Populism (and by extension, the term “populist”) is a loosely conceived concept that refers to popular political movements that intentionally make direct appeals to the will and needs of “the people” and that usually either accompany a grassroots groundswell or are tied to some broadly based organization. Populist candidates and political movements usually offer pledges to improve the condition of the “common man” or “ordinary” person (e.g., “Everyman,” “John Q. Citizen,” “average working man/woman,” “American wage-earner,” “tax-paying citizen,” “average Joe,” or “Joe Six-Pack”). Populist sentiment generally includes the belief that the people as a whole hold the key to commonsense solutions to our nation’s problems. Populist rhetoric often exhibits a pronounced concern for the interests of the working and middle classes (often accompanied by strident criticism of the wealthy class and political and business elites), as well as a tendency to celebrate the means of democracy as an end in itself (with suspicion of anything regarded as “undemocratic”). Populist movements throughout American history have also expressed deep dislike of nearly anything associated with the status quo and, in particular, have been notoriously hostile to what they view as “big government” and “big business.” Populism encourages political candidates who promote themselves as “outsiders,” and it attracts supporters who are somehow disaffected or existentially frustrated by the attitudes, practices, and outcomes of the established political institutions. Populist movements are a democratic phenomenon and are usually democratic in their objectives, but the latter is not always the case, as mass movements, even well-intentioned ones, are not immune to the temptations that are offered in the pandering of demagogues.
Another common thread in American populist movements has been a vigorous sense of patriotism that is, in almost all cases, rooted in a reverence for an idealized version of the past, when society was marked by achievements made possible by virtuous citizens who were guided by wiser and more genuine political leaders. Driven by an egalitarian impulse, populism in its many variants elevates the “common” person and denigrates any leader or policy that might put the interests of the few before the needs of the nation as a whole. Populism often (but not always) generates charismatic leaders and firebrands who come to embody the movement as a whole, and who serve as a rallying symbol for the people’s cause.
In American politics, populist tendencies can be traced back to the American Revolution itself, but it was not until the 1820s that populist themes and attitudes began to influence political institutions. The electoral campaigns and presidency of Andrew Jackson were decidedly populist in much of their rhetoric and symbolism, and the Campaign of 1840 that brought William Henry Harrison to the White House was won through populist imagery and means. By and large, though, the two major parties (at any given point in American history) have been reticent to fan the flames of populism too eagerly. There are important exceptions (such as the Campaigns of 1828 and 1840), but as a general rule, the larger and more institutionalized the political party, the less likely it is that a candidate with genuine populist credentials and proclivities will receive the support of that party’s leadership. However, there have been periods in American history when a major party has sought to embrace a populist movement.
A series of economic crises in the latter half of the nineteenth century sparked a number of radical agrarian groups that sought to limit the powers of big banks and the powerful manufacturing sector of the economy and to redistribute the nation’s wealth in a more equitable fashion. As part of this movement, the People’s Party (also referred to as the Populists) was formed during the late 1880s/early 1890s to campaign on behalf of the political interests of these groups. In the Campaign of 1892, People’s Party nominee James Weaver gathered over one million popular votes and twenty-two Electoral College votes (winning Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, and North Dakota, and receiving a single electoral vote from Oregon). This was a near-record performance for a third party in a presidential election. While, realistically, the People’s Party posed no serious electoral threat to the two major parties, it did help to change the political mood in the country. Both the Democrats and the Republicans included more populist, progressive candidates in their parties, and in the Campaign of 1896, a skilled orator and champion of the people, William Jennings Bryan (known as “the Great Commoner”), became the Democratic Party’s nominee for the presidency. Bryan eventually lost, but both his nomination and the tenor of his campaign reflected the public’s interest in, and desire for, a more populist politics, both in style and substance, thus influencing both major parties.
Populism would flow into the progressivism of the latter part of the nineteenth century and early decades of the twentieth century, continuing to influence wings within both parties. Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose candidacy in the Campaign of 1912, under the banner of the (soon to be short-lived) Progressive Party, can be considered populist in its approach and demeanor. Populist themes and impulses would be seen in other campaigns in the twentieth century as well, notably in: the Campaign of 1936, where Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s reaffirmation of his New Deal programs was markedly progressive and laced with a subdued populism; the Campaign of 1948, where incumbent president Truman’s hard-charging whistle-stop stump speeches and Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat revolt both exhibited populist strains; the Campaign of 1968, where Democratic hopeful Robert Kennedy’s doomed campaign and George Wallace’s pro-segregation American Party campaign were decidedly populist, with Kennedy’s also containing strains of progressivism; the Campaign of 1972, where Democratic nominee George McGovern’s campaign sought to be the voice of the disenfranchised and the downtrodden; the Campaign of 1992, where Republican challenger Pat Buchanan practiced “pitchfork populism” and independent candidate H. Ross Perot campaigned on “common-sense” populism; and the Campaign of 2004, where Democratic hopeful Howard Dean introduced an Internet version of populism. Of these, the Campaign of 1992 is of particular interest, in that it nicely illustrates the diversity of populist movements and campaigns. Buchanan’s populism was conservative in tone, but it differed from the paleoconservatism that has generally viewed populist appeals as a manipulative and dangerous form of political pandering. Rather, Buchanan’s approach to conservatism was infused with a mission to lead the people back to their moral foundations, it contained an emotional appeal rooted in patriotism, and it expressed an abiding discontent with a failed political and economic system that betrayed the purer values of the nation’s founding. The Perot campaign, on the other hand, conveyed a pragmatic, “can-do” (and non-ideological) populism, one that scolded the established parties for their selfish incompetence and promised a fresh, third way that would find solutions to the nation’s problems outside of the usual “politics-as-usual” lip service. Both Buchanan and Perot portrayed themselves and their causes as coming directly from the people themselves, and both minced no words when it came to biting criticisms of the current political establishment.
More recently, the Tea Party movement seems designed to appeal to populist impulses within the electorate, and both its style and agenda appear to exhibit many populist aspects as well. However, the extent of the Tea Party’s core following may not be sufficient to consider it a genuine populist movement. Some would argue that the Tea Party is, in fact, the latest incarnation of American populism, reflected in a tide of grassroots support rising up against the evils of a morally bankrupt and quasi-socialist political establishment. Others argue that while the Tea Party movement may appear to contain some populist traits, upon closer examination, it is a largely media-driven movement with an agenda far too narrow and extreme to appeal to a wider political base. Political scientists Robert Putnam and James E. Campbell find that Tea Party support is most strongly linked with conservatism on social issues, and with a strong desire to see a greater level of religion in government, rather than antigovernment or anti-taxation sentiment. Unlike other populist movements, Tea Party supporters seek to pare down government support for the economically disadvantaged, and their focus is more on individual rights than on political or economic equality. Whether the Tea Party is truly a new form of American populism, or simply an artificial phenomenon sustained by the press, is a question that remains unanswered. There is some evidence that the Tea Party faction has lost some of the momentum it enjoyed in the 2010 midterm elections, but the exact impact that it may have on the 2016 GOP nomination process is as yet unclear. Nevertheless, from a review of recent campaign rhetoric among the current GOP field, Tea Party values and concerns appear to maintain their influence within the party as a whole, even though that influence may be gradually waning when compared to the 2010 and 2012 campaigns.
One might argue that populist impulses explain the current popularity of Donald Trump in his attempt to carry the 2016 Republican standard. Even though Mr. Trump does not meet the typical populist profile owing to his own abundant personal wealth, his message, claims, attitude, and demeanor pluck at those notes resembling populist chords. More substantively, Democratic candidate and Vermont senator Bernie Sanders epitomizes, at least in his rhetoric but also on his record, the anti-establishment, working-class, and grassroots themes that are characteristic of populist movements. As of this writing, both Mr. Trump and Sen. Sanders have attracted a good deal of attention from the media, as well as from a noticeable segment of the voting population; whether or not these candidates can build on this publicity and sustain it among likely voters as the primary and caucus season draws closer remains to be determined, but for the moment, both Mr. Trump and Sen. Sanders evince the ongoing presence of populist qualities and attitudes within the American electorate.
Kazin, Michael. The Populist Persuasion: An American History. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.
Kuzminksi, Adrian. Fixing the System: A History of Populism, Ancient and Modern. New York: Continuum, 2008.
McMath, Robert C., Jr. American Populism: A Social History, 1877–1898. New York: Hill & Wang, 1993.
Postel, Charles, The Populist Vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Poverty Issue. See Economic Inequality Issue