(This post was intended for politics@lemmy.world, but as it seems they don’t allow text posts, I’m posting it here)
This post will likely not go over well with everyone and some people may not agree with the premise of the question. Mods please remove if not allowed.
I am curious if the MAGA-esque approach to politics is new for the US, or if there have been other examples of similar political movements which may be considered “cult-like”. To better define what I mean, here are some examples:
-
Large amounts of signs bearing a candidate’s name being shown by single individuals (e.g. big trucks covered in Trump signs everywhere)
-
Use of a candidate name over the US flag
-
Use of a kind of supporter uniform (e.g. the red MAGA hat)
-
The “alternative facts” of MAGA, where debate can be impossible because supporters believe anyone who is a detractor must be lying
-
In some cases, voter intimidation or coercion from staunch supporters
It seems to me that some of this is new but I’d love to hear other thoughts. I have heard and seen many relatively obvious parallels to German politics in the 20s-40s, but I’m specifically wondering if anything similar has ever been seen in the US before.
It may not be an exact comparison, given changes in both popular media and US culture, but Huey Long (1893-1935) is possibly one of the closer comparisons.
A wildly popular populist demagogue, Long similarly set about expelling political opponents from the government system following his election and engaging in political maneuvering and strongarming which ultimately got him impeached (though, like Trump, the effort collapsed before before long). His efforts included setting up Louisiana state boards which directed the distribution of state money to political allies, a move to deny hostile newspapers “official printer” status, worked with a businessman to create an oil company which profited from public lands allotted to it, produced his own newspaper which published positive stories, and other similarly totalitarian moves.
However, it must also be noted that unlike Trump, Long actually achieved many populist goals, such as dramatically expanding the road system and increasing school enrollment. He was hostile to Roosevelt’s New Deal, claiming it was actually insufficiently populist and overly friendly to businesses, but also was highly isolationist and opposed to US involvement leading up to World War II.
Long was assassinated in 1935 by the son of a political opponent. Most believe he was shot by the assassin, though some believe his bodyguards accidentally shot him in confusion after the assassin missed.
Long is an interesting example, since he definitely did strongman Louisiana politics, but he did seem to have the working class interests at heart, where as Trump only pretends to. We didn’t get to see what he would do long term, but its been argued that his presidential run, and more specifically his ‘share our wealth’ program forced Roosevelt even farther left in his policy.
Share the wealth proposed to put into federal law a wealth cap of 5 million for every American, with the excess used to fund what amounts to a universal basic income back in the 1930’s, and didn’t discriminate against minorities. It also advocated for free education, free healthcare, and a 30-hour work week.
From all the information I’ve seen, including the excellent Ken Burns documentary, the poor and working class of Louisiana loved Huey for legitimate reasons, while the rich and politically corrupt, who were targeted by him, absolutely hated his guts.
I’m beginning to think that whoever wrote the history books might not be terribly fond of leftism
Agreed. And it wasn’t just blind trust in his promises despite a lack of deeds, unlike Trump’s wild promises. Like I said, Long actually managed to achieve many positive things for the working-class Louisianian. I also didn’t mention it, but he was remarkably hostile to racism for a 1930s Louisiana politician; one of his issues with the Social Security system implemented by Roosevelt was that individual states might deny its benefits to African Americans.
I do wonder if he would have remained so benevolent indefinitely - there is the aforementioned secret control of an oil company profiting from State-owned lands, whose profits Long used for political purposes - but at the same time I can’t deny he did a lot of objectively good things which helped the people who needed it the most, was rightly beloved for it, and didn’t seem to be stepping away from it in his future plans.
If nothing else, he’s a fascinating study on how the political positions associated with populism have shifted over time in the US.
I think it also shows that some one who is a “good leader” can also do corrupt things for personal gain. We expect our politicians to be better people than a lot of us are (and we should) but are often surprised when they don’t live up to what we think they should be.
I would look at some one like Baltimore City mayor Sheila Dixon. She was actually a pretty good mayor especially when comparing her to some that came after her. But she stole gift cards from the city that were ment for low income families.
It’s probably a slippery slope. Like why shouldn’t I benefit some from all this good I’m doing. In the case of Long it probably had something to do with him needing the money to help get reelected to continue to help people. Again I’m not saying any of this is ok, just that it is pretty complex to figure out why people do stuff and that it’s pretty human to do both good things and be greedy and self serving.
Very interesting figure and exactly what I was hoping to find through this post. Thanks.
For a long time — like probably into the 2000s — LSU’s Tiger Stadium had dorm rooms because when Huey Long couldn’t get funding approved for a football stadium, he got money for dorms approved and built one dorm in the shape of a football stadium.
He went a lot farther than that.
https://www.hueylong.com/programs/education.php