Populist Movement Analysis

In all the history of America one thing has been made clear, historians can’t agree on much. It is valid seeing as none of them can travel back in time to actually experience the important events and even distinguish what has value and what doesn’t. Therefore all historians must make a leap and interpret the facts as best they can. The populist movement does not escape this paradox. Two views are widely accepted yet vastly different, the views of Richard Hofstadter and Lawrence Goodwyn. They disagree on whether populists were “isolated and paranoid bigots” or “sophisticated, empathetic egalitarians”; whether their leaders were “opportunists who victimized them” or “visionary economic theorists who liberated them”; whether their beliefs were rooted in the free silver campaign of the 1890s or the cooperative movement of the 1880s; and finally whether their ideal society was in the “agrarian past” or “the promise of a cooperative future”. They could not agree on anything, over all Richard Hofstadter seems to have a better idea of the truth of populism.

The first topic that was debated was whether the populists we “isolated and paranoid bigots” or were the “sophisticated, empathetic egalitarians”. Racism happened t is not a part of history to be overlooked, although the populist movement was trying for betterment of rights they weren’t fighting for

everyone’s rights. They had an extreme dislike for immigrants not exactly an egalitarian ideal. Negros weren’t the biggest threat seeing as how a lot of Negros were going into the farming business and supported the populists, however closeminded people are always worried about competition and the populists believed the immigrants provided that completion, and they did not like it. Hofstadter had it right when he said they were isolated paranoid bigots. They were isolated not only geographically but mentally as well, so closeminded they were that the idea of equality or any other matter as such was a million light-years away. They were paranoid in the sense that their superstition that immigrants would take their jobs and their money clouded all other judgement. And most importantly they were bigots! There is no way around it can be sugar coated and hidden but at the end of the day immigrants were looked down on and even fellow farmers that were black had some sense of inferiority to white farmers. The populist movement was supporting farmers not really scholars who sought equality. Now not all populists were bigots or racist, but with the time period and region in mind, it was more than likely that a vast majority wasn’t all for equality.
Another debated topic among the historians was whether their leaders were “opportunists who victimized them” or “visionary economic theorists who liberated them”. The populist movement was a party for financially failing farmers, the leaders were no different, and as such there was corruption and men in it for their own gain, not the overall gain of the community. This is apparent in any group, but it was more apparent in the populist movement. Being a group for farmers not all of them were literate let alone great men of ideas and mathematics, they would have a hard time telling when they’ve been taken advantage of, also this was a movement about money and there is no bigger gain than money, the more money was gained the more power, the more power the more money, and so the vicious cycle went. The leaders looked for every opportunity to further themselves, they are opportunists and in turn victimized the people whom they were representing. They were the poor farmers who needed help, they just needed their ideas agreed upon, their laws passed, they need to take responsibility and not rely on the sympathy vote. Again Hofstadter’s interpretation is the superior one. They are opportunistic leaders that victimize their followers.
This is all about the populist movement, but what is the populist movement, what is their “essence”.

Hofstadter believed their essence was in the free silver campaign. The free silver campaign wanted to devalue the dollar. Seeing as most farmers were in debt, this would be very good for them making them owe less. It would also supposedly increase the price of their crops. People don’t want to be in debt. People want their goods to sell the most that they can. This is what is important to people this is what a movement is going to be centered around. A movement with irrelevant topics is not going to get off the

ground.
The vision of a perfect world something that everyone strives for, but is that world looking to the future or to the past? This is a movement for farmers of course they dream of the agrarian past. When farming was at its peak was when life was its best. In the past everyone was a farmer, everyone wanted the same things. The ideas that the populists wanted would be much more popular and viable. Political parties usually want their ideas passed. More people agreeing with them would get their ideas passed a lot easier. Sometimes the way to look is to the past, at least that is what the populists believed or what Hofstadter said they believed. In the end the populists wanted to stop progress forward and trying to take it back to a time of simplicity and a time when a farmer actually mattered and could make a living free of debt. The past was the utopia that they sought.
The Populists were Conservatives. They wanted to halt the movement of progress. They were backward hayseeds standing in the way of progress. They were not an altogether great movement. They wanted what was best for themselves and not what was best for society. They wanted to stop the flow of history and go back to simpler times where farmers ruled. The used pity and opportunity to get their way not sound ideas and reasoning. The believed in taking advantage of loaners and finding a back door out of their debt. The Populists ultimately failed in their campaign simply because it benefitted only them and no one wants to join a party that doesn’t benefit them and could potentially stunt them. Hofstadter had it right in all of his descriptions of the populists and he made the better inferences.