Introduction
Throughout the history of America, there has been an existing scholarly opinion about populism. Populism has various critics and defenders. Frank McVey is the father of populism studies in the history of America. He wrote his first work on populism, which pioneered modern and past studies on populism.
Capitalists have continuously opposed the idea of populism in the United States. Capitalists like Mark Hanna even campaigned against populism, which Democrats championed, and he used the money to sponsor the Republican campaigns in 1896 (Durden, n.d.). This paper will analyze the interrelationship between populism and different themes, such as herrenvolk, American identity, frontier, anti-populism, liberal populism, conservative anti-populism, and War, based on historical studies.
Liberal Populism
Liberal populism is sometimes called left-wing or social populism, and it often involves speaking for ordinary people. The common ideas of this theme include social justice, democracy, and economic empowerment. In American history, liberal populism can be traced to the New Deal and the post-World War II era.
Liberal populism is well connected with the ideas presented by the defenders of populism, who believed that populism was the only way to modernize America. The New Deal targeted redefining Americanism to surpass the problems associated with race, ethnicity, and religion. The New Deal aimed to relieve the country from the old world, where few had the freedom and power, to a new America where people were equal and free (Library of Congress, n.d.).
The populist who fronted the idea of the New Deal, like Henry Wallace, believed that the concept was distinct from the traditional populist point of view, where populism was practiced in isolation. Traditionally, populist ideology targeted free trade and engagement with the rest of the world. Still, the New Deal aimed to change the ideology in the 20th century, engage the ordinary person, do away with monopolies and cartels, and bring them under the rule of the ordinary person.
Liberal populism was also evident during the World War II period. The War was dubbed the People’s War; this implies that World War II was a war for democracy that would consolidate power in the hands of the ordinary person worldwide. Before the War, the democratic party, which President Franklin Roosevelt led, based its popularity on class-based populism.
However, as the Americans joined World War II, the party shifted its class-based populism ideology and joined the solidarity. World War II played a critical role in the change because, at that time, the country needed to be unified against hostilities. These changes were brought about by the need for fighters, which required a unified country.
Conservative Anti-Populism
The New Deal did not ascend easily to the throne of power without criticism. Most anti-populist defenders, for instance, the American Liberty League, were concerned about weakening their power over ordinary people. One wealthy family who sponsored the American Liberty League was the DuPont family. They were primarily worried about their workers abandoning their jobs for better-paying government jobs (Library of Congress, n.d.). The New Deal’s efforts to consolidate power into an ordinary person were seen as an attempt to take away from people whose ancestors had worked so hard to achieve and give it to undeserving people. Taking from the thrifty was further seen as an effort to discourage feature accumulation.
The Liberty League further argued that President Roosevelt prioritized mob rule and focused on the lazy and the shiftless over the talented and capable. They also claimed that the president enslaved the strong and pampered the weak in the country. The anti-populists like Madison were also against the common workforce due to their demographic increase. This threatened their properties, as in the case of voting, and they would vote for increased taxes against their properties or take them up through violence.
American Identity
Politicians often use identity politics in formulating populist political strategies, which play an essential role in any society. Politicians use it to ensure that citizens think in a manner that they can identify who is legitimate and illegitimate political actors. This led to a call for a radical state restructuring by the supporters of populist ideology.
In his book Gun Fight Nation, Richard Slotkin explores the relationship between American mythology and the country’s history with violence. The most notable theme in his work is the elite’s fear of the mob. He argues that this theme has been a constant feature of the country’s political culture (Wright & Slotkin, 1993).
According to Slotkin, the American political system was developed to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful people against any threat from popular uprisings. The country’s founders were fully aware of the threats that might have come from the mob. Therefore, they developed a constitution that limits the masses’ power while favoring the political elites.
According to Slotkin’s work, American identity is based on a hierarchical class system maintained by violence and wars. The fear of mobs by the political elites is still present today and has been present throughout American history. It is still the driving force behind many political and social movements.
According to Slotkin, the political elites’ fear of the mob is caused by fear of social disorder, economic disruption, and chaos (Wright & Slotkin, 1993). Chaos and civil disorder can be triggered when people feel disenfranchised and powerless. Economic disruption can be caused by strikes and protests organized by popular uprisings.
The political elites also fear losing political power and control over people. The author points out that political actors have used the theme of elite fear of the mob to justify violence and repression against minority groups. For instance, in the late 19th century and the 20th century, the fear of labor strikes by the government led to widespread violence against workers and union organizers (Wright & Slotkin, 1993). Similarly, War was waged against civil rights activists during the civil rights era due to fear of minority political power, which still defines American identity.
Hixson, similarly, had the same view about American identity but with a different approach than Slotkin. He believes American identity was built through wars and violence, similar to Slotkin’s position. He views American identity from an American foreign policy perspective.
American national identity has played a key role in defining who is deemed a threat to America (Hixson, 2017). This is in the formulation of American foreign policy. Walter Hixson analyzes the history of American foreign policy up to the 21st-century War on Terror organization. He opposes a belief in American foreign policy, which portrays America as a country with the moral duty to protect the world.
Hixson believes that this notion of America being morally superior has had remarkable gains throughout the centuries. However, according to Hixson, this belief has continuously propelled America into endless wars against several external enemies. American foreign policy has contributed to American identity as it is supported by American diplomacy, which deeply connects with American domestic culture.
Herrenvolk, War, and Frontier
Herrenvolk is defined as a system of government in which only a specific ethnic group is allowed to participate in the government while others are disenfranchised. Herrenvolk, War, and frontier are intertwined and closely related themes in American history and were used to champion the populist ideology of the elite white supremacists. During the frontier period, the ideology of white supremacy was demonstrated in Native Americans, forcing them to move from their lands. In her work Cruelty as Citizenship, Cristina Beltran explains the core issues that minority Americans face. In her work, she examines white supremacy and its dominance in the country and the government.
She demonstrates how white nativism has established itself in the country. Herrenvolk populism has played a critical role in American history and politics, and Americans have developed a tendency to celebrate white supremacy against non-whites for several centuries. She examined the American history of slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws (Beltrán, 2020). She also analyzed the expansionist movements westwards and northwards, which destroyed native American and Mexican territories and assimilated the original Mexicans. She describes these periods as open cruelty towards non-whites by white supremacists.
Before the Civil War, which brewed the idea of nationhood as described by Slotkin to build the idea of American identity, Beltran describes that, for the whites, it was justifiable to remove the non-whites out of the way to expand to the west and south. This freedom of movement by the whites was justified by branding the attacks on Mexicans as enemy soldiers, bandits, and criminals who were not worthy of citizenship (Beltrán, 2020). This legitimized the cruelty of the whites toward the Mexicans and Native Americans.
Slotkin’s frontier also emphasizes the violence used by European settlers against the native Americans during the frontier period. He further argues that the violence against the Native Americans was the beginning of the myth of the frontier. The settlers further developed this myth in the 19th century to meet the needs of industrialization, which was growing and therefore incorporated the exploitation of land and people.
Conclusion
In the history of the United States, the frontier era began around 1840 and ended in 1890. The historians of populism in the current century build or challenge the existing history from the previous and the current centuries. Historians in the current century use various forms of analysis to explain populism and its benefits and dangers; thus, there exist those who are against populism and those who support populism.
The introduction of the New Deal championed class-based populism in the country. The Americans’ participation in the 20th-century conflict breeds the idea of nationhood in Americans. In previous centuries, most American politicians classified America as a white-only country.
References
Beltrán, C. (2020). Cruelty as citizenship. Web.
Durden, R.D. F. (n.d.). The Climax of Populism: The Election of 1896. Web.
Hixson, W.L. (2017) “The myth of american diplomacy.” Web.
Library of Congress. (n.d.). Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. United States History Primary Source Timeline. Web.
Wright, W., & Slotkin, R. (1993). Gunfighter nation: The myth of the frontier in twentieth-century America. Contemporary Sociology, 22(6), 854. Web.