Red Commissar
29th March 2012, 01:41
Huey Long is an odd figure, but I think part of the problems with interpreting him comes out of how politics are now compared to how they were in the 1920s and 1930s, particularly when it comes to the role of government in social policy and economics. IE in the conventional sense of 'left' using government to solve social problems and the 'right' encouraging markets.
BTW OP, I can't watch the video you provided, the link is not working.
This may be longwinded, I know, but it's the history forum.
Before the 1950s at least, certain people typically associated with the right, particularly rooted in a traditionalist and christian mindset, were usually ambivalent to capitalism, or more accurately the kind of economy that prevailed in the US beginning the late 1800s.
Long, like other Southern politicians was in the Democratic Party, which had attempted to set itself against the Republican Party embrace of industry and combination and made some crude attempts to win over labor vote. It may be recalled that Eugene Debs was himself briefly a member of the Democratic Party before his imprisonment over the Pullman Strike as a result of this perceived 'pro-labor' position of the Democrats against the Republican candidate, at least on the national stage.
As a result Long took up a populist banter which began to get well-beyond the typical rhetoric of Democratic Politicians looking for a political victory, and of course an aberration as far as southern Democratic politicians went. His rise to power in Louisiana and his political savyness allowed him to turn the state of Louisiana into more or less a personal domain. He began elected to the Railroad Commission, which like several other states was also responsible for oil-related infrastructure, and was notable for taking a position against the dominance of Standard Oil in the projects that were approved by the Commission.
From here he established his reputation as being against 'big business', and this translated into political success. He went to the Public Service Commission where he further cemented his reputation by addressing price fixing of utilities rates. He continued to grow in prominence in spite of the established political structure there, forming alliances where he could and gaining the support of Catholic clergy in the state. Long saw the potential in mobilizing the vast poor in Louisiana, or at least the whites, who had long been absent from elections due to a combination of apathy and poll taxes, and Long was probably one of the few that bothered trying to appeal to them rather than the established Louisianans that could afford to vote and were 'educated'. His attempt to run for governor of the state failed in 1924, but succeeded in 1928.
Like other southern states, gubernatorial elections were always going towards the Democrats, so the actual election was settled in the Democratic Primary. 43.9% went to Long, the remainder being split between two other Democrats trying to win the anti-Long vote. He was unchallenged in this victory, so the general election was good as his.
Being Governor of Louisiana, this allowed him to all upper positions of the cabinets and he used this to stack positions with loyalists, in exchange for a part of their salary which he would use as a 'war chest' for other purposes- influencing legislation, election funds, etc. Unsurprisingly Long ended up relying on the same patronage system that he had criticized the old society of Louisiana for doing. This did not translate seemingly into a family-based cronyism, as Long had interestingly supported one of his old loyalists (Fournet) over his own brother, Earl, in an election to Louisiana's House.
Long began to implement a variety of social programs, ranging from free school textbooks to subsidized heating gas, as well as a large public works program. He also began to increase funding to Louisiana State University. Long conflicted with the oil firms here over trying to find sources of funding for these programs, especially as the Great Depression began to spread across the United States, as he attempted to tax various facets of the operation. He attempted also to use his power to manipulate firms seeking state contracts into backing him in various ways, including his newspaper which he had created to counter the other, established newspapers which were connected to anti-Long factions.
Long stood for the US senate, winning the position in the 1930 elections. He did not assume the seat when 1931 came around, choosing to finish the remainder of his term in order to secure his base as it were. His own Lieutenant Governor, who had split with Long before over disputes over political direction, attempted to swear himself in as governor on two occasions, stating that Long should have abandoned his Govenorship to take up the senate seat he had won. Long's consolidation of power was shown when he was able to first get the National Guard to intervene against his rogue Lt. Governor, and later to get the Louisiana courts to dismiss him and put a more loyal candidate in his place. Long did not stand for election for governor in 1932 so as to begin serving as Senator, but left Louisiana with it firmly in his control, appointing a loyalist to run for Governor that would answer to him.
Long's populist rhetoric increased during his time in the Senate in 1932 as battles between Democrats and Republicans blew out over Hoover's policies and the worsening reputation. Long found himself in the camp of Democrats supporting FDR and made pronouncements accordingly, going around helping FDR's campaign and various senators and congressmen standing for election then.
Long and Roosevelt split after he became president, since Long had probably felt FDR had slighted him after the victory in 1932 after his contributions to the campaign trail. Long then began to challenge Roosevelt in the Congress to be more ambitious and far reaching with the New Deal and the '100 days', as well as challenging the Fed and the banking sector. All the while Long continued to control the politics in Louisiana through his appointments he had done as governor and politicians who owed their victory to him, such as the governor himself.
This is when the "Share our Wealth" program began to take shape, which were all the more powerful with the profound collapse in confidence in the prevailing economic system in the US. Attacks on the elite who had been spared from the worst of the depression rang with many Democratic supporters, as did his plans to guarantee an income to families.
Of course these proposals were charged to be 'socialist' due to the whole idea of redistribution of wealth, but it was fundamentally argued on populist grounds. For his part Long felt that his plan was the only way to diffuse the appeal of socialist and communist movements in the United States. Long felt that his plan was in line with Christian theology, which made sense considering many clerics were typically unfavorable to the rise of industry who had more or less sidelined them in the process.
The "Share Our Wealth" program kind of got picked up my some progressives who felt that FDR had not done anything significant with the New Deal and such, though it's questionable how much of this Long intended to follow up through and how much of it was exploitation of populist sentiments for personal gain. Domestically he had secured some important gains in Louisiana, but this was coupled with his own enhancement of power in that state's politics and economy.
The "Left" at the time did not view Long warmly, because like Jbeard said he represented the worst aspects of reformism. Long for his part did not want to be associated with the 'left' (socialist and communists) for obvious reasons and was anti-Communist in that respect, again as I said earlier feeling his views were inline with Christian and American ideals.
Two views from Marxists:
Arne Swabeck, The Long and Coughlin Movements (1935)
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/swabeck/1935/05/coughlong.htm
Revolutionists also face the necessity of turning their attention in all seriousness to Long and Coughlin. We cannot be concerned merely with their personal attributes and their demagoguery. More than that is needed, for they represent a specific phenomenon of the epoch of capitalist decline and decay. They have become originators of movements of a specific kind, corresponding tothe conditions created by the appearance of certain elements of capitalist decay in the United States. What is the role of these movements represented by Long and Coughlin? What constitutes their class basis? In which direction are they headed? Do they represent Leftward movements – that is, Leftward of the traditional capitalist parties – or are they Fascist movements, actual or potential? These are some of the most important questions that will have to be answered. It is quite possible to speak of both the Share-the-Wealth Clubs of Huey Long and the National Union for Social Justice of Father Coughlin in similar terms because in so far as their role, their class basis and their general direction are concerned, they have much in common. However, both are today still in the making and it is hardly possible to make a final analysis regarding their prospects and perspectives. It is therefore necessary at the present time to limit ourselves to a preliminary examination of their general background, their main trend and more particularly of the historical setting out of which they have emerged.
It would be false to set out with a preconceived notion that for reasons of certain similarity in demagoguery with the early Nazi movement, or for reasons of the distinct pro-capitalist and anti-revolutionary utterances of both Long and Coughlin, or because of their large middle class following, that they are Fascists or their organizations the beginnings of a Fascist movement in the United States. To the ruling bourgeoisie they unquestionably appear as dangerous radicals. It may be assumed with equal certainty that their present large radio following sees in them a hope of a radical remedying of what they call the social injustices and the economic maladjustments. And it is well to remember that the class struggle does create “circumstances and relationships that enable a grotesque mediocrity to strut about in a hero’s garb”. Under special distress the quack appears as the healer for the; despairing. Economic distress helps to provide an audience also for the political quack.
...
Huey Long’s program can be summed up in his proclamations for the redistribution of wealth. He proposes to reduce the big fortunes by a capital levy tax to a point where no one person may own more than from three to four million dollars and have a yearly income of not more than one million dollars. The surplus is to be distributed so that every family may have at least $5,000. From his paper calculations he already sees $165,000,000,000 available to be thus distributed with something to spare for a college education for all youth, for old age pensions, for reduction of the hours of labor to do away with unemployment and to guarantee a minimum yearly earning of $5,000 per family. The agricultural problem he proposes to take care of in the manner specified by the Bible. It is all very grandiose.
Father Coughlin is more careful in his paper calculations of wealth. He distinguishes between money in its accepted currency form and pen-and-ink-plus-check-book money. Among the planks in his platform he emphasizes: Liberty of conscience and liberty of education; a just and living wage for all citizens willing and able to work – whatever that means. He proposes nationalization – that is, government ownership – of banking, credit and currency, power, light, oil and natural gas and the “God-given” natural resources. He stands for: Private ownership of all other property, in the sense of “upholding the right to private property, yet controlling it for the public good”. Abolition of tax-exempt bonds, broadening of the base of taxation founded upon the ownership of wealth and the capacity to pay, together with alleviation of taxation. He asserts the rights of labor to organize in unions and insists it is the duty of the government to protect these organizations against the vested interests of wealth. In his radio addresses he adds that strikes and lockouts are absolutely unnecessary, which would strongly suggest that by his demand for government “protection” of unions, he means an actual form of state control, including compulsory arbitration. His program is quite vague and contradictory but this allows him to play on feelings and emotions and to appeal to all classes. It is particularly noteworthy that this self-styled champion of the common people maintains intimate contacts with Wall Street bankers in the promotion of inflationary schemes under the innocuous title of monetary reforms which have already netted him handsome profits in margin speculations in silver. But his bourgeois patriotism cannot be questioned. He broadcasts: “Let us build ten thousand airplanes to guard our coasts ... to keep America safe for Americans.”
“I believe in capitalism,” exclaims Huey Long, “but you cannot stimulate it unless there is buying power. You’ve got to have a foundation under the house and that is a more even distribution of wealth.” Yes, there could hardly be any doubt as to where the Louisiana Kingfish stands politically. He knows the power of the catch-phrase: “Share-the-Wealth”; but when he began in his own state and imposed a five cent a gallon tax on gasoline, there followed some conferences between Long and President Hilton of Louisiana Standard Oil and after that the Legislature was summoned in a special session and rebated four to the five cents. On the other hand, in his own state, where he rules supreme, he has made no move to ratify the child labor amendment, or to enact old age pensions, or minimum wages, or unemployment insurance. Thus the demand to “Share-the-Wealth” is not meant to include everybody. Moreover, from his labor record the following facts stand out. The courts and the civil authorities of his state were used to break the strike of the longshoremen and to defeat the efforts of the textile workers’ union to end conditions of virtual peonage in the Lane Cotton Mills. Huey Long is a staunch supporter of Governor Talmadge of Georgia who declared martial law during the national textile strike and put the strikers wholesale into concentration camps.
With the world war American capitalism extended its economic structure to a world-wide base and became an integral part of the system of world capitalism. But its highly advanced technological development and the enormous overproduction of capital in the means of production serving for the exploitation of labor, subordinated it more directly to the destructive influence of the decay of the world capitalist system. The crisis struck here with greater swiftness and force and became more deep-going than elsewhere And yet, while European countries have experienced revolutionary situations and Fascism, in the United States we have moved on a “normal” plane toward greater state intervention to strengthen monopoly capital. In the make-up of the large mass of the population there is no lack of ready material for explosive actions or dynamic mass movements. We need remind ourselves in this respect on the one hand only of the various essentially middle class and reactionary lynch mobs and vigilante bands. On the other hand we have seen the American working class, not yet conscious of its class role, but displaying in brilliant fashion its rebellious calibre and militant qualities in powerful strikes. But the actually revolutionary forces still lack development. We do not even have a mass social reform movement of the kind known in Europe for decades. Is it likely that such a movement in its specific social democratic form will become a decisive factor in the United States ? Hardly. The accelerated contradictions of capitalism and the swiftly developing class antagonisms unfolding in a condition of retarded consciousness are much more likely to produce a special American phenomena of hybrid social reform movements. In the United States the capitalist equilibrium is not upset but it has been shaken by the crisis and the contradictions of the present economic reorganization. Elements of capitalist decay have produced their special American conditions and the movements holding out various illusory panaceas are thrust forward and thrive on the existing uncertainty and social insecurity. It seems that the Huey Long and Father Coughlin movements are destined to become the most important phenomena of this kind. Both of these representatives are playing with the idea of a third party formation – a third capitalist party with a perverted social reform program. Both appear to be its loudest and most spectacular spokesmen. Paul Mattick, Economics, Politics and The Age of Inflation Ch. 6, the Great Depression (1977)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1977/inflation/ch06.htm
The sudden changes in welfare policy led to serious flare-ups among the unemployed and to attempts, with the aid of the left-wing political organizations, to form a nationally coordinated movement that could act as a pressure group in Congress and influence events in the interests of the unemployed. But their lobbying activities were of little avail. More disturbing in the eyes of Roosevelt and the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party was the spreading of competitive “fascist” tendencies, as exemplified by the rise and growing power of Huey Long in Louisiana, who took some of the wind out of Roosevelt’s sails by a more consistent demagoguery, which did not hesitate to promise a thorough distribution of wealth that would make “every man a king.” All kinds of schemes for resolving the economic crisis were advanced, such as the so-called Townsend Plan, or Old-Age Pension Program, and Upton Sinclair’s “End Poverty in California” plan, which was to give the workers some access to the means of production and distribute the wealth more evenly. These movements intensified a divisive ideological split within the Democratic Party and drove its “conservative” wing to the Republicans in opposition to the New Deal. To keep the party intact and to retain its leadership, Roosevelt tried to balance the contrary interests by means of comprmises, which either advanced or retarded the New Deal. The frictions in the Democratic Party reflected those within the nation as a whole and explain the increasingly visible partisanship as well as opposition with respect to the New Deal measures. His assassination meant we could never really see how his views may or may have not changed as the influence of demagogues like Hitler and Mussolini grew before WW II. Certain associates of his campaign, like the preacher Gerald L.K. Smith were on the far right, who in turn joined ranks with Father Coughlin and other right wingers in the late 30s and early 40s along with remaining supporters of Long. Would have Long done the same thing? Would he have joined with the rest of the near-fascist elements forming in the United States on account of his populism? He was definitely, again owing to his populism, opposed to the concept of 'class' (in the sense that 'class' indicated a bad thing in the US and distracted from one's sense of being 'American') and looked upon the idea of class collaboration rather than conflict as the necessary path.
Upton Sinclair, a liberal in those times, wrote "It Can't Happen Here". The book covers the rise of a charismatic populist, Berzelius Windrip, who secures the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency over Roosevelt in 1936. Like Long, Windrip had his own version of a 'Share our Wealth' program which involved direct payments to families and rooted in cooperation with religious groups, in particular charismatic ones like the book's Bishop Prang (which is a mash-up of Gerald Smith and Father Coughlin, though the latter is a character in the book too). Like Long, Windrip relied on a system of patronage with his loyalists and does so after getting elected.
The way Sinclair saw it, Windrip's populist arguments like in Italy and Germany gave way to a fascist system, and a corporatist system is eventually formed (Lewis makes it blatantly obviously by supporters of the regime referring to themselves as Corporatists, later shortened to "Corpos"), along with paramilitaries to help enforce the state's will. Tight relations are formed with state corporations that play along, labor is broken, and the rich get richer despite the direct payments (seemingly due to inflation which makes the direct payments worthless after awhile, and nothing changes). Etc etc. You can read the book yourself, though it's from a bourgeois liberal perspective so you know what to expect.
Some of my more liberal friends, due to the quick treatment of Long in history books and elsewhere, often look at him as a more 'radical' reformer than FDR though I don't think it was this simple. He definitely suggested much more blatantly aggressive government involvement in social programs and their expansion, but to what end, who knows for sure. I think some of the stuff he did in Louisiana was laudable, most importantly towards trying to get the poor educated and ending the poll tax in that state (which led to his critics charging he was a friend of blacks), but he was doing this coupled with his own advancement and political power.
What I don't know was Long's position on race. I've never gotten a clear answer on that, particularly when it came to his own policies in Louisiana. Again, his critics charged that he was being too 'friendly' to blacks when he was attempting to repeal the poll tax, but he didn't do much else to challenge the essential basis of Jim Crow, probably so as not to rock the boat with his core of supporters.
Long's rise in the US I think owed in part to the failure of a socialist movement, reformist or revolutionary, to rise in the country (in the way it did in some European countries, I mean) due to the way the government fiercely reacted to labor disputes and the collapse during the first Red Scare. Additionally, the lack of a socially-oriented religious movement in the US (in the vein of those pushing social credit in some countries, and the catholic based parties in Europe), which had seemingly ended in significance movement after the temperance movement. Long filled the vacuum here left by both the absence of a strong and independent religious and socialist (or at least labor oriented) group operating in these circles of advocating for public programs to alleviate poverty among farmers and the working class, which existed considerably in Louisiana.
Red Commissar
29th March 2012, 07:10
Thank you. I have a much more developed idea of what he stood for. So many different opinions (often between people who identify with similar political trains of thought)... I was really confused as to what he was exactly. It wasn't even a right v. left thing. People from all over the political spectrum have different opinions about his motives. Thanks for putting such time and effort into that, Red Commissar. I'd thank that post twice if I could.
Long is odd in that respect because at least by our conventional political scale, he seemed to've gone everywhere. He had a charisma that somehow appealed to people, along with his roots of being not from the 'elite' (he was born into an upper-middle class family, though his father appeared to have gotten worse off as the years went on). That charisma sometimes overloaded people, but most leftists of the day saw him as a danger mostly due to the views he was spouting was becoming dangerously close to corporatism.
It doesn't help either in typical history with Long is that he's considered to have attacked FDR from the 'left' over the New Deal. Again, it's important to consider the history when attacking the prevailing, capitalist economy, or more accurately big business and banks, wasn't the sole arena of 'leftists' as it is perceived today, or at least in its dumbed down, inaccurate version I mentioned in my post (government intervention v. markets, basically).
I agree with Jbeard's sentiments though, regarding how he used the support of the poor in Louisiana from his programs to build his career, it would have been interesting what Long could have done as a genuine reformer instead of as a means to an end for his career. Another similar reformer-like figure at the time from within the major political parties who also rose to the position of governor was Floyd B. Olson of Minnesota, who has a strong reputation within that state. Olson like Long ended up facing resistance from the landed establishment, but probably went even further with attempts to nationalize utilities and forming cooperatives. Olson was in the same group of 'progressives' that Senator La Folette represented, though Olson appeared to be more radical than them. Interestingly an attempt was made by some self-styled "Taxpayers' League" to rename a highway from his name to that of President Reagan was met with a very cold reception by the populace who still view him as among of the states' better governors.
Wikipedia (I know) mentions that Long and Norman Thomas (reformist SPA) had debates with one another, with Long arguing that his "Share the Wealth" plan works better than socialism and is better suited for America based on his plan being rooted in religion and 'American' ideals. I unfortunately can't find a transcript or summary of this debate, but it may help to show some light on Long's positions. For his part, Thomas I believe considered Long to belong to American Fascism, a position also held by most if not Marxists who were around at the time.
The book the article cites (The Kingfish and his realm. The life and times of Huey P. Long (http://books.google.com/books?id=IAk7iu1WHnYC)) unfortunately has the page of interest regarding the debate with Thomas is withheld from view, but it has some other interesting stuff. In his early years Long had operated with populists in the Democratic Party to fight the rise of support for the Socialist Party in certain Louisiana Parishes by participating in debates with them, which he did not perform too well in (pg 36-37). He also makes this statement to an interviewer (who later published one of his biographies),
"The Kingfish freely admitted his ignorance of economic theory. "No,", he told Forrest Davis, "I never read a line of Marx or Henry George or any of them economists. It's all the law of God." Huey declared his plan would save capitalism, not destroy it. He even predicted Share Our Wealth would increase the number of millionaires "tenfold, because so many more people could make a million dollars" if the multimillionaires were forced to give up their stranglehold on American economy. The charge of being a Marxist made him boil. "Communism? Hell no!" he shouted. "This plan is the only defense this country's got against communism." pg 271I ended up finding the same book in its entirety offered online through my university. I can't link to it because it requires a log-in, but the page of interest regarding the debate (pg 272) states:
Of all the Share our Wealth clubs, one in New York City drew the most press attention, chiefly because of its controversial president, Eugene S. Daniell, Jr. Like Huey, Daniell said he hated Wall Street; in 1933 he went to jail for throwing two teargas bombs into the ventilating system of the New York Stock Exchange. As a SOW club leader, Daniell created another disturbance on Wall Street by haranguing in front of J.P. Morgan and Company's office. Later, a police emergency squad had to be sent to "stop a disorder" involving Daniell and Communists at New York's Union Square; Marxists tended to congregate there, and they resented his coming in to proselytize. Huey, in an analogous confrontation, went to New York in March of 1934 to debate Norman Thomas, the Socialist party leader, on the merits of Share our Wealth versus those of socialism. The audience of mostly leftist urbanites puzzled Huey by reacting to his bible-laced appeals with gales of laughter. A majority of those present thought Thomas won the debate, but afterward it was the Kingfish who drew the autograph hunters.The end of that would also underscore that even with his failures, he could still be 'popular' and get people to come to him.
The book also has some analysis of whether or not Long believed in his Share our Wealth program- he appeared to have done so, but his advisers and political partners wanted him to emphasize it more as a slogan rather than an actual policy, since they were not sure for obvious reasons that it would be a feasible (or desirable, from their standpoint) policy.
Red Commissar
30th March 2012, 00:34
Huey Long was a Left Populist, corrupt, yes but a man of the Left and therefore worthy of embrace. Don't let anti-Southern prejudices overwhelm your good senses.
I don't see how anti-Southern prejudices factor into interpretations of Long. It's the same way people might see other populists like Father Coughlin, Gerald LK Smith, William Randolph Hearst, who all grew up from different backgrounds and locations and considered themselves populist in the sense they were against big business and trampling of American citizens.
Some of Long's achievements are laudable, again the poll tax repeals, public works, and educational reform, but how this translates into why the 'left' should necessarily embrace them as one of their own when socialist contemporaries, even those willing to work with 'progressives', were at best ambivalent and suspicious towards Long's intentions.
As far as populists go, Long was definitely the most effective in the 1920s and 30s as far as legislation, being a political boss, and 'charisma' goes. He died too early to say where he would've been as far as sympathies go, whether or not he would have stayed with this concept of helping the people, or repudiated it in the late 40s and 50s and jumped on the anti-Communist bandwagon then. Seeing who he chose to be among his enemies in the 30s though, I'd have to lean towards the latter.
Red Commissar
30th March 2012, 04:12
[QUOTE=Red Commissar;2400314]I don't see how anti-Southern prejudices factor into interpretations of Long. QUOTE]
There are a great deal of anti-Southern prejudices among people of the Left. The South is always been particularly hostile to socialist ideas and insulated from the transformations of progressive ideas, therefore many on our side of the barricades hate anything about South. I cannot hate the place for a variety of reasons.
I lived in New Orleans for a decade. It's not Dixie, but its close.
I don't see where you are coming from. There are some people I know who make derogatory statements about 'rednecks' sometimes, but I'm not sure if you can make such a sweeping generalization about that here, at least in this thread. I don't think the poor reception of Long in Leftist circles had anything to do with him being a southerner- the largest SPA branch historically was in Oklahoma- that's not the 'deep' south, but still. A number of users here are also from the south and don't have qualms about it in the way you are thinking.
More importantly, how does this relate to what has been said about Long? I don't think a systematic anti-southern bias is what caused some people to have a negative view of Long so much as what he may have represented in US politics at the time. He was probably the best thing to come out of Louisiana that broke the mold of old, elite landed money and did leave some sort of impact, positive for the most part, but we must look at how he fit in to the times, what he was responding to, and where he based his views from.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.