Popularity of Populism
I thought the link between industrialization and the election of a populist candidate/ activation of the popular sector was a link that was fun to think through. It initially made me consider why populist candidates were not elected from industrialized labor popular sectors all the time and I will try to answer that question later. But then it made me think of when I was in high school, the election of the homecoming king. Homecoming elections and nominations were nothing but a sign of popularity but every year, the homecoming king at my school was a person from the band. This was odd to me at first because, although I have nothing against the band, they were not often thought of as popular kids and so I thought it was counter intuitive. But then I realized that the band had a very dense, concentrated voting force that the other candidates lacked. The other court members each would split the vote between 4 people moderately equally when the entire band would vote for their champion. So each year, the band king would be crowned. I liken this to the unified vote for the populist candidate who arose from the labor unions. The political allegiance to this candidate came from the ties to the labor union and due to the nature of industrializing nations, the percentage of people in labor unions was high. This unified vote seems unstoppable.
So my question was, why would a populist candidate not be elected in the United States back in the Gilded Age when America industrialized? I do not know the level of labor union participation but I have to imagine it was comparable to the labor union participation in Latin American countries. My first thought is technology. Without the interconnectedness of technology, it may have been more difficult to champion a populist candidate nationally because there was less of a flow of communication. There may have been more populist candidates in local government positions back then but the lack of technology to communicate could have gotten in the way of the populist candidates gaining national prominence. Latin American countries were industrializing in a time when technology was creating an ease in communication that was unprecedented, with the popularity of telephones and televisions. The other reason I can think of is that the United States did not have the same blaring issue of the “gap between demands and performance” that Latin America was facing at the time. Although, the United States experienced economic instability, it was not at the same time as political instability. The economic crisis in Latin America was unique to the time and region. The United States did not experience the complete disconnect between what the government was attempting to accomplish and what the people wanted, which was something Latin America had to go through. So due to the lack of technological communication capabilities of the 19th century and the comparatively smaller gap between demands and performance of the government, the United States never elected a populist candidate.
Populism relies on mobilizing the popular sector. Populism may now be channeled through mediums like television, social media, etc. While these mediums were not available in previous populist eras, populist movements still existed. However, the definition of what makes a populist movement may have evolved from much smaller movements that arose out of nearby communities. In Latin America, populist leaders helped mobilize the middle and working classes. Economic crises led to certain populist movements, which may intersect with military coups as well. In inclusionary military regimes, military forces acted for the middle and working classes in instances of dissatisfaction with the government. Even though the United States never elected a populist candidate in the 19th century, populist movements have occurred everywhere. The development gap between Latin America and the United States may have reflected major differences in political structure, however, populism’s impact may have been minimal. I agree that the economic crises in Latin America was unique. Furthermore, I think that the effects of the crises should be measured across states in order to understand the crises what they may have inspired politically.
For those interested, many scholars would argue that Andrew Jackson was in fact a populist president. I would highly recommend this recent think piece by the Atlantic for a more in-depth comparison of Trump and Jackson: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trump-and-andrew-jackson/508973/.