Huey Long, populism, and “fascism.” In all cases, emphasis added.
The premise of this post is the idea that left-wing populism and right-wing populism can merge with respect to practical politics. This can occur if the left-wing populists are men of their people, representing a nationalistic, racialist left-wing populism. Such a nationalist left-wing populism, in the last analysis, is consistent with some ideals of National Socialism, as well as with the type of Italian Fascism characterized by both its early days as well as its “leftward” turn in the Italian Social Republic. Indeed, if we reject a purely reactionary sense of “right-wing” and reject the idea that the Right has to be “right-wing” as per economics, we can state that a significant portion of the Far Right is essentially a nationalist and racialist form of left-wing populism. In other words, nationalist and racialist left-wing populism IS right-wing populism, of a populist strain of Far Right politics.
One note: Am I being a hypocrite since I, elsewhere, have stated that I have distrust people who enter pro-White activism from the Left? No, because we need to define what we mean by Left and Right. The Left I condemn is the modern iteration of leftism, which focuses primarily on race, anti-White and anti-Western identity politics, and the promotion of Bioleninism. However, left-wing populism of the past (see below) was more about economics and “social justice” based on class within one’s people (as opposed to “social justice” for Coloreds, etc.). I myself, when I take “political tests,” typically land on the leftward side as regards economics. Of course, if we define Left vs. Right as egalitarianism vs. hierarchy then I do denounce the Left, since that is the form of the Left that has “jumped the shark” today. But, “left-wing populism,” historically, does not have to mean radical egalitarianism degenerating into Bioleninism.
See this.
He was a left-wing populist member of the Democratic Party and rose to national prominence during the Great Depression for his vocal criticism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal, which Long deemed insufficiently radical. As the political leader of Louisiana, he commanded wide networks of supporters and often took forceful action. A controversial figure, Long is celebrated as a populist champion of the poor or, conversely, denounced as a fascistic demagogue.
Academics and historians have found difficulty categorizing Long and his ideology. His platform has been compared to ideologies ranging from McCarthyism to European Fascism and Stalinism.
Stalinism is of course associated with the Left, but McCarthyism and European Fascism have been traditionally associated with the Right. Typically, when Long has been criticized for “extremism,” the most common accusation has been “fascism.”
Note this:
But he was also a staunch isolationist and an autocratic hoarder of power. As first World War II and later the Cold War and the civil-rights movement came to dominate American politics, the country’s populism grew more reactionary and nationalist. Gerald L. K. Smith, the man who co-founded the Share Our Wealth Party with Long, went on to lead the isolationist, racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant America First Party.
Let us not forget Father Coughlin:
Initially, Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal; he later fell out with Roosevelt, accusing him of being too friendly to bankers. In 1934, he established a political organization called the National Union for Social Justice. Its platform called for monetary reforms, nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of labor rights. The membership ran into the millions but was not well organized locally.
After making attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to broadcast antisemitic commentary. In the late 1930s, he supported some of the policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The broadcasts have been described as “a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture”. His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, using the slogan “Social Justice”.
The point I am trying to make is that radical left-wing populism can overlap with, and morph into, right-wing populism, indeed into the Far Right, if one introduces nationalism, racialism, nativism, etc. into the mix.
See this.
The RSI was led by the Republican Fascist Party, established on 18 September 1943 out of the disbanded National Fascist Party. On 14 February 1945 Mussolini authorized the formation of a second political party called National Republican Socialist Rally (later rebranded into Italian Socialist Republican Party) under the leadership of Edmondo Cione: the party supported a leftist view of fascism, strongly focused on the socialization of the economy and included several former socialists…
See this: National Socialism – a left-wing movement?
Right vs Left is ultimately about hierarchy not economics, but is hierarchy necessarily opposed to populism? There needs not necessarily be a complete disjunctive distinction between populism and elitism. On a more superficial level, one can view populism as a tool to achieve power that then leads to an elitist hierarchy. On a more complex level, one could have populism and elitism at the same time. Who leads the masses? Who are the populists? Was Huey Long not, in the final analysis, part of an elite – a self-made elite (the best kind)? One question that always has to be answered with respect to elitism is – who are the elites? If “elites” are simply wealthy rent-seeking plutocrats, then that is an elitism we can do without. On the other hand, a question that needs to be answered with respect to populism is – who are the people? If they are your people, your stock, that is good. But if the population is race replaced by aliens, then that is a populism we can do without. We need an enlightened elitism that consists of elites who care about their people and use a prudent populism to appeal to the people against rival elites who espouse destructive doctrines.
I also believe that a proper elite requires some degree of populism to win mass support. Is it practically possible for elites – and here I talk about those who act on behalf of their people’s interests – to completely politically disenfranchise the mass population?
One can of course speculate that if we have a total collapse, then appealing to the desperate masses will not be necessary; they will gravitate to a strong leader and will give up their political prerogatives for a loaf of bread. One could also speculate that if we move through the Spenglerian cycle to the next High Culture, then an elitist hierarchy is part of the traditionalism of the Spring of a Culture. By this reasoning, populism is part of the Winter phase of a declining High Culture. Perhaps.
But looking at these issues practically, at least as they exist today, it will be difficult to turn back the clock on the political mobilization of the masses, be that good or ill. Rather than artificially trying to suppress the mass mood, one can appeal to populism to establish a hierarchical society that is also egalitarian in the sense of caring for the well-being of the masses and providing upward mobility for anyone of the people to join the elite. Here we have a synergy between elites and the masses, between populism and elitism, perhaps akin to the Totalitarian Democracy Fest talked about in his biography of Hitler. From my post on that topic:
What I have in mind is a situation in which the totalitarian, non-elected leader goes in front of crowds at mass rallies, crowds that represent a cross-section of the population, and presents his views and plans. The crowd, these representatives of the populace, can either (through some mechanism, ranging from mass supporting acclamation or expressed disapprobation to actual voting of some sort) can register either approval or disapproval to these views and plans. If it is disapproval, the leader would need to (at least temporarily) shelve the idea (until the next rally) and/or engage in mass propaganda to convince the people.
Would the leader have the legal right to disregard the will of the people as expressed at the rallies? Would the leader “cheat” by filling the crowd with known supporters of the policies? That may occur, but would run the risk of losing moral legitimacy with the population, if the leader’s policies go against the true wishes of the people. I note that even the Hitler regime kept tabs on popular opinion and had some concern about what the people were thinking – and that with a population with a reputation for discipline, obedience, and following orders.
We can see in theory how a hierarchical and elitist Far Right doctrine can be compatible with a form of populism that incorporates “the will of the people” in a sense different from the standard fare of Liberal Democracy.
So, we can start to put all these facets together and assert that a strain of Far Right thought is compatible with:
1. A merger of left-wing populism as regards economics and right-wing populism as regards race and nation. In other words, as stated above, nationalist and racialist left-wing populism is a form of Far Right populism.
2. Hierarchical elitism and populism being combined in a state that rejects Liberal Democracy but embraces a form of Totalitarian Democracy in which the people have a voice, but one that is filtered through an elite dedicated to their people. Of course, it is imperative that such an elite is prevented from degenerating into a selfish rent-seeking elite merely exploiting the people. Conversely, populism cannot go so far that hierarchy and merit are submerged into a runaway egalitarianism. Balance is required.
eginotes 