need in the USA to get out of this hell.
hahaha, this is what I told a right-wing Alex Jones conspiracy-theory lunatic fan: if the Illuminati Order is socialist and communist, i will support from now on the Illuminati Order and if the Rothschilds fund communist parties and Karl Marx. i will send money to the Rothschild Family to keep supporting Marxist parties and communist revolutions :-)
MarxistGod, I don't remember the author's name, but earlier this week, he was on the Alex Jones show, (I listened out of curiosity) and he has written a book about the Illuminati and debunked a little of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code."
Do you remember his name?
Eric speaks truth. The populist movement was killed by the Democratic party. That party's duty is to take popular grass roots movements under their big tent and KILL THE MOVEMENT.
Get over your allegiance to either of the two corporate parties. They don't give diddly squat for the working people of this nation. The suggestion about a new Constitutional Convention to write a new Constitution is a good one. Let's form a government of, by and for the people. (and a corporation is not a person and has no right to involve itself in any way in our government)
>>An economic alternative was needed, and it came out of Texas. Known as the Farmers Alliance, it created a network of cooperative enterprises that could both buy supplies for farmers in bulk and pool their crops to sell in bulk, bypassing the monopolists, getting better prices, and giving farmers a modicum of control over their destinies. It was an idea that worked
Farmers parties were also the trigger of massive populist movemnets in Canada and led eventually to the CCF and later the NDP party.
The success of these movements were one of the things that saw the Elites pressure the Governments to enact legislation what would bankrupt small farmers in order to transfrom the population of farmers into compliant workers for the factory floors.
Small family farms ARE Viable and sustainable. They are just not in the best interests of the Corporations.
Lastly, going unsaid is the very real fact that the American revolution was a form of populism sparked by an uprising against CORPORATE power . Again the elites compromised this uprising in order to maintain their grip on power.
I am not concerned (not too much anyway) that Jim Hightower "merged his aspirations into the Democratic Party" in the last elections, as oregoncharles says. Lot of folks did that, in spite of my admonitions to the contrary, but I understand the "lesser evil" mentality as long as you don't make a lifetime of lesser evilism---which is what happens to those who persist in their loyalty to a party that is not loyal to THEM. From these past derelictions we must "move on" and Hightower's history of the populist movement, both its successes and its ultimate failure, is a history that we need to read and absorb with all the intensity of our intellect and our passions. Especially valuable is its lesson that the national movement began with grassroots populist efforts like the Texas Alliance. Where in these United States is anything comparable to TA happening? And, given a mass media that does not "cover" such local events, how can we be informed and inspired in our efforts to expand the TAs of today into a mighty People's movement?
facebook alliance!
xzorloc: Please explain; or were you being facetious? I'm (way too) old to understand facebook, but if it's a facility that will help start a movement, bring it on
Be very careful...FACEBOOK is accessed by the CIA......
NOT facebook. That's why we're here commenting.
The Bankers Manifesto is to create a crisis and then to rob the treasury. They have succeeded.
How to stop it:
Stop consuming.
Stop borrowing.
Live a green more sustainable lifestyle.
Trade, barter, fix, but don't buy new.
Avoid purchasing from national corporations, instead buy locally.
Get out of debt and stay out of debt.
Grow the movement.
Ezeflyer: You're on the right track, but you need to take the idea to its logical conclusion: Put a voting station in every home (the voxbox) and poll them with a computer network after nationally broadcast debates / hearings that deal with one issue at a time.
Use the electronic ballots to decide issues, not to choose people. Stop delegation of the citizen's political authority to others. In short, adopt a pure direct democracy. Nothing less can be insulated from the corrupting influences of wealth so that issues can be decided on their merits by the only folks who have no ulterior axe to grind, the people.
You can't have government for the people until you have government by the people.
We could poll the whole country in 30 seconds. That means popular direct control of the agenda and the procedings. We could ask, for example, Are you ready for the question?
This fits nicely with the obvious need to shorten the workweek by one day given over to government.
I am still amazed that so many wax so eloquent in their anger at the current system yet seem so reluctant to change it. I wish I could yell at everybody, "Put up or shut up."
how will you guarantee that the votes will be counted correctly?
By creating a closed, dedicated info system that cannot be accessed from your PC or any other improper way. By designing and installing special purpose hardware and software. By simply hiring Civil Service employees to perform voter registration.
You must understand that at polling time the computer network calls up each voxbox in turn and collects the ones and zeroes that were entered, forming totals for each category. This is a polled system, to repeat, not an interrupt-based one.
The software for this phase is supremely simple: If a one, add one to ONECTR if a zero add one to ZCTR. You can write the code yourself if it would give you confidence in the arrangement, and you can inspect the code any time you wish.
This would be the most accurate system ever devised, bar none, better even than paper ballots and a thousand times faster and cheaper.
Note also that the system could be used by any jurisdiction, local, county or borough, state, and Federal.
The registration process, or a repeated one, tells the system how many ballots to get from each station. You would not have to be at home to vote, but you would need to swipe your registration card when asked to do so.
It should also be noted that without the Congress, elections resolve issues, hence there are no longer campaigns by candidates, parties, politicians, or lobbyists. Wealth is out of the picture. Raw power, too; they can't buy all our votes nor can they assassinate us all.
A bit of irony to chuckle up your day:
Lloyd ("am I a populist?) Bentsen will go "down" in history for one quote at a vice-presidential debate when his opponent Dan Quayle compared himself to JFK and Bentsen said: "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy and believe me you are no Jack Kennedy." Jim Hightower might have said: "Senator, I know some of those old populists, and believe me you're not one of them."
How can anyone even think of calling Lloyd Bentson a populist? He unfairly kicked the honorable and truly progressive populist Senator of TX Ralph Yarborough out. Ralph Yarborough was a beloved senator in TX and proof that Texas can be a truly populist progressive. Even CA and NY can't even come close to having pro-populist Senators. Even Barbara Boxer looks like she's gotten way out of touch.
Populism is just a joke word misused by most pols and the media to fake and sell out. Time and again, we've seen both parties stir up their base usually in phoney ways only to put them on the backburner once the election is over and sell them out. The Republicans have done their phoney cultural populism for years election after election and yet nothing gets done. The Democrats have likewise done their own version of it from time to time, be it Clinton in 1992, the Democrats in 2006, or even Obama in 2008 doing his "hope and change" lying. The media were never pro-populist but they LOVE pols who'll fake it for them. And the electorate will fall into the stupid traps everytime. That is why people like Anderson, Perot, Nader, Paul, Kucinich, Mckinney, Sheehan, and countless other true populists who are usually 3rd party but on the rare occasion Republican or Democrat never get their say. Why do you people keep sucking up to corrupt monied candidacies election after election instead of opening your hearts and minds to candidates who are honest and don't spend millions let alone billions lying themselves into office? You want to call them "unelectable" or "unviable" or some other crap? FINE ! But ask yourselves this bold question:
WHY DO CANDIDATES WHO GUZZLE UP THE MOST IN TAXPAYER MONEY ELECTION AFTER ELECTION TELL YOU TO MAKE THEM DO IT BUT THEN BOW DOWN TO THEIR CORPORATE MASTERS AND WHY DO YOU LIKE IT LIKE THAT ELECTION AFTER ELECTION ?
Right on, Jennifer! Very good post!
Thanks Peaceman. It's amazing how much one can see when money and glitziness get taken out of the equation. I know it can feel heartbreaking and emotionally painful at first but sooner or later more will follow as the damage piles on.
WHY DO YOU LIKE IT LIKE THAT ELECTION AFTER ELECTION ?
hope can be very addictive.
most voters are hope fiends or hopaholics.
every four years or so they are conned into hoping that maybe this time things will be better.
have pity on the brits - they only get to vote every five years.
long time between fixes.