Yoshie takes from this history the lesson that a failure to confront racism explains the failure of the movement. Certainly, if the movements' ranks were broader and stronger, one could expect it to have progressed further. However, one could also imagine that greater efforts to forge such ties could have resulted in earlier failure of the movement. A different explanation for the movement's failure was its decision to throw in with the Democratic Party. I have no idea which, if any of these, is true.
In the most important sense, all this is beside the point. In a significant respect, the populist program was a constructive response to the economic troubles of that day, and translations of that program to the present day can be similarly constructive. Racism, conspiracism, and retrograde (see below) nationalism have no necessary connection to such a program, either in 19th or 21st century form.
I'm not an historian, not even an amateur one. It's the feasibility of the economics that interests me most.
It can easily be acknowledged that such a translation is not marxian, communist, or "revolutionary" in these respects. So criticism along those lines are also criticisms of any sort of reformism or "unrevolutionary" socialism. In other words, ultra-left fantasy.
A more serious criticism is that elements of the program feed into assorted perverse aspects of contemporary culture, as they did in the 19th century, namely racism, anti-semitism, and conspiracism.
What are the elements of the program, and to what extent are they susceptible to this criticism?
Let's tick them off again:
1. democratic money 2. trade agreements incorporating labor/green standards 3. industrial policy on behalf of industries with the better jobs 4. defense of the 'small' enterprise
There are more but these are the ones most relevant to the argument.
Regarding democratic money, the complaints about references to "jewish capital" coming from white people, if taken to the extreme, imply that the banking/finance industry should not be criticized. We will have to burn all the copies of Wall Street. If it should be cricizied, there is no avoiding implicit references to jewish capital. What's really grounds for criticism are any explicit references, or the jew-baiting we have seen coming from Buchanan. At the same time, an important part of the democratic money movement is explicitly anti-racist -- namely the grassroots activity on behalf of non-discrimination in lending.
Whether democratic money is revolutionary or not seems to be the subject of some confusion. Some people say it is too radical, hence harmfully deceptive (unlike a "right to a job" in the Constitution?). Others suggest it is somehow manipulative and divorced from real economic activity. The first of these is debatable, the second uninformed. But neither have anything to do with racism/anti-semitism/ conspiracism (RASC).
On the trade front, critics of "protectionism" repeatedly gloss over what the actual movement(s) are up to, as opposed to the treacle coming out of Buchanan's mouth. I posted a piece on the labor rights dimension by Jerry Levinson. There is no RASC here. There is a robust challenge to an emerging supra-national institution that will be an instrument of neo-liberal economic policy. Must we be nationalists to criticize the WTO or IMF?
There is an article in the Post this morning, "Bush Embraces Internationalism," or something like that. Ironically, it is this sort of "internationalism" that is the basis for the recent Kosovo adventure, which aroused so much opposition from our putative anti-nationalists. "Nationalism" is turning out to be the template for opposition to U.S. military intervention. So if populism entails "nationalism" in this way, what's your problem? (Yoshie noted that I seem to have my own problem with this, which is all too true.)
I would also suggest that industrial policy (which entails public control and ownership of certain 'common facilities' required by business firms) has nothing to do with RASC. What was unconstructive about the old pops calling for public control of the railroads, or of currency issuance?
Finally, there is the question of the middle class person who is not a wage/salary worker. As noted in a previous post, there are fewer of these people around then is often supposed. I heard a talk on Australia the other day and the extent of 'casualization' of the work force is much further advanced there than in the U.S.
In any sort of reformist framework, the small enterprise is going to survive. If its destruction is not contemplated, there is no reason politically not to affirm its role. The best way to integrate this sector into the economy is food for debate, but there is no connotation of RASC. In fact, self-employment and enterprise are in some respects more plausible options for the most under-developed areas within the U.S. (like inner-city areas) than employment by large firms. So there is an explicit anti-racist dimension here as well, again a feature of the democratic money movement.
The embrace of populist program by the most culturally backward, least educated, poorest sectors of the population in the 19th century is the most impressive thing about it. Go back and read the old texts and consider whether the U.S. would not be a far different and better place if such discourse was elevated today.
Regarding the links below, I would caution that there is some basic differences between the new stuff (i.e., post-1960) and the old. I much favor the old, as I explained in a critical review of "The New Populist Reader" for RRPE. That's why I'm not a member of the "Alliance for Democracy."
mbs
http://www.populist.com/essays.html
http://www.populist.com/Populist.Reader.html