The Populists: The Greens of the 1890s? Or benevolent reformers?

[mot78]

With all these Green-Dem flame wars, I feel it's appropriate to point out that this isn't the first time we've had trouble with a third party, abeit a much stronger one than the Greens are today. Unfortunately, the techniques of the southern Democrats who controlled the party back then were horribly un-Democratic in stopping the Populists. That said, maybe the Greens should follow the example of the Fusionists and merge with and take over the Democrats.


http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/populists.html

[JohnKleeb]

1. The latter

Its them who laid out the more progressive democratic party. I would have voted for them.

[david_vincent]

2. "trouble with a third party" - I love that!

It's like, "look at all this damn democracy stuck to the bottom of my shoe!"

[cryofan]

4. Fantastic comment!

The Progressive movement of 100 years ago or so MADE this country into something worth living in for those who failed to get rich. And we need a NEW progressive movement today...

[kiahzero]

5. Duverger's Law and the corresponding Spoiler Effect make third parties

an issue for first-past-the-post voting systems.

As an aside, IRV makes things worse, since three equally strong parties lead to chaos in it's voting system - that's why I support Condorcet or Acceptance voting before I'll support a third party.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. The Populists Were Far More Viable...

... Had the Dems not nominated Bryan in 1896 and instead nominated a gold candidate (someone who wasn't silver) most political scientists and historians believe that in the subsequent election, mckinley would've won (like he did) but that the dems would've come in 3rd behind the Populist candidate. They were a very fast growing party, with a number of governors and 4 or 5 senators, plus 3 or 4 other senators that had the same kind of policies -- some from a nevada-only "Silver Party" and some populist Republicans that broke away to form a faction of "Silver Republicans."

It's not unreasonable to imagine that today the two parties would be the Republicans and the Populists. That's the difference with the Greens. Though, I suppose, it could change, the chances are extraordinarily remote that the Greens will ever challenge the Democrats for major party status.

[Raenelle]

6. Agreed. Plus when the Dems nominated a free silver guy

the Populists went along with him rather than splitting the free silver vote. They were far more pragmatic than the Naderites of 2000.

[whirlygigspin]

7. Don't forget LaFollette & Wisconsin

LaFollette's rise coincided with unrest among farmers angry at Eastern capitalists who controlled money and credit and who dictated railroad freight rates. Supporting LaFollette, they were joined by small businessmen, professionals, and intellectuals disturbed by how wealthy businessmen controlled access to political power.

This progressive spirit flourished elsewhere, but nowhere better organized than under LaFollette in Wisconsin. A brilliant orator, he campaigned across the state for years. After twice losing the nomination for governor under the convention system, he was elected in 1900. Reelected in 1902 and 1904, he achieved many of his goals.

Wisconsin was the first state to adopt the primary for nominations for state offices. A new law taxed railroads on the value of their property, ending an inequity. Taxes on corporations permitted the state to pay its debts.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/lafoll.html