well, i'm not a democrat. i'm actually not even an american (i'm a canadian), but i've endorsed the green party more often than not over the last 20 years, the exceptions being clinton and kerry, which i felt were exceptional circumstances where blocking the republicans was actually necessary. i even endorsed the greens this year. i'd identify as a disenfranchised socialist.
but, i do insist that the facts are clear enough that every single historical example of populist uprising has been driven by racial tension, in some manner or another. it's not some deduction that something must be, from some theoretical viewpoint. it's an observation of historical fact.
so, there's two kinds of questions here, apparently, in deconstructing this origin myth. the first is the question of historical accuracy, which was my initial concern. but, the second is the question of the utility of this kind of myth, which seems to be more the actual point, from the perspective of the author.
i've already stated my argument regarding the issue of racial tensions in the populist movement. i've stated that presenting this as a movement that was characterized by perspectives of desired racial equality is dishonest, as it was, at best, riven with contradictions and racial infighting. the southern farmer's union, especially, was rife with support for the confederacy. now, i'm sure you can find examples of people breaking through their programming, and it's up to an author to present what they want to, but there's a responsibility to ensure that the projection is grounded in a reflection of actual behaviours, and understanding what these organizations were actually like means understanding the importance that the white supremacist movements of the time played in maintaining social cohesion in the south. anywhere there were meetings, there were white supremacists. they were all over the populist movement.
so, how should you present populism then? well, you should just be objective about it. drop the moralizing of history, and look at them for what they were. understand the forces acting around them, and how they shaped them into what they were. but, you have to drop the bullshit first. so, maybe they had both good ideas and bad ideas.
but, i realize that it is the question of the utility of the origin myth that is more concerning. what is my motive, here? see, marxist theory has this whole theory of development in it, where people need to go through various stages of economic development before they can work their way up to socialism, which happens as a function of the socialization of production. this populist discourse really lacks that kind of analysis, as well as much of any class analysis. where is the american working force, right now? is it undergoing socialization? no, it is not - the unions have been busted, and the jobs have been outsourced or mechanized. so, what a mass movement in the current period would be would be a peasant movement, a slaves' revolt, rather than the implementation of socialism.
the other barrier to generating mass movements, at the moment, is the nature of what those mass movements are likely to demand. the american people are so hopelessly brainwashed by capitalism that they are only likely to further entrench it. if the premise is that movements of people will institute positive change through sheer force, it has to be rooted in the existence of movements of people that want positive change. so, we hear the statement "if only all the nonvoters would participate...", but we don't stop to wonder if that might actually be terrible, as they vote for horrible, selfish things.
so, there is an argument that all that building up this origin myth is going to do, if it even works, is activate a section of the consumer class to the abilities they have to express market choice via the ballot box. america doesn't need a bigger electorate, it needs a better electorate.
so, what conditions are required before a mass movement in the united states makes sense?
the cliche is that the social revolution must come first, and that is essentially my position. but, the social revolution happening at all requires the existence of socialistic productive forces that are no longer extant. the longterm effects of neoliberalism's assaults on the institutions of working people are that america may have receded backwards so far as to have permanently lost it's window to socialism. certainly, we're not getting socialism with a populist uprising of wage slaves and still-at-home 30-something basement dwellers, not without some serious attempt to alter how they think, first.
while most of the rest of the world may be embracing the benefits of mechanization, america has reverted so far that it may very well get stuck in a mechanized feudal society, like some exaggerated example of cultural stagnation from a star trek episode. that has very real ramifications in trying to understand what needs to be done in building popular movements, and it means that america's needs run closer to those actually embraced during the gilded era - it needs mass education programs and large scale infusions of state investment to build industry, before socialization is once again a realistic option. and, that seems to be counter to the shifts in technology taking place, meaning that, if it has to skip the socialization phase, the focus on mass education is that much more imperative.
so, yes - mass movements are necessary. but, they play different roles in different stages of history, and america may need a reality check as to what stage of history it is now in, and what types of movements are appropriate within that stage. openly talking about using false histories to generate mass movements is kind of creepy but, that aside, i do not think that the utility of such a thing would be so great, and may very well backfire. the primary concern of the left at this time should be in changing the opinions of the masses, rather than trying to organize them directly.
i don't have a phd in history, i have a degree in mathematics. but, math nerds dabble widely. i wish i had better sources, but i've picked this up in fragmented forms, in articles, in unrelated texts. i do not think much of it was influenced by richard hofstadter, as it was mostly just raw history. however, i've found a dissertation by a grad student that presents a view that is similar to the one i'm presenting, in contradiction to that presented by mr frank. if you would like a different perspective, try that: