On Populism Pt II

What Populism is...

Apr 16, 2022

Find Part I of this series at this link.

An objective assessment of the Progressive movement cannot help but reveal its failure to improve the plight of the working class over the course of the last century. Under Progressive auspices, wealth inequality has increased exponentially, while the vast majority of the population has seen its share of the economic pie diminish drastically. On top of its dismal track record, elite support for Progressive causes implies that rather than a threat to upper-class dominance, this supposed grassroots movement may actually serve the interests of the most wealthy among us.

Those indoctrinated into the Progressive ideology will certainly object, believing that the solutions will come only if more Progressive policies are implemented. Perhaps a higher minimum wage, a more graduated tax structure, or the further nationalization of education and healthcare will do the trick? These policies are nothing more than band-aids on a bullet wound. A fundamental misunderstanding of the historical causes of wealth inequality prevents the Progressive from recognizing the solutions to the problem in the present day.

Progressive policies often work to the advantage of the corporate system, and hence, the upper classes that control that system. Some of the largest transnational corporations such as McDonald’s, Amazon, and Walmart receive billions of dollars in indirect subsidies as a result of government assistance programs that reduce the need for a living wage. Large publishing houses with political connections are given huge textbook contracts due to the centralization of the means of education in the hands of the state. The largest Pharmaceutical corporations are handed captive markets as a result of Medicare and Medicaid requirements. All told, billions, even trillions, of dollars have entered corporate coffers as a result of actions supported by the Progressive movement.

Are we going to have to wait for another hundred years before waking up to the fact that this approach is never going to work to alleviate the plight of a struggling working class?

For those seeking economic and political justice, perhaps it is time to look elsewhere in search of a movement that truly supports working-class interests. I posit there is, and has been, a movement rooted in such interests, clearly eschewed by an upper-class preferring Progressivism. Rather than relying on some mystical theory of historical dialectics, this movement recognizes how the unjustifiable abuse of power by a well-connected political class is responsible for the accumulation of wealth at the top of the pyramid. In contrast to Progressivism, this movement is clearly suppressed, even overtly censored, by those who profit off the status quo. This is the movement known as Populism.

Populism: What it is

Recently, many have been told through establishment media outlets that Populism is somehow a far-right extremist political perspective held by rabidly nationalistic Trump supporters. Apparently lost on these propagators of corporate propaganda is the long history of Populism dating back to the 19th century, explicitly in response to the centralization of political and economic power within the hands of the Robber Barons of the day.

Though most modern interpretations of Populism describe it in a negative light, nearly all agree that the political movement is primarily characterized by a historical interpretation that perceives an “elite” controlling political and economic power. This elite functions in contrast to policies that would benefit the vast majority of the population. Versions of Populism can be both “left-wing” and “right-wing” as typical renditions of the left/right paradigm cannot apply to a movement ascribing the woes of the lower classes to the actions of an upper class. The Populist movement interprets politics through a top/down paradigm where those at the top work actively to oppress the vast majority. This political philosophy posits wealth inequality as a result of elite control, rather than inevitable materialistic historical movements creating the conditions for a “Capitalist” class, commonplace in most modern political discourse.

Perhaps this explains why the upper classes have always promoted Progressivism. Not only does the left/right paradigm keep the majority of the population arguing among themselves, but all those participating maintain a perspective which perceives a historical battle between Communism and Capitalism. This perception prevents the ability to view oppression as the direct result of the actions of a ruling class and instead places the blame on the roughly half of the population on the “other side” of the dialectic.

Its History

As cited in the articles above, the Populist movement in the United States is often traced back to the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Jackson ran on a platform condemning the Second Bank of the United States, and he eventually vetoed a renewal of its 20-year charter. By centralizing the means of the production of currency, Jackson argued the bank only benefitted the wealthy banking class, which in turn corrupted congress.

The 19th-century Populist movement culminated in organized political action against the Robber Barons who came to prominence in the post Civil War era. These unscrupulous actors frequently used government connections to centralize a variety of industries, accruing vast sums of money in the process. The financial industry was once again targeted for centralization.

With the passing of the National Currency Act in 1863, the federal government nationalized the banking industry in order to produce a fiat currency known as the greenback. This action had the effect of greatly expanding the money supply to pay for the Civil War. Many farmers and other members of the working class took out loans in greenbacks. After the war, the government began to reduce the supply of greenbacks, leaving farmers only relatively much more valuable gold backed dollars to pay off their loans.

This had a deflationary effect on the economy making many debts accrued by farmers of the period very difficult to pay back. Once again, the creditor class was making out like bandits. These economic shenanigans, along with the monopolization of a burgeoning railroad industry owned by Robber Barons, and many farmers were threatened with the loss of their land.

This set of circumstances lead to the creation of an organized Populist movement, finding its peak in the presidential election of 1896 when Populist champion William Jennings Bryan won the nomination for the Democratic Party ticket. Though he ultimately lost the election, Bryon’s “Cross of Gold Speech” from that convention has gone down in history as emblematic of the Populist platform. In the speech, Bryon makes reference to Andrew Jackson and his fight against the centralization of finance. He also advocated for the decentralization of currency markets and the implementation of a bimetallic system which would utilize both gold and silver.

Bryon lost the election to McKinley, whose assassination led to the ascension of Theodore Roosevelt and the beginning of the Progressive Era. By 1913 the creation of the Federal Reserve placed the final nail in the coffin of the Populist debate started by Andrew Jackson. Currency creation solidified in the hands of a few of the largest banking corporations.

Its Present

Shortly after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the income tax began. Along with the Revenue Act of 1909, charitable tax-exempt foundations became a great way for the super wealthy to avoid taxation while keeping their fortunes in trust. As reported in Part I of this series, those foundations became hotbeds of Progressivism and the centralization of industries such as education and healthcare joined the financial sector as central planks of the Progressive platform.

Though the ascension of Roosevelt and the Progressive movement hearkened the end of any organized Populist political movement, independent researchers, journalists, activists, and artists continued to promote the Populist cause throughout the 20th century.

The Wizard of Oz by Frank Baum remained wildly popular decades after its first printing in 1900. A clear allegory for the central tenets of Populism, the story includes a controlling oligarch hiding behind a curtain of state power. The metaphor extends to include Populism’s advocacy for bimetallism, as Dorothy’s silver slippers paved the way to access the yellow (or gold) brick road and ultimately discover a path back home. Ellen Brown, the President of the Public Banking Institute and modern advocate for the decentralization of financial power, alludes to this in her book Web of Debt. You can hear my interview with Ellen at this link.

Though rarely promoted by the corporate controlled publishing houses, other books describing history from a top/down Populist perspective nonetheless made it into the public arena. None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, first published in 1971, describes history in terms of “elite” power rather than dialectical forces. He, too, comes to the conclusion that many Socialist and Progressive forces were funded by upper-class interests designed to monopolize markets and centralize production into the hands of a few. All while feigning concern for the plight of the common person.

Written in 1994, G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island continues the Populist tradition of exposing oligarch control over the process of money creation. In it, Griffin details how a handful of representatives from the wealthiest American families secretly met at a resort on Jekyll Island, Georgia to formulate the bill that would later become the Federal Reserve Act.

Often in the modern day, these writers are accused of being conspiracy theorists. The term “conspiracy theorist” was weaponized by the CIA in 1967 specifically to counter the claims of many who doubted the official narrative concerning the JFK assassination. Today, its use as a pejorative against any who believe the upper classes conspire to accrue power has become widespread.

These central tenets of the once prominent Populist movement have now been disregarded within a mainstream conversation currently dominated by the Progressive left. By maintaining all political conversation within the left/right paradigm, and dismissing talking points revealing upper-class collusion as “conspiracy theory”, corporate media pundits help promote the belief that economic oppression is simply a natural occurrence during a “Capitalist” phase. Those, like the Populists of the 19th century, who feel wealth inequality to be the direct result of the actions of well-connected individuals conspiring to increase their wealth and power through unethical means, are simply not invited.

Conclusion

The historical record clearly contains a working-class movement, based on a top/down paradigm, that fought valiantly against the consolidation of political and economic power by a well-connected elite. This movement was replaced by a Progressivism insistent on utilizing the left/right paradigm based on historical dialectics. This paradigm conveniently presumes the inevitable rise of a “Capitalist class” while absolving that class of the moral responsibility for creating an economic environment rife with monopolization of markets and the centralization of the means of production.

Not only that, but a historical perspective that pits “Capitalists” against “Socialists” serves to divide the population against itself. This classic divide and conquer technique prevents the vast majority from recognizing a common oppressor and uniting against the few who would dominate the many.

Overwhelming evidence supports it was this very upper class that supported the rise of Progressivism while at the same time rejecting the central tenets of a Populist movement specifically targeting the elites for immoral actions. The rise of the tax-exempt foundation allowed a consolidation of wealth to be used by the powerful to unfairly promote social changes for their benefit. Under the guise of a charitable organization, these foundations were able to effectively eliminate Populist competition by funding the Progressive alternative. Ostensibly working to right the wrongs of wealth inequality, upper-class interests have instead utilized Progressivism as a tool to consolidate power.

The vestiges of Populist opposition have now been targeted as “conspiracy theory” by the corporate/government system firmly within the control of a wealthy few. Authors and activists who approach interpretations of history and current events from a perspective of elite control are systematically excluded from corporate controlled publishing and distribution outlets. Rarely, if ever, are they given credence within the vast network of mainstream media venues.

It is no wonder, then, that Progressivism continues to garner widespread support despite its failure to narrow the gap between rich and poor after a century of influence. Those who, like Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryan, recognize the centralization of currency production as a major vehicle for the creation of wealth inequality have been completely silenced. Those who advocate for the centralization of production in the hands of the corporate/government complex, conversely, are promoted as the theoretical saviors of the working class.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the concept of Populism as a vehicle for positive social change. A top/down paradigm can unite the 99.9% against the .1% who have access to the halls of political power and the economic might to wield undue influence within supposedly Democratic institutions. No doubt, this is precisely what those at the top of the pyramid of power fear most.

Recently, attacks against the potential for a reemergence of Populist ideals have reached a fever pitch. Not only do those advocating for a top/down political paradigm endure the pejorative “conspiracy theorist”, but such ideas are labeled “extremist” and even linked to domestic terrorism. Despite Populism’s broad appeal to both those who identify as “left” and “right”, efforts are made to connect the movement to “far right” organizations ostensibly influenced by nationalism, National Socialism, and even white supremacy.

Part III of this series, “What Populism Most Definitely is Not”, will address these accusations directly.

The Populist Papers

Discussion about this post