70 thoughts on “Blog #45 – Brief History of Populism”

1. Alexa R January 9, 2013 at 10:18 pm

   In that era you cannot deny that there was a much needed reform when a few people could control the whole U.S economy. People like J.P Morgan, Vanderbilt and the monkey that jumped over the green rainbow held all the power while people in the West and the East were at their mercy. The reform movement worked but it didn’t work. If it worked all the way we wouldn’t have Occupy Wall Street and there still wouldn’t be people who own multimillion dollar companies while the people who work for them can’t even afford to live. It had some really effective points that helped level the playing field like the income tax bill by the democrats in congress. Along with the interstate commerce Act the government tried to get a handle on big business.
   The reform movement and the Occupy Wall Street movements are the same at least in my mind. These battles are ageless there have always been people fighting or occupying places because things are not fair like Wal-Mart selling about 421 billion (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/05/28/walmarts-how-big-what-the-huge-numbers-really-mean/) dollars’ worth of merchandise while a lot of their in store employees are struggling to make ends meet. It’s the same for people back then railroad companies where making literally too much money while people on farms couldn’t even afford to live a decent life. There both fighting for the same things. And in a way they took the same courses of action to fix the problem. They got together and complained about it collectively. They also tried to put in representatives and presidents who agreed with the way they do just like with Occupy Wall Street.
2. Chris Coburn January 10, 2013 at 7:49 am

   As a reform movement, the populists succeeded because they were able to unite farmers, miners, factory workers and those of the poor/middle class into one collective voice. While many of their ideas like women’s suffrage, direct election of senators, recognition of unions, graduated taxes, etc. weren’t instituted until the Progressive Era, it was the populists who set these ideas and had people pushing more for these things. They were the spark in getting these ideas into law. The Populists were also effective in their movements because they set up the idea of large government intervention to help the middle and poor classes, an idea that was utilized by President Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Similarly to the battle to destroy the B.U.S started by Thomas Jefferson and finished by Andrew Jackson, the Populists started these reforms and ideas and they were finished by other people shortly after.

   The Occupy Wall Street movement is similar to the Populists movements of the late 19th century because they both have that “We are the 99% versus the 1%”. They are about the middle and poor classes against the elite who seem to control the country. They are also both about fighting the elites control over industry and distribution of wealth. The Occupy Wall Street movement is about the control of the elite in the stock market and other industries, while the Populists are about the control of the elite on factories and railroads. In both cases they want tax and bank reforms. The Populists wanted more currency in circulation and an end to gold ciphering from the National Reserve in order to keep agricultural prices up. The Occupiers wanted more secure loans and less debt for students after completing college. The Populists wanted to create a graduated tax system where the elite were taxed proportionately to the middle class, while the Occupy Wall street group wanted to restore this proportionality, thus raising taxes for the rich.
3. Cameron Scott January 10, 2013 at 11:19 am

   The populist were very effective in their reform movements, for who their opposition was. It’s amazing to me how this small middle class group influenced politics so greatly with their opposition being very powerful business men, who had control over the government. Even though they never had any one in office, they still remain successful in my book. What would the government be now without the populist bringing their corruption to light? I really think even if they didn’t have many people to brag about, that the populists were very effective. I think that the current reform movements like, occupy wall street and the tea party are very similar to the opinions of the populists, protection of the middle class worker, anti-government corruption and, corrupt business leaders. The populist backed the 99% not just farmers but laborers, miners. Both these reform movements want the end of corruption in business. Another commonality is the opponents of their group, the bankers, powerful business leaders and corrupt politicians, it needs to be said that the populists didn’t get what they wanted till the next century; I think the outcome of the current reform group will be similar to the populist in their results. But I also think that the time of the populist the corruption was much more extreme, and fairly obvious, unlike modern times, were you kind of have to look into things to see them, it’s not totally obvious , and until these issues are easy to see, the changes won’t come .
4. Aaron Walt January 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm

   The Populist movement was not successful in the sense of becoming a strong political party and fully achieving the goals they set in improving labor laws and helping the working class. In the end, they did not have enough financial, popular and governmental support to continue on as a political party and have a large impact on the United States Government. They were trying to enact laws that would help farmers and other workers such as gold miners and enact higher taxes on the rich, which is an issue that is still hotly debated today. So, although they began to gain footing in America, they lost it and did not accomplish their goals. But, they did succeed in setting a precedent on future populist-type parties (Occupy and Green Party) and showed that labor would need reform and that the government really needs to listen to the working class of America.

   The original Populist Party is the basis of these newer parties such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. This, in my mind, makes them all very similar to each other. These 3 parties, in my opinion, all share the common goal of being partially anti-government. They do not support big business and claim to represent large groups of the American people.
   Occupy Wall Street and the original Populist party are the most similar because they both consist of working class people wanting more rights and are both attacking the rich, saying that the rich need more taxes and that the working class needs more support. The resounding difference between Occupy and the Tea Party are they are on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum, with one being Liberal and the other Conservative. But they are tied together with common goals that are attributed to them by the original Populist party.
5. Gabriel Mann January 10, 2013 at 3:01 pm

   1. The Populist movement was basically failure, because of several reasons, the first being that they could not really put laws into place through the local level since that’s how the farmers were actually able to get into government they have the numbers in their communities and states to elect officials on their platform but one must have a nationwide movement not just be play a part on federal or local level. That’s why the populist movement didn’t really take off not to mention the disappearing job of the farmer what once took almost a hundred men to run a farm now took only 3 or 5 because of advances in machinery that brought new technologies like the combine harvester. Not to mention the farmers platform didn’t appeal to all workers in the industry that’s another reason it didn’t really take off like communism and socialism which wanted to end social classes and for every worker to receive the same pay, it was these ideas that took a lead in the 20th century and helped give workers a voice though the Democrats started to copy parts of the Populists parties program into their own program. The populist movement failed.
   2. The Populist movement is incredibly similar to the Tea Party especially both consist of uneducated (mostly) and uninformed people who argue taxes are bad and the government should stay out of their business while the occupy wall street movement is much more similar they also target the wealthy and big banks and business and argue for more government control so basically the populist movement is still around today but in different forms.
6. Jenna Weed January 10, 2013 at 4:38 pm

   Despite all the gusto brought forth from the Populist movement, I believe it wasn’t as effective as Populists hoped for and didn’t create enough of an upset to change our country socially, economically, and politically. Populists were striving to get back to America in the pre-Civil War times, when life had more emphasis on Jeffersonian Agrarianism. They also believed in equal opportunity for all. It was mainly a protest against the wealthy elites by the farmers, or US vs. THEM. The Populist Party reached out to only Americans of the concentrated Midwest, or farmer country. They definitely didn’t reach out to blacks, especially black farmers, who were the targets of Populist outreach. They were basically just enraged with opportunities they didn’t receive because they decided to move west and become farmers. They also strongly believed in the monetization of silver, to help relieve the burden of debt brought upon them by the government tariffs, the prices to ship goods on the railroads set by the wealthy elite who owned them, and the loss of profits from overproduction of goods. Populists nominated James B. Weaver for their party in the 1892 election. The Populists lost, of course, but managed to gain 22 electoral votes, all from western states, and one million of the popular vote, from western states too. This is one of the few elections when a third party received electoral votes. Some strikes occurred, the most famous being at Andrew Carnegie’s Homestead steel plant in Pittsburgh. It became a violent strike, with U.S. troops getting involved, sixty men injured, and the ten men killed. All in all, the Populists efforts were observed and practiced by few, making it a non-effective movement.
   The Occupy Wall Street can be compared to the Populist movement of the 1890s. OWS main issues were social and economic inequality, like the Populists desire for equal opportunity for all. OWS’s slogan was We Are the 99%, against the one percent of the wealthiest of America’s population. In other words, US vs. THEM, against the wealthy elites of our country. However, they are different because the Populist movement sought for equal opportunity and for inflationary schemes to ease debt, when Occupy Wall Street was to balance the distribution of income for Americans, along with other reforms. All things considered, the Populist party of the 1890s and the recent Occupy Wall Street have similar goals in attacking the wealthy elites.
7. Safia Sayed January 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm

   1. The Populism movement was effective as a reform movement. Although the original Populists did not live to see many of their reforms passed, their ideas introduced many eventual reforms. For example, the 1892 Populist platform included the direct election of senators. This idea would eventually become the 17th Amendment 21 years later. We owe both the existence of unions and women’s suffrage to the Populists, who included these points in their 1892 platform as well. Further proof of the success of Populism is the fact that it still exists today in the form of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Green Party, and the Tea Party. Populists of the late 1800s experienced some success in their own time as well. The Grange expanded from being a social group to a farmers’ reform movement that tried to influence politics. The Greenback Party succeeded in electing 14 Congress members. The Alliance continued the work of the Grange on a more nation-wide scale. Even more Populists won seats in Congress or other government positions. While some Populist efforts were hindered by railroads and manufacturers, Populism spread its influence quickly and effectively. It united the working class and laid the foundations for reforms that would someday become law.
   2. The Populist movement is very similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Populists closely resemble the “99%” who protested in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Both groups are the less economically privileged groups of society who felt that the wealthier groups have too much control over the government. However, the Occupy Wall Street movement is a less broad reform movement compared to the Populists. While the Populists’ main concern was the economic status of the working class, especially farmers, their platform also advocated the direct election of senators and women’s suffrage.
8. Alayna Brasch January 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm

   I don’t think the populists were all that effective. I haven’t even heard about them until a couple days ago. But it doesn’t sound like they left that big of a mark in history. I think a lot of their beliefs are just not very realistic. Though I do understand why they would want change. The life of a farmer was pretty complicated during this time period. Their jobs included hard farm labor and small incomes, while the people in the city were becoming millionaires. This would make me pretty upset too. After everything I have read on populism, many quotes have made it sound like the majority of the country were populists, so I was kind of surprised when I read that they did not do very well in presidential elections. Although not all of their beliefs were very doable, some of them definitely were, and are now laws today.

   I think populism and the tea party movement are definitely similar. They both wanted change (limiting the government and fixing the economy), and new laws. Also, they both were not part of or followed any specific party, they were their own organizations.
   Populism is also very similar to the Occupy Wall street movement because they had very similar complaints. Both of them complained about economic and social inequality, the greed and corruption of the upper class, and that they had great influence on the government. They both believed that they were the 99%, and because of that, should have more of a say on how things are ran in America.
9. Carley Salerno January 10, 2013 at 5:24 pm

   As it was said in our Seminar on Thursday, I honestly think that the populist movement of the late 1800’s wasn’t very effective at the time. The angry farmers and the Grange really did have the spirit to change the country – they all banded together to defend their rights. But unfortunately for them, they simply didn’t have the money or the power to make any significant changes in the government. Although the Grange did get populists in the legislature, it didn’t really matter. A large population is good for war, but when it comes to getting a say in the government, a large population in the West meant nothing to the millionaires in the East. The populists have been naïve about the struggles they would face in the West, but they still knew what they were getting into. The populist movement was basically the farmers saying “I dug myself into this hole, now it’s your [the government’s] job to get me out of it.” Basically, I think that the movement itself was not successful. Very little was accomplished by the populists, which was not entirely their fault. It was just one of those things where no one really wins no matter what the outcome is.
   The populist movement could be compared to the Occupy Wall Street movement. The populists’ in the 1800’s hated the railroads (even though the farmers needed them to transport their goods). The railroads were the most important thing of the time – anyone who owned or worked in railroad companies had a lot of influence in the government. In the Occupy Wall Street, the people in New York were protesting companies’ manipulation of the government. The OWS members used the same “us versus them” logic as the populists in the 1800’s – the small portion of millionaires who have a say in everything versus the large population of those who have little say in the government just because they are not as wealthy as others.
10. Julia Berthel January 10, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    1. The Populist movement was equally effective and noneffective. Some of the Populists’ concerns appear in laws today, while other complaints can still be heard by many today. For example, the Populists believed that the rich should pay higher rates than the poor, which was eventually turned into the 16th Amendment in 1913. They also believed that U.S. senators should be directly elected to Congress, which was made a reality in 1913 by the 17th Amendment. In addition, Populists fought for unions and women’s rights, and achievements were made in those fields in the 1900s. It is important to note that none of the Populists’ complaints were fixed while the group was active, so the Populist movement was not successful at the time. However, the Populists’ desires were met later, and no matter how much later, these changes still came. The Populists set the stage for groups in America that stood up to the elite in a forceful yet civil manner.

    2. The Populist movement is similar to Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party in structure, but not necessarily in values. The Populists stood up against the wealthy elite, and they tried to use government power to lessen the power of big corporations. This method is similar to Occupy Wall Street in that both groups are standing up to the extremely wealthy with political and not physical force. Although the Tea Party is not using physical force, the Tea Party has a different set of ideals than the Populists and Occupy Wall Street. The Tea Party looks to restrain government power and focuses their disliking toward a strong government rather than large corporations. However, all of the groups stress that they are a party of the people. In the “about” sections of both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street websites (as well as the Green Party, even though that was not included in the question), the groups are made up of people “just like you”. This method of treating the other side of the argument as something other than human is a tactic of making people feel that they are standing up for the little guy. Since America can trace its roots back to standing up to a powerful force (Britain), this type of action is seen as honorable in our country. All of these parties can be seen as radical or maybe even revolutionary, but is following the same idea that created our country really an original and therefore revolutionary idea? Revolutionary ideas are new and bold, but the basis of these groups is not. So all in all, the Populist movement, Occupy Wall Street, and the Tea Party are all structured in a revolutionary fashion, and they are all trying to improve America in the best way they see fit, but they all lack an original basis for doing what they are doing. What makes these groups revolutionary is their specific thoughts and ideals, the same thoughts and ideals that are constantly molding the world today.
11. Connor P. January 10, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    I believe that the populist movement was indeed effective because it got many farmers to unite and rebel and fight for equality. How a bunch of small class people caused such a huge political movement is beyond me because most are started by wealthy or working class men not the low class people. Even though it was effective because of how it changed the low class thinking, it doesn’t mean it was successful. It was not successful because it lacked support of many people and it wasn’t very widespread. It also made many improper social ideas at the time like they were anti sematic and somewhat racist (right after the civil war too). There social ideas and there lack of support led to their ultimate downfall later in life.
    The populist movement and the Wall Street movement were both generally for the same thing. The Wall Street movement was a bunch of lower classmen telling Wall Street that their methods were bad. While all of the “little people” were going under and losing their business, money and stock the rich were still getting their bonuses and expensive useless stuff by profiting off of the little people. These two are alike because they both involve the common man rebelling against the richer with more rights and benefits. Both of these people’s felt that they were being treated poorly compared to richer wealthier people. The difference between these two movements is that occupy Wall Street movement was more realistic in a way because they didn’t have the wacked out social beliefs of anti-Semitism and racism in their movement. They were only against the rich and only wanted equality while the populist movement was more about equality for only the people who followed our beliefs.
12. Daniel Oleynik January 10, 2013 at 7:45 pm

    Populism was not effective as a reform movement. It hardly changed much about society then and barely changed the society today. Populist ideals called for the replacement of gold currency with silvers, more government control on railroads and communication lines, and the return to an agrarian society. The only accomplishment that the populists were able to achieve was the replacement of gold currency, which wasn’t a huge mark in time, especially now. The style of life that the Populists believed in never actually appeared. While agrarianism is still around, and farming is a key part of life, the main part of life and the main economic part of our economy is technology. Populism as a reform movement only passed on their ideals, not their accomplishments.
    The populist movement, however, passed their ideals to key groups today, including Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. Similarities between the Occupy movement and the Populist movement are the hatred of the rich, and the belief that everyone should be equal, and at the most, the 1% shouldn’t control 99% of the wealth. They also both believed that the politicians in Congress today were highly corrupted and that they needed to take a stand themselves and in numbers to change the state of the nation. One last similarity I see is a small amount of hypocrisy. Populist movements rallied against technology, but needed it to keep their crops at the maximum supply. Similarly, the Occupy Movement rallies against corporations and the rich, but at the same time, they are shown to love their Apple IPhone’s and Twitter, and use the technology of the corporations many times.
    Populism didn’t succeed as a reform movement; however it did pass on its ideals to the future. Its connection to the Occupy Movement is exemplary. They also share many similarities between each other, but the one that is the most humorous and ironic, is the hypocrisy these people shared in rallying out against what they used almost every day of their lives.
13. NOAH M. TURNER January 10, 2013 at 7:47 pm

    1. As a reform movement, the Populist failed to be very effective. They did not get what they wanted, they were unable to use their numbers to push aside big business, to push away industrialization, it was just too big. But I can’t say the movement was a complete failure and definitely not a waste of time in our history. Yes, some of their views seemed extreme, but not all of these ideas were so unreasonable. Part of what was the Populist movement helped shaped our government today. So they may have failed as a reform movement but they succeed in being part of U.S. politics, contributing their views, fighting for what they wanted. And the fact that a group and go out with goals and fail, but participate in the shaping of this country is great.
    2. Both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, though different from the Populist movement, they are alike enough to be called cousins. All these movements had to do with the small guys versus the elite and they kind of face the same problem, they all realized how come they have so much money, why should their money give them so much power, where’s my money, I want to fix this, this isn’t fair. The populist the government to take control and help them be able to make money, the Tea Party want the same and wants the government to this by reducing taxes, Occupiers also want economic justice. They all are fighting the same way, just different ways, different times, and different ideas but it’s overall to stop letting the wealthy bathe in their gold but to share the wealth and make it possible for the worker to get paid enough and to give them equal opportunities.
14. Carolyn Dimitry January 10, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    The populist reform movement was successful in the sense that it was one of the first movements to unify the farmers, factory workers and the lower to middle class and gave them a collective voice. It was not successful in the sense that the made serious political and social reforms. The populist movement didn’t get the majority, if any, of the laws they wanted passed, but they did introduce ideas that have endured to this day in the form of Occupy movement. They didn’t bust down the high-powered millionaires that sprang into existence in the latter half of the 19th century, and million and even billionaires still control an exuberantly large part of the American economy to this day.

    Both the Populists and the Occupy/Tea Party have the us v. them mentality, the ‘we are the 99%’ slogan that the Occupy movement is known for. The Tea Party shares an anti-immigration view with the Populist movement, however the Populist movement is far more sever in its views. Both sets of movements have their goals centred over the reform of the economy and the distribution of wealth. The Occupy movement is focused on reforming the Wall Street stock market and its associated industries, just as the Populists wanted to reform the railroads and the elite that control them. Both are trying to control the flow of money, and they are trying to push it more in their favour. The populist movement carries on today in the ideals of the Occupy movement and the Tea Party.
15. J'Laan Pittman January 10, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    I believe that the Populist movement had good overall intentions, but they approach their problems a little too radically to be able to gain support or to win their case. The movement had some effect on future events. The working class is recognized more and do have more rights. However the movement was not effective in its time. The people of the U.S. didn’t seem to want to support the Populists. The Populists had misjudged how much the work force and farmers took up out of the whole population. After taking out the African American farmers and the Immigrants, they were no longer a big population. You could say that they dug their own grave by eliminating a source of votes that could have won them elections. It seems that they did not try to approach the upper-class in a democratic way that would get their message across nicely. Occupy Wall Street has a few similarities with the Populist movement. They both share the main idea that the rich are corrupt and overpower the common people. However, Occupy Wall Street is more modern and deals with the middle class, not farmers and factory workers. While the populists were focused on all those richer than them, the Occupy Wall Street movements deal with the corruption in the government. The Occupy Wall Street movements also get their message across by “occupying” a business or Wall Street itself. Populist wrote books, gave speeches, and tried to enter office. Also the Occupy Wall Street supporters represent a greater percentage out of the overall population than the Populists did back then. However just like the Populists, the Occupy Wall Street movement does not seem to be making that big of a head way.
16. Elizabeth Lohr January 10, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    Our first glimpse of the Populist Party was in the Grange, which was originally created (in 1867) for the farmers to live more of a social life. They would enjoy each other’s company during lectures, picnics, concerts and other things of that sort. It was not long until they discovered that they shared many of the same political interests. Grangers found most of their political success in Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota. Their main political goals were to adjust railway charges and as well as storage fees. In 1878 the Grange had evolved into a more politically active group called the Greenbacks. Fourteen of their members found a home in Congress, and they also elected General James Weaver for president (he only received 3% of the vote). Later, the Farmers Alliance came into the picture. They supported government ownership of railroads, a tax that would allow the more wealthy to pay a higher tax and the lower classes to pay less. They also were against national banks. The income tax they supported actually became the 16th amendment to the Constitution, which starts to show us their political success. By the 1890’s we come upon the Populist Party, which again elected James Weaver for president (lost to Grover Cleveland), but obtained over 1 million votes, showing the growth of the party. They also elected three governors and 15 of their party members to Congress. Many of the points we see in their platform were converted to Amendments. For example, they supported direct election of senators- 17th Amendment, the existence of unions- came about in 1914 and 1935 and allowing women to vote- 19th Amendment. They also worked hard to unite the farmers for higher pay. Therefore, their movement was effective because many of their ideas are found in the Constitution today.

    Even today, we can still see Populist-like movements. For example, the Occupy Wall Street movement is quite similar to the main Populist ideals. We can see in their slogan “We are the 99%” which represents the unfair pay between the wealthy and the rest of the population, or the 99 percent. The Populists also believed they were the majority, and the wealthy minority was taking over. They were almost always in debt and believed that the Wall Street men purposely were starving them of their pay. As said in Mrs. S E V Emery’s book, which portrayed some of the populist’s main beliefs, “the money kings of Wall Street” seemed to be the ones messing with the currency. However, the Occupy Wall Street movement does not seem to have as much political influence as the populists did. The Populists after all, did have party members Congress as well as some Governors, which very well could have influenced their success.
17. Aliyah McIlwain January 10, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    The populist movement, in my opinion, was effective. The populist movement between wealthy bankers and laborers in the 19th century may not have been a lot of talk and a lot of fluff, but in the end they got several amendment inducted in the Constitution. The 3 amendments passed were very influential to keeping government a true democracy. The amendments allowed women to vote, unions to be recognized, and the people were able to directly choose their representatives in Congress. In the ability for women to vote the whole country was now included- although, blacks would be further restricted from this natural right until 1965, but that’s another topic sprouting another political/social movement. With the recognition of unions, big corporations could no longer run over the little guy at the bottom doing most of the work. Lastly, now that the people could finally pick their own representatives, they got more control of the government they live by.
    The Populist movement in the West, as mentioned in our Socratic seminar today, seems kind of hypocritical; the people jumped at an opportunity the government gave them to go west and then got upset with everyone else when it didn’t work out. The tea party reminds me of this when they say,
    “The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.”-( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement),
    just how do you expect to lower debt by paying less money to the government. If you pay less for taxes, wouldn’t that require the government to spend money that it doesn’t have on necessities for the people. Also, the Populist movement is similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement in the little people’s fight against the big guy.
    The populist movement was successful. It may not have gotten, maybe, as much as they would have liked done, but they catapulted the very reforms and ideas of today.
18. Matt Gallo January 10, 2013 at 8:43 pm

    It’s a little difficult to just say if the Populists reform was effective or not. It worked in the long run in some ways and it failed in others. It was successful, but not really for that time period. People weren’t ready for the ideas that the Populists group came up with. But when the time came, they made them amendments. For example- The 19th amendment(women’s sufferage), was an indirect result of the Populists beliefs. They had good reasons to spread these new ideas, but fighting the Railroad companies; that was just a total waste of time. When the Railroads have that much power, I’d leave it alone. They had just reasons to fight the companies (over pricing, taxation etc.). And lastly they were kind of a large contradiction. They wanted the Laisse-faire style of government, but at the same time, asked for help, because they were being cut off from the easterners, who were benefiting from the industrial revolution.

    The Tea party is similar to the Populist Party partially because that is what analysts are referring them to. But also their ablility to not just stay inside one political party but to have ideas from both right and left wings. They are different because the tea-party is a lot stricter about following the constitution. I inferred the article to say that the Tea-party follows all parts of the constitution as Gospel. They are more radical in their ways than the Populists. But, how people interpreted radical in the late 1800’s is different than today’s interpretation.
19. Michael Shi January 10, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    The Populist movement was successful as a reform movement because it was able to unite the entire middle and lower class of America and present their views to the nation. Although the Peoples’ Party, or the populists, received under 10% of the popular vote and only 22 electoral votes, coming from states only in the midwest and west, the populists were able to make their views on topics such as the direct election of senators, free and unlimited coinage of silver, and a graduated income tax known. The 22 electoral votes that the people’s party received made it clear that they represented a large portion of the population. Although it took many years for some of their ideas to be implemented, the populist movement succeeded as a reform movement because it got the imperial elite thinking about the views of the populists.

    The Populist movement shares many similarities with modern political movements such as the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party Movement. Both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Populist movement consist of the middle and lower classes banding together with the upper class as a common enemy. They both believe that the upper class, which consists of bankers and businessmen, controls everything that goes on in the government and want tax and bank reforms. For example, both Occupy Wall Street supporters and populists wanted a tax system where the rich were taxed more than the poor were. These two movements also represent the majority against a minority with more power.
20. Sarah F January 10, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    The Populist movement wasn’t all it was crack up to be, despite all the hype about it. I believe that the movement wasn’t nearly as effective as they wanted it to be and didn’t create enough of an upset to change our country socially, economically, and politically. The populists were hypocritical because they wanted to push forward and “reform” the country, yet they were pushing America back in time into Jeffersonian Republicanism. They believed in equal rights for all, yet they ignored the blacks in a protest of them vs. the rest of the country. They mainly concentrated their efforts on the Midwest and continued to gripe about their bad luck in the west. They also strongly believed in the monetization of silver, to help relieve the burden of debt brought upon them by the government tariffs, the prices to ship goods on the railroads set by the wealthy elite who owned them, and the loss of profits from overproduction of goods. Populists nominated James B. Weaver for their party in the 1892 election. He received 8.5% of the popular vote and 22 electoral vote. This was a big step in the Populist movement because it was the first time that a third party nominee received elector votes. The Occupy Wall Street can be compared to the Populist movement of the 1890s. OWS main issues were social and economic inequality, like the Populists desire for equal opportunity for all. OWS’s slogan was We Are the 99%, against the one percent of the wealthiest of America’s population. In other words, Them vs. The Rest of the Country, against the wealthy elites of our country. However, they are different because the Populist movement sought for equal opportunity and for inflationary schemes to ease debt, when Occupy Wall Street was to balance the distribution of income for Americans, along with other reforms. All things considered, the Populist party of the 1890s and the recent Occupy Wall Street have similar goals in attacking the wealthy elites
21. Tamia W January 10, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    The Populist Movement could be described as a variety of reform schemes associated with popular responses. In the United States, the People’s Party of the late nineteenth century is also known as the Populist Party. The movement was based among poor white cotton farmers in the South (especially North Carolina, Alabama and Texas), and hard-pressed wheat farmers in the Plains states (especially Kansas and Nebraska).The party demanded the free coinage of silver, abolition of national banks, a sub treasury scheme or some similar system, a graduated income tax, plenty of paper money, government ownership of all forms of transportation and communication, election of Senators by direct vote of the people, no ownership of land by foreigners, civil service reform, a working day of eight hours, postal banks, pensions, revision of the law of contracts, and reform of immigration regulations. I think the movement was effective because it attained many state-level positions, and their policies influenced national policy greatly during other eras. What impressed people most about the Populist Party was the enthusiasm with which they addressed the needed reforms of the day. The populist movement really looked to tax the upper class as well as businesses in order to compensate for the differences in wealth. They felt the wealthy should pay a higher percentage in taxes than the less fortunate. Like the Populist Movement, The Tea Party movement was also concerned with the way taxes were handled. The Tea Party Movement wanted to get tax reduction and the government to be more responsible with our money. The members of the movement attempted to establish a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies by giving a cut on the re-importation taxes imposed.
22. Kayla Sara Kapen January 10, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    1.)As a reformer, the populists were successful for several reasons. One is that it united many groups including farmers, miners, and people from the middle class into one big group with something to say. Even though the populists didn’t live to see the day that the reforms were passed, their ideas were the pathway to the many years that were to come. Some examples of their platforms are the nationalization of railroads, graduated income tax, direct election of the senators, and the complete abolition of the national banking system. Many of the nation’s biggest groups would not be around if it weren’t for the populists’ term as reformers. Some of them include the women’s suffrage =and the formation of unions. These points would be included in the election of the senators which became the 17th Amendment in years to come.
    2.)The populism and the tea party movements both have certain similarities. In both movements, they wanted change in the country. They wanted change in limiting government power and changing the economic system. Both of them also didn’t support any specific party because they wanted to be their own system with their own voice and opinions. There are also similarities between the Occupy Wall Street movement and the populism movement. Both movements had the same complaints which were about social inequality and economic inequality. Both the people in the movements were poor and wanted to gain more rights. They also wanted more say in how the U.S. government was run.
23. Maggie Hammond January 10, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    The populist movement may have been short-lived and died out long ago, but the movement has brought along many changes to our country. This reformation was short lived and unsuccessful in the sense of electing a person of their political party to office, but did manage to change some policies. This movement brought along many important things into American history, including woman’s suffrage, direct elections of US senates, and the starting of labor unions. Labor Unions are now a large part of our nation’s labor force, and help raise equal pay for all and good working conditions for all. Without this addition from the populists, our work force would not be treated as fairly or given such good conditions. The populists united many lower class citizens to bring along a better lifestyle for all.
    The populist movement relates to the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street in the sense that the populist movement spurred these ideas. The populist movement brought along the idea of “us vs. them” and that turned to the now popular phrase of “99% against the 1%”. Just like how the numbers and statistics were exaggerated during the populist era, they still are today. Not all 99% of the country is facing the 1%, and both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea party believe they hold the majority. Both of these events have a completely different political view though, one being liberal and the other conservative, and fight against the “corrupt government” for what they believe is right. The populist movement, although no lasting as a political party, shapes our nation today.
24. Bridget LePine January 10, 2013 at 9:14 pm

    Before a couple days ago I didn’t know too much about populism and populists but from what I have learned I came up with this conclusion; populists were successful in the fact that they helped unite farmers, factory workers, the poor and the middle class into one voice. Populists ideas (union recognition, graduated taxes, ect.) didn’t come into play until the progressive era, but when they were finally put in play they made a huge impact on America. The populists were also successful in helping the poor and middle class through government intervention that was enforced by president Roosevelt during the Great Depression.

    I think the Occupy Wall Street movement is similar to the Populists movements during the late 19th century. They both followed the idea of “We are the 99% versus the 1%”, I think this is saying that the majority of Americas population is the working/middle class and that the elite are outnumbered greatly. In populism the working/middle class wants the control that the elite has, they want to be in control of industry and the distributing of wealth throughout America. Similarly, the Occupy Wall Street Movement is all about the occupiers wanting the control the elite have on the stock market (as well as other industries). Both wanted tax/bank reforms. The populists wanted more currency in circulation, while the occupies wanted more secure loans for students.
25. Maggie Davis January 10, 2013 at 9:24 pm

    I think Populism all and all was a failure. They did not have the money, power, or support to get their ideas put into action, and the populists themselves made no major impact on the way government is run today. However, this being said, they did help bring attention to their causes, many of which were then taken care of during the progressive era. The populists definitely gained attention and talked a lot about their main issues with the current American system – but talking was all they did. No major action happened directly from them, and most laws that were put in place (granger laws) were then overturned by court rulings.

    In my opinion, Populists and Occupy Wall Street are extremely similar. They are both movements of the “people” against the “elite,” they are both economically driven, and they both deal with “corruption” of high government. In my opinion, targeting one class and attacking them is dangerous to the welfare of America. Yes, it is not fun to be down on your luck. Yes, I think that there is definitely class separation and some of it may be unfair, but the reality is; that’s life. Instead of seeking other opportunities for growth and success, both the populist party and Occupy Wall street (though occupy wall street to a lesser extent) choose to complain about problems that they caused for themselves. Occupy wall street is also very similar to populism because it did not have a major impact on the way that things are actually run in this country, but it did start an important and controversial national conversation on whether or not it needed to change.
26. Sherami Fernando January 10, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    If we try looking at the PP or the Populist Party’s movement as a reform movement, yes I do believe that they were quite effective in their efforts. Taking their tries into consideration, they succeeded in adding direct election of U.S Senators, women’s suffrage and even income tax where the rich pay higher rates than the poor and have come a long way. Even the stereotypes that they supported has spread and expanded. Their goal was to put the working class up against the wealthier class and to an extent, they turned that into reality in the late 1800s. They were able to gather the voices of many and project them in unison, creating a voice that would get larger and louder.

    The Populist Party and Occupy Wall Street are alike in thriving fr social and economic equality and sharing issues with corruption and greed. Their slogan “We are the 99%” is closely connected to the Populist’s slogan “Equal Right to All: Special Rights to None” as they both express the inequality of wealth distribution and issues considering income collection. Both movements were caused by similar views on political corruption, inequality and the influence of government. Both movements agree on balancing out income distribution and more. Switching to the Tea Party Movement and the Populist movement, the Tea Party Movement is even considered to be partly populist right from the start. They both believe in restricting immigration, arguing that the immigrants are “stealing” their jobs. But unlike the Populist Party, the Tea Party is fighting for less government involvement while on the other hand the Populist Party doesn’t think the government is taking enough action.
27. Monique H. January 10, 2013 at 9:46 pm

    I don’t think the Populist movement was an effective one for many reasons. The Populists had many ideas that were controversial. Some people liked the ideas and some people didn’t. The Populists would write down ideas and comments in the newspaper, and they would complain about the government’s corruption, etc.
    However, even though the Populists made their ideas known to many people, they never really acted on those ideas and kind of just let them drift away.
    The Populist movement compares with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements in many ways.
    The Tea Party itself is considered to be populist, and its ideas are very controversial. Their ideas are mainly ones that correspond to ideas from the left wing (Republicans), although they are more liberal.
    Occupy Wall Street is like the Populist movement because it started from money troubles, as well. It wanted social and economic equality, as did the farmers in the Populist movement. Occupy Wall Street also thought the government was corrupt, and trying to make money for themselves. This is just like how the farmers thought the government was making money off railroads and not caring about what happened to the farmers and their crops.
    The Tea Party movement was more of a government thing than a people thing. It was based on political action, whereas the Populist and Occupy Wall Street movements were more people-based. As in, what people thought, and what the people wanted to do to fix it, not what the people wanted the government to do to fix it.
    All in all, none of these movements really trusted the government because they all felt that it was corrupt and only cared about money. It was basically the people versus the government. They tried to fight for social and economic equality because they felt they weren’t gaining their fair share and that the government was the only one majorly profiting. They all proposed new ideas, but not many were taken because government feared change.
28. Cooper Peters-Wood January 10, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    The populist movement was not effective in its attempts at government reformation. The populist simply could not compete with the rich Easterners, Big Business and the Railroads. Their strength in numbers was basically put down due to their severe lack of money and overall debt. Although the populists did manage to fill seats in congress, elect a few Governors and have Presidential Candidates with populist ideas win a few states, there was not enough populist based political power to make a change in our government. What populism did do was pave the way for more protests and movements and helped the progress of the full inclusion of women. The populist movement is very similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement in their views towards government, and that they are controlled by the people. Occupy Wall Street, like the populists of the late eighteen hundreds are against the “…corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process…” (Occupwallst.org/about). This organization believes in complete and total power to the people and is against the “one percent” that writes all the rules and mess up the economy. Occupy Wall Street is made up of average working (or unemployed) citizens who truly believe that they are being screwed by the rich bankers and Businesses. The populists had many of these same feelings, the only difference being that their movement was more or less verbal and unorganized while OWS is a pretty well organized movement. Finally the last thing these organizations have in common is their position on taxing the rich more than taxing the poor, with “equality for all, and special privileges for none.”
29. Sofia Capito January 10, 2013 at 10:05 pm

    I don’t think that the Populist movement was successful. It may have caused a lot of debate, but it did not achieve what the populists wanted. The goals of the movement where close to impossible to achieve and nothing changed. The Populists wanted America to go back to the way it was before the Civil War where Jeffersonian Agrarianism was a big deal and they wanted all to have an equal opportunity and for all to be treated equally. It was basically a battle between the farmers and the wealthy elite group. The farmers didn’t want the wealthy elite and businesses to be treated better and given more opportunity. They were mad about the choices they made. Rather than taking opportunities and possibly having their own business or doing something to become wealthy themselves, they moved out into the west instead. They are basically jealous of the rich and want to be treated the same way. They were also mad about the prices that the railroads demanded to ship prices and wanted to pay with silver rather than gold. In the election of 1892, the party managed to get 22 electoral votes and about a million popular votes. All of them however were from the western states which is where the farmers were. If their suggestions were put into effect, it would only positively affect the families. It wouldn’t benefit the others at all. It would actually be more likely to hurt them. Therefore, only a small part of the country voted for them. Since the farmers wanting the Populist ideas were in the west, only the west voted for them. Having so few votes hindered them from doing anything to actually change the country, and so the movement was not successful. This movement can relate to modern day because the groups today have strong ideas and would like to see change in the country but nothing has been changed.
30. Zach Van Faussien January 10, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    I think the Populist movement was effective as a reform movement because they were partly responsible for changes in politics and the economy like getting senators elected, the income tax, and the government owning railroads. Whether or not the populist party realized what they had done I’m not so sure. By creating income tax it allowed the rich to pay higher taxes than poor and by governments owning the railroads it allowed farmers to be able to make profits off of their crops, instead of having to pay high rates to transport their goods. I think the Populist party wasn’t successful in the long run because their beliefs are just too perfect and that isn’t possible in a capitalist country like America and most countries. I think the beliefs of populism and The Tea Party are different because populism always is against another group of people and the tea party don’t have one specific enemy. I think they are similar in the way that both of their beliefs are so far-fetched from today’s world that they seem impossible. To be honest, I am still a little bit confused about what Occupy Wall Street’s beliefs are, some say they are anti-capitalist and some say they want capitalism without the corruptness. Which brings the next point of how Occupy Wall Street’s ideas, just like populism and The Tea Party, are so far-fetched and unheard of, that they seem impossible to achieve. Occupy Wall Street wants to “reduce the influence of corporation on politics” meaning they want to get rid of corruption in politics. In a perfect world, that would happen but we don’t live in a perfect world, we live in a corrupt and greedy world where a lot of people believe that money can buy happiness. Overall, I think that the three movements are similar and different in many ways, but they all strive for one common goal. A perfect world.
31. Eleni Kondak January 10, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    While the Populists, during their time as a party, were not as triumphant as they had hoped, their reform movement eventually succeeded with most of their ideas. When they were an active movement, the Populists managed to unite farmers into a driving force trying to overrun the upper class. They made two attempts at the presidency – the first when they were just beginning, and their only grouping was the farmers; the second when they had a considerable about on the American working class before the intense popularity of Grover Cleveland overran them. But although they did not succeed as a presidency, it forced the government to look at the working class with a more respectful eye. The working class showed that while they couldn’t yet overtake the presidency, they could still do political damage. Even after the decline and eventual dissolution of the party, the Progressive Era in the early 18th century revived many Populist ideas, therefore completing the reform they started.
    The best modern day comparison to the political party of the Populists, in my opinion, is the Occupy Wall Street movement. Both groups of reformers argue for the equality of the people – for the Populists, the working class (but namely the famers) and for the Occupy Wall Street movement, the “99%.” both parties were making the attempt to reverse the wrongs made to the base bottom feeders of their community. The Populists and the participators of the Occupy Wall Street movement were both primarily white, but the Populists were much more racist and prejudiced, especially towards those of Jewish faith, making their motto of “Equal rights to all; special privileges to none” hypocritical – Jews were excluded from equality, therefore they gave special privileges to themselves. They also attracted few African Americans, who primarily wished to stay Republican. But despite their differences, Populists and Occupy Wall Street participators both wanted to help themselves. It was he former beneficiaries who wanted to keep them down.
32. Amber Abboud January 10, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    1. I do not feel that the “populist reform movement” was at all effective. They were able to untie fellow (white) farmers, but that is as far as they got. Pretty much all of the articles I have read on populism discus all the problems the farmers faced. How they were overtaxed, how they could not make a profit, and how they hated railroads. None of them really talked about what they did to fix the problems. They did not even come close to getting a populist president, as their popular vote was a whopping 8.5 percent, even though they claimed to “represent the people”. This was probably because of all of their anti-Semitism with all the immigrants, especially Jews. There is also the fact that they were only looking out for farmers, not factory workers.
    2. The populists back then are very similar to the tea party. The US tea part’s had the same “them vs. us” essence as the Populist Party. In this case the “them” is the government (but only when they don’t like what their doing.) Like the populists with their freight rates the tea party is against high or unfair taxations. The Occupy Wall Street movement also has the same gist with their “99% vs. 1%.” The social values between the parties do have their differences, but the general political / economic ideas yield the same. All of these movements have the little average Joe being bullied by the big no good corporations / politicians.
33. Marie Suehrer January 10, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    Looking at the Populism time closely and thoughtfully, I can say that there was many positive aspects of it. Many ideas they tried and managed to pass are embedded and useful in our society. It is, for many of these unthinkable to have these today. For example the ability to vote senators into congress. Also they attempted to further equalize and “demolish” the great control of the wealthy elite…Wall Street bankers. In addition to that, Populists strived for women’s rights. These included women suffrage in the 1900s. Also did they wanted higher taxation of the rich and lower taxation for the poor. This came true in 1913 and was a major point in the last presidential election we had. On top of that, Populists wanted the currency to be based on silver, not gold to be more achievable for the average person. Still I feel like, they were mostly just trying to be in favor for themselves and people like them. It seems that they were not interested in all of America, but pretty much only those people who orient themselves after Populist ideas.

    Populism left many traces in our today society. Easily can it be compared to the Occupy Wall Street Movement, because in both cases it was the poor and low middle class people who fought against the low percentage of wealthy people. Unlike back then though, today’s Occupy Wall Street was far less drastic and harsh. The Tea Party shares similarities with the populists as well. The populists were interested in lowering the nations debt by basing money on silver. The Tea Party, as one of their major points is also interested in finding a fast and comfortable way to decrease the national debt.
34. Sam January 10, 2013 at 10:24 pm

    1.The populist movement was an unsuccessful attempt to return to the age of agricultural dominance. First, the populists claimed to be the party of the future yet because of their anti-Semitic views many minorities and immigrants failed to vote for them. For example, in the populist article it described cities to be the “morally filthiest” places because of there connection in Jews and immigrants. Therefore, when the populists attempted to nominate a person for presidency, they failed to do so, receiving only 8.5% of the popular vote. Second, the main goal of the populists was to return the work force to the manual labor of farming against the dominating industrial factories. However, the industrial giants continued to grow larger and larger, while the farms grew smaller. Finally, the small populist group was going against one of the most corrupt business of the time, railroads. Railroad companies created mobilized against the farmers and refused to do business with anyone associated with the populists. The populist movement failed because of lack of support, corruption, and fate.
    2. The similarities between the Tea Party and the populists group, it that the Tea state that they are for the 99% of citizens rather than the elite 1%, this comparison was very similar to the populists slogan “the peoples party”. However, the polls show that in 2011 that 28% supported the Tea Party movement, 26% were opponents, and 46% had no opinion. As you can see, just as the populists did not have the full support of the people, the Tea Party does not have it as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Public_opinion
35. Isabelle Molnar January 10, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    1) Although most Populist movements did not primarily succeed, their ideas still carried on. As was mentioned in the blog, Populism was very “us vs. them”, and that element of Populism is still very present in today’s society. But as a reform movement, I don’t believe they were very successful. The government was not on their side. Results were neither immediate nor ideal for poor farmers. And since they were so discriminative with their anti-Semitism and Anglophobia, their idea of bringing people together didn’t quite make sense. It didn’t bring people together, nor did it overthrow or persuade the force they were fighting against.
    2) The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are easily compared with The Populist Movements. They were for the people, by the people and trying to persuade the government to give regular people a break. The Tea Party is different from The Populists because of their focus on foreign affairs and tax cuts. Occupy Wall Street contrasts with the Populists because it was more popular and widespread. Both of these modern like-Populist movements were led mostly by small middle class business owners and young people. Poor farmers weren’t really in the picture. Although the Populists’ goals were slightly different than The Tea Party’s or Occupy’s, the ideas and methods were mostly the same. It was the very rich and powerful forces the less benefitted and people who felt that they were limited by the government. They fought for equal opportunities for the rich and the poor.
36. Becky Simonov January 10, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    A reform movement is a social movement who’s goal it is to make gradual change in certain areas of a society, rather than a rapid change as that of revolutionary movements. The Populist movement may have been seen as radical during the late nineteenth century, but to call it ineffective would be to ignore the Populist reforms that took place in later years, such as that of the passing of the 17th Amendment, allowing direct election of senators, one of the main goals sought by the movement. If this idea was seen as radical not 21 years prior to the Amendment’s passing, then what changed? As a movement, the Populists began small in the form of the Granger movement and then later the Farmers Alliance. As the Populist message began to spread, so did its followers and conversely, its opponents. In a nation based upon the ideals of democracy, it would be impossible for such a widespread and influential movement to not eventually begin to be in the background of all American’s minds. This level of impact on the U.S. eventually led to some of the Populist ideals actually coming to fruition. The Populist movement did exactly what it was meant to as a reform movement, which was gradually making changes to the society of the United States.
    An obvious comparison to make between the Populist movement and a movement of the modern day would be that of the Populists and the Occupy Wall Street movement. On the surface, both of these share many similarities, such as representing the majority, or “the people” and wanting to fight against the greed of the wealthy. Despite this, there is a major difference in that while the Occupy Wall Street movement was clearly liberal, the Populists were more under the pretense of liberalism, letting in very right-wing ideals into their platform that was absent from that of Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street fought against corporate influence in politics and a more balanced distribution of income whereas the Populists were really more about spreading the message of complete and utter evil of the bankers and industrial wealth, wanting to turn back time and bring about the idealistic agrarian haven of Jeffersonian Agrarianism. While the Populists and the Occupy Wall Street movement do share their similarities, their ultimate goals and ideals behind them were quite different.
37. Oliver Hartzell January 10, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    1. I believe The Populist movement as a reform movement was not effective, though it had some good ideals. But,their ideals weren’t made into law until the Progressive Era (1900-1915) and only some of them were made into laws. Such as direct election of senators, women’s suffrage, and recognition of unions. They weren’t effective in their time because what they wanted was to level the playing field for the poor and middle class, take away from the rich elite. So the rich wouldn’t control their lives so much. This I consider borderline Communist because in Communism, everyone gets paid the same, no one is above another, the government has a huge amount of control over the people. Our government can’t and won’t do that. America prides itself on being the first successful democracy. Congress can’t just even the playing field or take so much from the rich because they got to where they are for a reason, its not fair to take it away. Secondly, The Populists were antisemitic and racist. They didn’t allow Jews or blacks into their party. African Americans had to form their own Populist movement, and to Populists, Jews were just as bad as the rich elite. This screwed them in the end because they didn’t have as many supporters. Thirdly, the Populist movement wasn’t as effective because their are still movements like it today that are against the rich elite such as Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. Yet, the Populist movement was successful in uniting the poor and middle class into one group all together for a cause.
    2. The Occupy Wall Street movement is similar to the Populist movement because it is against the rich elite. They give the statistic that 1% of the population holds 99% of the wealth. thus having 99% of the population against the 1%. Both movements want higher taxes on the rich and for the wealth to spread. They want economic justice, as it could be called. Other similarities are the balanced distribution of income, bank reform, and influence of corporations on the government. Some differences are that the Occupy Wall Street movement wants an alleviation of the foreclosure situation and relief for indebted college students. Populists never wanted those things.
38. Gideon Bush January 10, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    While the populist movement brought together many people including farmers, and poor workers, it didn’t have a successful effect on the American government that they were trying to change. It sparked a fuse for the future for all sorts of reforms, but it itself did not accomplish its goal of reform now, and equal rights for all. The populists had the numbers to change politics and shift the economy in an equal balance, but they couldn’t prevail over the elite’s money in order to win elections and campaign. Overall it did end up bringing about change years later, but they failed to reform the government at the time. They elected James Weaver to run for president representing the Populist party, but they were unsuccessful in the attempt to put him in office. It didn’t take long for the party to dissolve without accomplishing much other than electing a few officials here and there, but not enough to make a difference.
    The similarities between the populist group back than and the occupy Wall Street and tea party is their goal of targeting the rich, saying they were being targeted by big businesses. Occupy wall street said they were for the majority, as did the populists, but the difference between the tea party and occupy wall street is their political opinions of liberal and conservative, but still they are the populist groups today. Just like the populists, the tea party and occupy Wall Street seem to be against the government in supporting the 99%.
39. Maria Roma January 10, 2013 at 10:42 pm

    1. Populists, though their motives were good, were not very successful. There were many reasons why they ultimately failed, but the one reason that stands out is that the populists failed to encompass a wide demographic. The “people’s party” ironically was not the people’s party, it was more of the white farmer’s party. I do believe, however, that although the party itself did not really have much success (they were not very popular, which is shown by their success (or lack thereof) in politics), its ideals lived on and were successful. For example, direct election of senators and women’s suffrage were things first embraced by the populists that lived on.
    2. The Tea Party movement, the Occupy Wall street movement and the populist movement were very similar because they were all movements led by the common people against a larger force. The populists and the occupy Wall street groups are very similar in what they wanted to be done about their grievances; both groups were asking for more government involvement in the common people’s affairs. Occupy Wall street is asking for more evenly distributed wealth. They want the 1% to be more evenly spread out to the other 99%. The populists had similar motives in wanting the “robbing” of them to be stopped, and wanting more even distribution of money as well.
40. Ethan Carrick January 10, 2013 at 10:43 pm

    I think that the Populist movement could have been successful, but since many people neglected to take crucial opportunities it never reached its full potential. The Populist movement was a quarrel between the poor, tired farmers and the relaxed millionaires. The article above states “Populism is a political philosophy that crosses party-lines but tends to put an emphasis on what the people want vs. what the political, economic, or religious elites desire.” The movement was a revolt caused by the eruption of the second industrial revolution. Since the farmers/poor out the rich by 99% it wouldn’t seem like much of a challenge to change the government, but it was said that a small group of wealthy elites were controlling the government to their advantage. To combat this the government created two acts: the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Interstate Commerce Act. Unfortunately these efforts were ignored and were just written to prevent reforms. As far as I’m aware there were not any real revolts from the farmers or other Populists. According to history the Populist movement did not cause a reform of the government, but it is still prevalent today which means that is was effective but not drastic.
    I decided to be different so I am using the “T” chart that was created today to show how Populism is different or similar now than what is was back then.

    A)–Who’s the enemy?
    B)–Object of hatred
    C)–Solving the problem
    D)–Who’s running this?

    Populism Back Then

    A) Wealthy elite VS. people

    B) Immigrants & cities

    C) 1. Inflation & activist government & regulation
    2. “White Knight” to make economic changes

    D) 1. Farmers/poor
    2. Elite intellectuals who were not in charge

    Populism Now

    A)Wall Street VS. Main Street

    B) 1. Bankers & Insurance Companies
    2. Bureaucrats & government & immigrants

    C) 1. Government
    control of banks, businesses, etc.
    2. Less government interference in health care & fewer immigrants

    D) 1. Occupy Wall Street
    2. Tea Party
41. Isabella Gutierrez January 10, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    Although we still had many problems after the height of the populist movement, many people’s awareness was raised after a number of issues. Some were upset about alcohol sobriety, some about safety in factories, but whatever the case was lots of changes didn’t get made. The world didn’t change over night. But peoples ability to discuss and feel like they could make change had value. The populist movements today take their roots from these early populist movements because people saw that that was the means to get the group to pay more attention and get them to rally around a strong central idea.
    Some similarities to then and occupy wall street now is that regular people got involved and tried to do something with their life, they didn’t just leave it to the state or federal government. It wasn’t just Wall street in New York it moved to our areas like Detroit and Lansing and many others. People themselves personally got involved. The occupy movement focuses a lot on us being the 99% and the rich society was the 1% controlling all the money.
    For the tea party it had more to do with the healthcare movement and access to it. They were against this because they didn’t want their rights taken away and they thought the government healthcare program would cost to much money that we can’t afford. But the main way that they are different from early populist movements was that they had many businesses backing them on both sides. There was a lot more money and lobbyist involvement than the past. The current movements might have been put up to it whereas in the past there was more individual people being involved. Also media has a big impact because of the viral media that spread around the world and helps more get involved whereas in the past there was only the words of the people so this might have made the movements smaller. Overall the populist movement could be both effective and non effective in certain ways. The ideas of the populist movement got put into future democratic parties. But it was also non successful at the same time because they didn’t have all the money and support they needed to make things change
42. Melissa Hall January 10, 2013 at 10:53 pm

    The Populist movement was a big deal back during this time period, and although they tried their best to share their views and try to make reforms I do not think it was effective. They wanted it to be equal for all, and that meant more of a shift back to the times where Jeffersonian Agrarianism was present. They also disliked the wealthy elite and protested against the 2nd Industrial Revolution. Basically, the Populists did not get what they wanted, but they released a fair amount of protests and criticism throughout the U.S. I do not think they were very effective and did not reform much of the U.S. because now a days, our world is based a lot on industries and manufacturing and big corporations. People who have the most power have the most money, which means they can do the most things; it is just how our world works. The Populists would obviously not agree with this. The Populists also contradicted themselves in many ways by saying they “wanted equal for all”, but they did not follow this statement. Some of the Populist group was involved in anti-Semitism and also did not treat blacks equally. Also the election of 1892 showed how they were not effective because they fell short of an electoral majority and lost. To make a long story short, the Populists agreed with people who were exactly the same as them and thought them. They tried to make progress and change the U.S. economically, socially and politically but did not do as many reforms as they hoped.

    I think the Populist movement is similar to Occupy Wall Street for some specific reasons. They both protest and fight for the equality for all and are groups of the underprivileged economically. They both feel that the wealthy elite’s having too much say in the government and control too much. The slogan of Occupy Wall Street agrees with the Populists beliefs. “We are the 99%” (the slogan) talks about how the less economically privileged is the most of the population and the 1% is the wealthiest. They believe they should distribute the wealth more equally in the U.S. The Populist movement is slightly different from Occupy Wall Street because the Populists also wanted an income tax, abolition of banks, women’s suffrage and direct election of U.S. Senators. Occupy Wall Street does not focus on all these things and just more focused on the equal distribution of wealth in America.
43. William Schwartz January 10, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    1.I think that the Populist movement was not very effective. It called for such radical changes, some even had hints at communism, that it could never be successful. The changes that they wanted were so extreme and unwavering that it was impossible for them to actually gain a lot of support. Another flaw of this movement was the fact that they excluded so many different social groups, immigrants, Jews, blacks, etc… These groups were suffering the same hardships that they were and were potential reformers, but due to their biased prejudices they couldn’t see that and excluded them. Also, you can just look at that the numbers and see that it was not a success; they only received about 8.5% of the popular vote in the election.
    2.I see the many similarities between the populists and the Tea Party. The populists had a deep down hatred for Immigrants and The Tea Party is anti-immigration. But a key difference between these two factions is that the populists wanted more government interference in big business, but the Tea Party just wants less government interference in almost every part of our lives. The Occupy Wall Street movement also has a few similarities to the Populists. For one, they both hate the wealthy elite, or 1%, and they also both want the government to interfere with, or regulate, big business. They are also similar because they are very left wing, but the Occupy Wall Street movement doesn’t exclude anybody, like the populists do.
44. Zach Resnick January 10, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    The populist movement was an attempt but not effective of reforming the government. They had strength, but their numbers were put down and couldn’t compete. They did not have the money and their debts were too big. The populist movement although, was successful of putting their men in power with some populist politicians becoming elected and filling up the seats in congress. This was their positive side but the positivity was not enough power to completely reform and change the government. The populist movement is very similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement in their views towards government, and that they are controlled by the people. The Occupy Wall Street movement and the populist movement are similar to the extent where they believe that total power belongs to the people. Occupy Wall Street is made up of average working citizens who believe that they are being mistreated by the rich bankers and big businesses just like the people of the populist movement. These two movements had many similarities and attributes but they also had their differences. The populist was much less of a professional an organized movement. On the other hand, the Occupy Wall Street movement was very organized. Last but not least, the last thing that the two had in common was there view of more benifits for the poor and more taxing of the rich than the poor. Both movements had many similarities but they also had their differences. All in all, the two movements were very similar with their points of views and goals.
45. Amanda Burcroff January 10, 2013 at 11:49 pm

    Although the Populist movement was significant in its time period and still had lasting effects today, it did not get anywhere near the radical goals its promoters strived for. Populism introduced the idea that the government should interfere in economic and social issues so that one group does not totally eclipse the other, as it was with the industrialists and the farmers. The Grange and the People’s party had considerable success in lowering freight and banking rates and getting their officials elected into office. The Populist philosophy of the struggle of commoners vs. few wealthy elites must have had influence on the views of many people in its time, for they carried four states and got more than a million votes when they ran James Weaver the second time. The Populists never succeeded in stopping, or even substantially slowing, the second industrial revolution, but their ideas and influence made sure that it did not get too out of hand.
    There are many parallels between the Populist movement years ago and the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements today. They are all based on an idea similar to Karl Marx’s that history is comprised of the struggles between the rich and the poor, and each movement believes that it can be the first to overcome this struggle. Compared to Occupy Wall Street, the Populist movement called for government interference much more while OWS tends to blame the wealthy elite more directly. The Tea Party movement even wants to restrain the government’s power by forcing it to strictly adhere to the constitution in hopes that this will bring more economic and social equality. The Populist, OWS, and Tea Party all have similar goals, ideals, and reasoning but they each have their own approach at reaching these goals.
46. Darab Khan January 11, 2013 at 12:45 am

    I don’t think that the Populist movement succeeded as a very effective reform movement. The people they opposed had too much power for them to succeed. And some of their wants were a little drastic; for one they wanted to keep America tied down to just farming and not investing in the industrial businesses that were sprouting everywhere. Of course not all their wants were absurd. They wanted above all to be equal. They saw how the big company owners were living and how they themselves lived, and wanted change. That’s not a revolutionary idea. Everyone wants to get ahead in life and when you see someone doing better than you because they had more opportunities, it may seem a bit unfair. So the movement wasn’t effective in achieving all their goals, but it did raise awareness of speaking up for yourself, which still exists today.
    The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements are very similar to the Populist Movement. All these movements had to do with one main thing: money. Why did the Tea Party Movement occur? It occurred because the people were not satisfied by the government and how they handled our money. Why did the Occupy Wall Street movement happen? Because people saw the rich elite and the inequality between them and the rest of the population. And that’s the same reason that the Populist movement occurred; people wanted more money so they could live better lives. The world will most likely always revolve around money, and therefore the poor will always want to become rich and the rich richer.
47. Michael Trease January 11, 2013 at 5:26 am

    In my opinion, the populist movement as a reform movement managed to successfully make an impact on American society, while at the same time being a complete failure at the time of the Populist political faction in the late 19th century. Once the Populist Party had lost the election of 1896, they did not have much money or motivation to run again in 1900. The party diminished very soon after the 1896 election. However, the populist ideals had managed to remain in American society after the populist movement (they still exist in society today). The Populist movement had (whether intentionally or unintentionally) opened doors to social as well as economic reform. In the early 20th century many campaigns for the woman’s right to vote along with protest against alcohol as being the source of America’s ills led to the 18th and 19th amendments. The Populist vision of a graduated federal income tax even saw ratification in 1919. The Populist movement of the late 19th century could be compared to the Tea Party movement that we know today. Both the Tea Party and the Populist Party of the 19th century argue/d against taxes and protest/ed against government involvement. The demographics of the modern Tea Party movement are very similar to the demographics of the populist movement in the late 19th century. They both consist/ed of a majority of uneducated white people. Also, there is/was a trace of racism in both of the reform movements. The demographic of the Populist movement was known to be anti-semetic, as they had claimed that the “Jews out East (East Coast)” were screwing them over. The “Teabaggers” are somewhat hostile and racist towards immigrants, as they believe that the immigrants are taking all of the job opportunities away from “hard working”Americans.
48. Alex Cross January 11, 2013 at 7:52 am

    The populist movement was not effective as a reform movement. Most of their ideas weren’t made into laws until the progressive era.And only some of them were actually made into laws. Their main problem was that they wanted to make the middle class and the poor even. They also wanted to get rid of the Rich controlling them all the time by not listening to the wealthy elite people. This is directly related to communism in my opinion. Everybody is the same besides the government who has major control over the people. It is unfair. Congress cannot take away power just because of the populists. They were also very racist and antisemetic. They hated Jews and blacks and wouldn’t allow them into their party. Jews were considered just as bad as the rich. And blacks made their own movement because the populists wouldn’t allow them to be apart of their party. Occupying Wallstreet movement is very similar to the populist movement. They both are trying to get rid of the rich elite. Both of these groups wanted the wealth to spread among everybody. They also wanted to put high taxes on the rich elite. Other similarities between both of the groups include bank reforms and distribution of income. Their difference was the political opinions between liberal and conservative. This was one of their only differences. Occupy Wall Street is basically the populist group today. They are both againts the government as well. They share similarities but their ultimate goals and ideals behind the similarities were somewhat different.
49. Michelle Confer January 11, 2013 at 8:43 am

    The populists as a whole were successful as a reform movement. They had many ideas such as election of senators, giving women the right to vote, tax reform, and reduction of railroad shipping. Together farmers, factory workers, and middle class families fought to have these things implemented in our government. Although these ideas weren’t implemented until the 20th century and the populists didn’t get to see the results of their efforts, they wouldn’t have happened without them. In 1867 the Grange was organized and tried to reduce the coast of railroad shipping. They ended up creating the greenback party and ran James Weaver in the 1880 election. Although he only got 3% of the popular vote, he was still successful in the populist platform. Under this platform they added the ideals of income tax, abolition of national banks, and nationalization of the railroads from the Alliance plan, direct election of U.S. Senators, and the recognition of unions. In 1913 in the 17th Amendment allowed for direct election of senators and in 1914 and 1935 unions were finally recognized.

    We can also compare the populist reforms of the late 1800s with some of today’s movements. Take the tea party movement for example. Much like the populist movement of the late 1800’s the Tea Party movement is a diverse organization that calls for strict constitutionalism and reduction of government spending and taxes. Another movement we can look at is the Occupy Wall Street movement. This movement started on Wall Street and protested its social greed and corruption. However unlike the populist movements of the late 1800’s, this movement has spread around the world and many argue that the movement itself has become corrupt.
50. Sydney Alexander January 11, 2013 at 9:52 am

    1. I believe that the Populist movement was a successful reform movement. The farmers amazingly not only stayed united, but also incredibly organized. They recognized themselves as the common people’s party and shared the same grievances which helped them take on “the man”. I believe that the Populist movement was effective. According to author Lawrence Goodwyn, the Populist movement was the last purely democratic moment or era in United States history before the Populist movement was absorbed by the Democrat party. I would agree with this statement because the Populists were trying to make decisions for themselves, or by the people. Even though the outcome may not have been as successful as one would think, the Populist movement was effective because many of their ideas were shared with Democrats and Republicans. The Populists should be admired for their strength to revolt.

    2. The Populist movement has many similarities and differences to the Occupy Wall Street movement. One similarity is that the Populist Movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement are both the wealthy elite vs. the common people. Another similarity, is that the people themselves are running these movements or “revolts”. One difference between the Populist movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement is the Populist movement wanted equality and for something to ease their debt, while the Occupy Wall Street movement was to balance income or the 1% vs the 99%. The Populist movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement were extremely similar with the people’s intent to achieve what they need.