What Is True American Populism?

by Zoltanous

Debates about the true representatives of populism in U.S. politics often arise, with some pointing to Donald Trump and conservative factions as defenders of the American worker, and others asserting that Bernie Sanders and the social democrats better embody populist principles. Additionally, there are those who argue that only Marxism or Fascism can claim to be authentic expressions of populism. However, if we examine the original American populists from the late 19th century, including the People's Populist party, The Farmer's Alliance, the Knights of Labor, the National Labor Union, and the Greenback party, we observe both commonalities and significant variances.

These early populist groups were unified in their opposition to monopoly capitalism, banking monopolies, and were advocates for cooperatives. They championed the preservation of family farms, small-scale artisans, and local communities, which they saw as under threat from corporate and financial consolidation. The original populists were localists, often held religious values, were typically skeptical of immigration, and many had an agrarian focus. They supported the notion of tradesmen and workers having ownership over the means of production, rather than being subjected to control by large corporate entities or government bureaucracies. At its core, original American Populism was about promoting and protecting the welfare of the common American.

Comparing this to contemporary forms of 'populism,' like the Donald Trump 2016 campaign, we find both overlaps and stark contrasts. Trump's movement shared the conservative and anti-immigration sentiment of the early populists but diverged significantly in its stance towards corporate capitalism. In fact, Trump's major legislative achievement was a tax cut that primarily benefited Wall Street, not Main Street. His brand of populism also overlooked the role of corporate capitalism in driving immigration issues, favoring the interests of corporations seeking inexpensive labor over providing American workers with fair wages. Moreover, Trump's rhetoric of representing the "Silent Majority" did not translate into action against corporate monopolies that undermine small businesses and traditional values, which were key concerns of the original populists. This discrepancy suggests that Trump's version of populism may not align as closely with the principles of the original movement as it claims.

Sanders is widely recognized as a prominent critic of capitalism in contemporary America. Yet, his favored social democracy is more akin to a welfare state that does not substantially challenge corporate bureaucracy. This brand of democratic socialism may inadvertently fortify capitalism by tempering more radical critiques and diluting the opposition among the populace. Rather than advocating for systemic changes that directly address the struggles of working families, Sanders suggests more generous, albeit temporary, remedies. His vision includes a robust government bureaucracy, despite acknowledging a political system influenced by Wall Street interests, particularly post-Citizens United v. FEC. Original populists, however, sought a government truly representative of and responsive to the people's needs, not one offering modest reforms to prolong the life of the capitalist framework.

Fascism and Marxism-Leninism, blends politics with union support, differs from American populism in its centralist and statist nature, whereas populism historically embraced localism and anti-centralization. The original populists' drive for localism and widespread ownership through cooperatives was not only to safeguard their lifestyle and autonomy but also seen as vital for maintaining a democratic society in the U.S. They aimed to construct a political landscape free from corporate and financial manipulation, unlike the centralized control inherent in both Fascism and Marxism-Leninism. Populists staunchly resisted the so-called advancement of centralizing production and stripping workers – the actual labor force – of their influence. Organizations like the People's Populist party sought to counteract centralization to maintain or reclaim ownership of production, and to protect local communities and democracy.

Upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that both Trump's and Sanders's versions of populism do not align with the anti-bureaucratic and anti-corporate ethos of the original American populist movement. Instead, they appear to rally support for one faction of the ruling elite over another, rather than seeking to dismantle the overarching power structures. Although Fascism and Marxism-Leninism present strong critiques of the current system, they have not been successful in effecting substantive economic change in modern America. While industries such as media, technology, and large-scale manufacturing may require state oversight, there is also a place for some level of worker control, perhaps through guilds or unions. It must be conceded that the agrarian democracy cherished by the original populists is irretrievable, and a return to that kind of society is not feasible. Nonetheless, the populist disdain for capitalism and bureaucracy, along with the commitment to widespread ownership and integrative politics, remain valuable and adaptable for today's context. The populist endeavor to bridge economic, cultural, and racial divides remains a noble and essential goal for any movement aspiring to make a significant impact in American society.

In recent years, the emergence of populist sentiment and the negotiation outcomes of the railroad workers' union, albeit reformist, have underscored the potential influence of organized labor. This highlights the importance of genuine populists and dissenters in voicing their perspectives and challenging the faux-populist narratives propagated by both the Republican and Democratic parties. Populists and dissenters must go beyond advocating for mere welfare reform and instead champion the ownership of the means of production by the actual contributors in the economy. To be effective, a populist movement must extend its appeal beyond a single demographic or sector. It should resonate with small business owners, the working class, rural communities, religious organizations, students, and individuals across the political spectrum, including both the Right and the Left, and across all racial backgrounds. Such a coalition could unite in opposition to international capitalism, fighting for the national emancipation of workers from the grasp of capitalist elites. This endeavor, while challenging, is not unattainable.

The March 8th Alliance in Lebanon serves as an illustrative example of this potential unity. This coalition, comprising Muslim, Christian, secular parties, and groups from the Right, Left, and political center, managed to bridge deep-seated divides from a past marred by sectarian civil strife. Their ability to reconcile and collaborate for the common good suggests that the American working class can achieve similar solidarity. By banding together, we have the opportunity to introduce genuine democracy to the United States, where the people not only steer their political future but also have a stake in the economy. This vision calls for all segments of society to join forces in enhancing the well-being of individuals, families, and communities. Echoing the sentiment of William Jennings Bryan, we must reject the notion that labor should bear the burden of oppression, nor should humanity be sacrificed for the benefit of the affluent. Instead of yielding to the interests of the wealthy, as the so-called populists like Trump and Sanders seem to do, it is time to rekindle the true essence of American populism.