Populism, in layman's terms, has been defined as the belief that the government should have control over both financial and social aspects of people's lives. The populist movement in the US was this, although they only articulated those aspects that were financial.
The populist movement started as a grass-roots political movement in the 1880s, strengthened into the 1890s because of a crippling economic depression. It was made up mostly of western farmers who were bearing the brunt of economic trouble. In 1892, the newly-formed Populist Party adopted their platform: "The Omaha Platform." In this, they laid out several demands and missions, as follows:
1. Labor Unions are and should be instituted in perpetuity
2. Wealth belongs to the working class
3. The government should take the railroad companies over, along with utilities, specifically telephone and telegraph companies
4. Adoption of a mixed silver/gold standard
5. Free and liberal coining of money
6. A graduated income tax, favoring the "domestic industries," i.e. farming
7. Taxes be limited to only the necessary expenses of government
8. Establishment of postal savings banks
9. All land should be owned by non-speculative private citizens. Any land in excess of needs owned by railroads should be taken by the government, as well as land owned by "aliens"
10. Secret ballot elections
11. Pensions for military personnel
12. Harsher immigration laws, specifically limiting the poor and unskilled
13. The 8-hour work day
14. Abolition of a mercenary military force (the Pinkerton system)
15. Institution of a national initiative and referendum
16. A Presidential term-limit of 1 term
17. Direct election of senators
18. Ending all subsidies to private business
While some of these call for things that are neutral to the size and scope of government generally speaking, most of the items above expand the government. If the Populists got their way, the government would have new power to regulate business in a minute way, print money liberally, take over any business deemed a public commodity, limit immigration and land-ownership in a nativistic way, steal power from the states through the direct election of senators, etc.
While most of these were co-opted by the Progressive Movement, which essentially followed the Populist movement, both political parties adopted different parts of this platform in order to stay relevant. In 1892, the Populist Party received 9% of the presidential popular vote and 5% of the electoral votes.
The Tea Parties have set out primarily with two aims: fiscal responsibility in government and shrinking the size of government. This is in stark contrast to the reaction of grass-roots activists of 100 years ago. The Populist Movement was successful because they clearly defined their beliefs and presented a compelling case to the electorate. The question is, can the Tea Parties, a veritable foil to the Populist Movement, clearly define and articulate their suggestions and solutions for the problems that they see?
To answer the final question, no. The problem with the tea party movement is that too few of the supposed "members" of the tea party (full disclosure, officially I believe I am a member since I keep getting their emails and "rally" notices) have any idea how and why the movement started and have any ideas on how to actually fix the problems they are so angry about. Most tea party members (at least that I've met or seen comment in the news) seem to just be angry at the outrageous spending and they want it to stop and they are willing to have anything happen in the short-term. Case and point, look at several of the so called tea party candidates who have been elected into office. All of them say they are going to "change" Washington and cut spending, few if any can articulate how they propose they (individually) can go about doing that (i.e., convincing those in their constituencies to stop getting checks or the senators to stop sending them to their voting constituencies), and most that I've seen have precious little experience (not talking political experience here) that would lead me to believe they could create and carry-out such a plan.
ReplyDeleteMatt
This really is me.
ReplyDeleteThat platform is really interesting. Both the items they had on it, and how successful they have been, especially since they got so little of the vote in that election. The tea party is relatively young. If it can just keep from being completely hijacked and set out an actually specific platform, I think it really will be able to be a force for some real change.