Commentary: Populism: The Problem of Rhetoric and Reality

Author(s): J. Rogers Hollingsworth

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Agricultural History, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1965), pp. 81-85
Published by: Agricultural History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3740606 .
Accessed: 01/03/2013 13:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Agricultural History Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Agricultural History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:59:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
As the preceding papers focus on the short-
comings of recent studies of Populism, per-
haps this issue of Sgricultural History will
be significant in marking the end of an era,
a new departure for the study of Populism.
Indeed, Mr. Pollack's essay clearly points up
the urgency for raising new questions about
the Populists. His paper suggests that the
recent literature is threatening to turn our
attention from a study of Populism to a con-
centration on the psyche of recent historians.
And I for one am doubtful if charges and
denials that certain historians suffer from
authoritarian personalities will add to our
understanding of either American history or
the historical profession.
I regret that I cannot disagree with Pro-
fessor Handlin's contention that we have
made little advancement toward understand-
ing the Populists during the last decade.
True, several useful monographs have re-
cently emerged.1 But basically, historians
know very little more about the Populists
today than they knew following the publica-
tion of C. Vann Woodward's Tom Watson:
Algrarian Rebel in 1938. Indeed, it is most
discouraging that so much energy has been
invested in the study of a subject with so
little return.
But why have we made so little progress?
Though Professors Pollack and Handlin sug-
gest that most writers have approached their
subject with pre-conceived ideas, I suspect
that the problem involves far more than the
mental outlook of the historians of Populism.
Perhaps much of the difficulty has resulted
from the method historians have employed.
J. ROGERS HOLLINGSWORTH is Sssociste Pro-
fessor of History at the University of Wis-
consin, Madison. This commentary was pre-
sented in a session on the Populists at the
Southern Historical AMssociation at Little
Roct and is printedS here with minor changes.
Hollingsworth is the author of The Whirli-
gig of Politics; The Democracy of Cleveland
and Bryan (Chicago, I963).
Commentary
Populism: The Problem of Rhetoric and Reality
J. ROGERS HOLLINGSWORTH
Most of the writing may be described either
broadly or narrowly as intellectual history,
and no doubt this is where much of the
trouble lies. Of course, most of us, at least
in some sense, are intellectual historians. ()b-
viously, no one can write about the past with-
out dealing with ideas. And yet, there has
been little effort to think seriously about the
proper methods to be used for studying the
ideas of a popular movement such as Popu-
lism.
Intellectual historians have tried to study
the Populist movement by concentrating pri-
marily on the rhetoric of the most vocal
Populists. Though a dimension of reality,
the rhetoric of an era is often a distortion
of reality. But there are means of penetrating
the "Populist mind" other than analyzing its
rhetcoric. For example, the everyday activities
of people and the social institutions of a pe-
riod often reflect as much about the thought
of an era as its rhetoric. Unfortunately, we
still know too little about the institutions
and class structure of the late nineteenth
century. And until we know much more
than we do about the social history of the
era, no one will be able to write a meaningful
intellectual history of Populism.
As I review much of the recent literature
on Populism, I am disturbed by the fact that
we have engaged in a great deal of debate
about a group of people without being very
precise as to who they were.2 This leads me
to suggest that the most important task
facing the historian of Populism is to answer
such elementary questions as (1) who were
the Populists, and (2) what kind of people
were they? For example, why did some in-
dividuals become Populists and others re-
main Republicans or Democrats in the com-
munities of central Nebraska and Kansas
where economic conditions had an adverse
1 For example, see Martin Ridge, Ignatius Donnelly:
the Portrait of a Polztician (Chicago, 1962); and Walter
T. K. Nugent, The Tolerant Populzsts (Chicago, 1963).
2An exception to this is Stanley Parsons, "Who Were
the Nebraska Populists," Nebrasta History, XLIV (July,
1963), 83-99.
81
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:59:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
effect on almost everyone ? The Populists
certainly had no monopoly on mortgaged
lands or hard times. Yet we cannot get to
the bottom of these problems until we be-
come much more precise about the social and
economic backgrounds of the Populists. We
simply know too little about their ethnic and
occupational characteristics, their migratory
habits, their property holdings. We have not
engaged in enough comparative analysis of
the Populists with other groups.
To put the matter another way: if we do
not know who the Populists were, what kind
of people they were, then I seriously doubt
that we can accurately describe their ideas
or motives. Are historians really saying very
much when they argue that a group of
. . .
peop e were reactlonarles or progresslves
without knowing why they held the views
they did? Can historians explain why people
held their views without clearly defining who
they were? And until we get to the root
of these questions I doubt that we will be
in a very good position to write a meaningful
or useful intellectual history of Populism.
To improve our techniques for understand-
ing the Populists, we should discontinue
focusing our atterltion primarily on the top
level leaders and top level events such as
debates in Congress, national conventions,
and presidential campaigns. We now know
that the views and values of political elites
are frequently diderent from those of the
electorate.3 And it is time that this knowl-
edge be reflected to a greater extent in our
historical literature. It is certainly question-
able as to how enlightening it is to quote
indiscriminately from Mary Elizabeth Lease
Ignatius Donnelly, Tom Watson) or fro
a dozen among hundreds of Populist news-
papers in order to pile up evidence that the
Pop U I i S t S were anti-Semitic, progressively
minded, or reactionary. The Populist move-
ment was extremely complex and hetero-
geneousS enabling historians to marshal evi-
dence to demonstrate that the Populists were
. . . * . . . .
eltner ratlona or lrratlonal, socla lStlC or
. . . .. . .
Caplta lStlC, Jlngo1st1c or peace- ovlng.
But even if we had the time, the scarcity
of sources would render it impossible to
study on an individual basis the thousancls of
yeople who were caught up in the Populist
movement. However we can identify and
study in detail hundreds of people who
sought election to courlty and state oflices.
Anci it is these people on whom we should
focus attention, for they were undoubtedly
much more similar to the electorate than
those who operated on the national level.
With the use of state and federal census
reports, legislative blue books, trade, profes-
sional and city directories, deed and mort-
* .
gage reg1sters ln county court zouses tax
assessor's records, and newspapers, we can
frequently learn the following about local
leaders: their age, ethnic t}ackground, place
of birth, religious affiliation, occupation, max-
imum education, previous political experi-
erlce, the extent of property holding, and, in
some instances, property values. Granted that
the sources will be more plentiful and in-
formative for some areas than others, that
census data are usually incomplete, and that
comparisons from one census to another are
diflicult; nevertheless intensive use of such
data would undoubtedly open new dimen-
sions to the study of Populism.
On the basis of fragmentary research this
kind of investigation has yielded some inter-
esting information for the state of Kansas:4
(1) Most of our studies stress the fact that
Populism was stronger in the wheat grow-
ing than in the corn-hog producing states of
the Middle West. The literature often con-
veys the impression that the Populists were
engaged in wheat farming. Yet, corn-hog
farming was widespread in central Kansas,
the heart of the Populist movement. Signi-
ficant is the fact that wheat farmers were
3See v. o. Key, "Public Opinion and the Decay of
Democracy," Virginza Qsarterly Keview, XXXVII (Aug-
ust, 1961), 481-94; Robert Dahl, Who Gorerns? (New
Haven, 1961), 211-25; James W. Prothro and Charles
M. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Basis
of Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of Politics
XXII (Spring, 1960), 276-94; Samuel Stouffer, Com-
munism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties (New York,
1955); and Herbert McClosky, "Consensus and Ideology
in American Politics," Amencan Political Science Reriew,
LVIII (June, 1964), 361-82.
4For this section, the following have been extremeIss
helpful: Walter T. K. Nugent, The Tolerant Populists and
"Some Paranzeters of Populism" (an extended version of
an excellent paper read before the American Historical
Association, December 29, 1963); James C. Malin, X Con-
cern abotlt Humanit (Lawrence, Kansas, 1964) and "At
71Yhat Age Did Men Become Reformers," Kansas Histor-
ical Quarterly, XXIX (Autumn, 1963), 250-61; and Ray-
mond C. Miller, "The Populist Party in Kansas't (Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of History, University of Chi-
cago, 1929).
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:59:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POPULISM: THE PROBLEM OF RHETORIC AND REALITY
83
more inclined to remain Republicans while
farmers engaged in corn-hog production
tended to be Populists. But why? Was it
because many Populists were newcomers to
the area and had not yet adjusted to the
new environment of central Kansas? Sub-
stantial evidence indicates that this is cer-
tainly part of the answer.
(2) From the work of Allan Bogue, we
know that mortgage companies were fre-
quently reluctant to foreclose mortgages and
that interest rates tended to drop in the
latter part of the century, particularly in
more settled areas. lvforeover, an analysis of
court house records suggests that Populists,
Republicans, and Democrats were all heavily
mortgaged. To conclude here, the Populists
would seem to have had no greater reason
to protest about economic conditions than
any other group. But there was a difference
in what was mortgaged. The court house
records of several Kansas counties reveal that
Democrats and Republicans, in contrast to
the Populists, were much more engaged in
speculative real estate activity and used mort-
gages to finance their business ventures. The
Populists were much more involved in im-
proving the land on which they lived, and
they had a higher percentage of their total
property mortgaged. In other words, the
Populists appear to have been mortgaged out
of necessity and when the depression came,
they were caught more severely.5
(3) While we often think of reformers as
young men who are charged with idealistic
fervor Kansas Populists were generally older
people, many of whom had been chronic
failures. Significantly, younger men were
more reluctant to turn their backs on the
established political institutions.
(4) While Populists as well as Democrats
and Republicans resided on farms, Profes-
sor Nugent has demonstrated that Populists
were seldom urbanites.6 As a result, the
Democrats and Republicans exercised a vir-
tual monopoly on such pursuits as law, bank-
ing, and merchandising. And prior to 1890,
the political leadership of Kansas consisted
of people, not from farms, but from the
towns and villages. This virtual exclusion
of farmers from positions of influence helped
to heighten urban-rural tensions.
(5) State and federal censuses suggest that
the Populists had a higher percentage of im-
migrants who ran for public oflice in Kansas
than did the Republicans and Democrats.
While this information must be related to
many other factors to be very meaningful,
surely such evidence has relevance for the
charge of nativism against the Populists.
(6) Data in Kansas reveals that the Popu-
lists had slightly less formal education than
either Republicans or Democrats. And
though the Populists had frequently traveled
more in other areas tllan either the Republi-
cans or Democrats, the level of formal educa-
tion of all three groups was sufficiently low
that we should be cautious before concluding,
as does Professor Pollack, that the Populists
had a sophisticated social theory for solving
the problems of their age.
(7) The Populists' political program was
not as unique as we have frequently been
led to believe. For example, virtually every
reform advocated by the Kansas Populists
had already been proposed by one of the
major parties or a minor party. And the
Prohibition platforms of 1886 and 1890 and
the Republican platform of 1890 were so
comprehensive that they included virtually
every reform declaration of the next decade.
(8) When they controlled the governor's
ofl;ce and both houses of the state legislature
simultaneously, the Populists were unsuccess-
ful in implementing their reform prograrn.
The intense party squabbles on key legisla-
. . . . . .. . .
tlve lssues lnc lcate tne vast c lvlslon Wlt lln
the Populist movement even within a single
state. Indeed, some of the differences among
Kansas Populists were as sharp as any within
either the Democratic or Republican party.
These facts provide the basis for new in-
sights into the mind of the Kansas Populists.
Though some historians have argued that the
protests of the Populists had no firm basis in
reality, the evidence indicates that the Popu-
lists were more adversely affected by de-
pressed economic conditions than were Demo-
crats or Republicans. On the other hand, we
should not dismiss Richard Hofstadter's sug-
gestion that the basis for much of the Popu-
list protest was irrational. We are still faced
with the question which disturbed Hof-
stadter: was there a rational reason for people
sNugent, "Some Parameters of Populism."
6 Ibid.
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:59:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84
to become Populists? If the reform program
of the Populist party in Kansas was essen-
tially no more advanced than those of other
parties we certainly cannot answer the ques-
iion with a simple yes or no.
In this connection) perhaps the concept of
alienation can shed some light on the Popu-
list movement.7 Significantly, Kansas Pop-
ulism was most intense in those areas which
were undergoirlg the most rapid social
change where social conditions and institu-
tions were most unstable. The Kansas move-
ment included a large number of older
people who had grown to maturity in a
period when diflerent institutions were domi-
nant, people who had recently migrated to
Kansas people who had not yet adjusted to
their new enxJironment. A world in which
shipper and carrier) producer and consumer
nce longer knew one another was disturbing
to a people who were accustomed to more
intimate relationships. Without visible in-
fluence in local politics banksn or business
houses, the Populists felt an acute sense of
isolation. To many Populists, their new
torld seemed transitory, incoherent and
without cohesion. Unable to form effective
psychological ties with those with whom
they came into contact having lost psychic
continuity with the past bewildered by the
sudden obsolescence of traditional tools and
crafts, threatened with the loss of all their
personal possessions as a result of one of the
worst depressions in the nation's history, the
Populists sought identity and meaning in a
political party outside established institutions.
More distinctive for its style than its pro-
gram the rhetoric of Kansas Populism pro-
vided comfort to those who were alienated
by their new surroundings. It offered a new
meaning to life for those who were desper-
ately trying to recapture their individuality
to reaffirm their traditional values.
ObviouslyX Kansas Populism was some-
what more complicated than the above ac-
count suggests. We should certainly not as-
sume that all peop-le were irrational who en-
gaged in what appears to us to have beerl
irrational behavior. And though a great deal
of the Populist rhetoric was irrational, much
of it was rationally calculated.
We must be mindful that while statistical
data is useful in pointing out general pat-
terns of behavior, such data is equally im-
portant as an indicator that all social activity
does not readily conform to a coherent or
meaningful pattern. At the present time, it
is impossible to 15t all Populist leaders into
descriptive models. Perhaps this is because
our knowledge of Kansas Populism is still
incomplete. SNot only must we learn more
about its local leadership but an analysis of
popular voting behavior, particularly of ho-
mogeneous electoral districts, would permit
us to refine and qualify much of our existing
knowledge about the ethnic, economic, and
urban-rural conflicts which influenced much
of the Populist movement.
Though the Populist party was a third
party, let us remember that it was nation-
T Some writers have used the terms anomie and aliena-
tion as though they are synonymous. While there is a
similarity between the two terms, they should not be
equated. Anomie is a sociological term and refers to a
sociological condition which exists when the aspirations
of a group are beyond its ability for fulfillment. Anomie
most often results during a period of social disorganiza-
tion and decay, in periods when the actions of antagonists
cannot be regarded as legitimate. For example, see Rob-
ert Merton) Social Theory andf Social Structure (Glencoe
Illinois, 1957), 161-94.
Alienation is a psychological term and refers to a state
of mind. It is the subjective side of anomie and is simi-
lar to what some writers refer to as anomia. See David
Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney, The Loneb
Crowd (New Haven, 1951); Leo Scrole, 'Social Integra-
tion and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study,"
Americvn Sociological Re?viet, XXI (December, 1956),
709-16; Dorothy L. Meier and Wendell Bell, "Anomia
and Differential Access to the Achievement of Lifc Goals,"
American Sociological Review, XXIV (April 1959) 189-
208. Alienated people usually believe (1) that community
leaders are little concerned with their needs, (2) that
their life goals are not being fulfilled, (3) that it is dif-
ficult to count on one's fellow man for support, and (4)
that the operations of society are unpredictable. See
Melvin Seeman, "On the Meaning of Alienation," Amer-
ican Sociological Review, XXIV (December, 1959) 783-
91 +
For a correlation between alienation and advancing
age, see Wendell Bell, "Anomie, Social Isolation, and the
Class Structure,s' Sociome-fry, XX (June, 1957), 105 16;
Dwight G. Deann "Alienation: Its Meaning and Measure-
ment," American Sociological J?eview, XXVI (October
1961)> 757. For insights into the problem of why some
people become alienated and others do not even though
their social pattern appears quite similar, see hJarshall B.
Clinard, Anomie a7zd Deriant Beharior (New York,
1964). iFor some of the problems encountered in weigh-
ing the intensity of alienation, see Meier and Bell op. cit.
Professor Pollack's essay implies that alienation is an
urban phenomenon. HoweverS there is a substaniial lit-
erature which indicates that alienation has a widespread
non-ur zan zase as well. See Meier and Bells o p. cit.>
201 and the excellent bibliography in Clinard op. fsit.,
246-31 1.
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:59:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POPULISM: THE PROBLEM OF RHETORIC AND REALITY
85
wide in its following. And like all national
parties? its membership consisted of diverse
groups throughout American society. The
party meant several things in the South and
still others in the Middle and Far West. But
until we have the kind of information for
Populists in all parts of the country that is
. fl
s owM y emerglng tor tansas t ze movement
will probably not become any more in-
telligible for us than it is now.
In neglecting the study of local leaders,
historians have often failed to examine the
local issues which shaped the Populist move-
ment. For example, very little work has been
completed on the impact of prohibition on
the Populist movement. Yet, irl Indiana,
Nebraska, and several other states, prohibi-
tion was intricately tied up with other issues
of the day and was an important factor in
shaping the destiny of the Populist move-
ment. In states such as Washington and
Oregon, Populism was part of a broader
program to regulate the fishing industry and
to promote various conservation programs,
but it has not yet been studied in such a
context. And party because Colorado was a
leading mining state, we have exaggerated
the role of silver as a factor in its politics.
The desire for irrigation canals on the part
of farmers was one of the most explosive
issues of the day in Colorado politics and
was extremely important in creating the
urban-rural tensions which were a vital as-
pect of the Populist movement in that state.
The recent intellectual history of Populism
is deficient not only because it focuses on a
small group of Populists in national politics.
Some of it suffers from an over-dependence
on the popular literature of the period. For
example, much of the writing about anti-
Semitism and Populism relies heavily on
select pieces of fiction. But can we under-
stand this literature or its authors before the
social setting from which they emerged is
fully analyzed ? To what extent does the
anti-Semitism in Ignatius Donnelly's Caesar's
Column reflect merely the personal idiosyn-
crasies of its author as distinct from preju-
dices ingrained in the minds of its readers?
Morever) were the readers of the novel
generally Populists ? Obviously) these are
questions which it is impossible to answer.
But by facing up tO these problemsn we can
better assess the value of novels as historical
sources.
Even so, historians should constantly
strive to make imaginative uses of popular
literature, and they should not become overly
dependent on sources which require syste-
matic quantification. But at this time tech-
niques which utilize extensive quantification
of data are necessary if we are to break away
from the treadmill Professor Handlin has
described, if we are to understand the reality
of the era as distinct from its unreality as
seen through the rhetoric of the pleriod.
We must be especially cautious in ac-
cepting the Populists' rhetoric in regard to
transportation rates and high interest charges.
Had interest rates been lower, farmers would
probably have borrowed more capital to grow
increased amounts of farm produce. This in
turn would have caused the prices of their
crops to drop even more. The farmers'
troubles were due not so much to high trans-
portation and interest charges as to the fact
that the nation's rate of economic growth was
too low to accommodate satisfactorily the
rapidly increasing population.8 Between 1870
and 1900, several million people drifted to
towns and cities from the farms. Had the
rate of economic growth been greater, more
people would probably have been attracted
to the cities, agricultural productioIl would
probably have decreased, and undoubtedly
farm conditions would have improved.
Hopefully, the historical profession is pre-
pared to take a new departure in the study
of Populism by using different techniques
and asking new questions. But until we heed
Professor Handlin's plea that we stop view-
ing the participants of history in terms of
good people versus the bad guys, it will be
next to impossible to study the Populists
within a different context.
Professor James C. Malin made a similar
plea thirty-three years ago.9 Let us hope that
at the end of the next third of a century
our research will have progressed to a point
that we will be able to make a diderent
request.
8See the perceptive comments by Morton Rothstein in
The Joarnal of Economic Hzstory, XXII (December,
1962), 479.
9James C. Mal-in7 "Notes on the Literature of Popu-
lism^" Kansas Historical Qxarterly, I (February, 1932),
1 60-64.
This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:59:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions