Opinion of Huey Long

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Why did I somehow know that lefties on Atlas would see someone FDR called "one of the two most dangerous men in America" and who said that anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer Charles Coughlin "has a damned good platform and I'm 100% percent for him...What he thinks is right down my alley," overwhelmingly positively?

Although I will say, I wish he hadn't been assassinated. Either he could have become a major force of workers' rights at a time when they needed it most, or he would have embraced full authoritarianism and been left in the historical gutter.

Charles Couglin was not-at all anti-semitic when Long was around, that was a progression later. But of course objective reasoning is not found anywhere.

I

Looks like you're right. I didn't know that. I'm curious about people like him and, in a different sense, Oswald Mosley who seem to be fairly typical left-wing populist politicians before one day seeming to just wake up massively racist and supporting fascism, but still with a significant amount of continuity in their policies and support base.

I think it's also important to look at A) Who made those accusations of authoritarianism before FDR, and B) how they themselves governed.

The answer to A) is quite simple; it was the planters and industrialists that he took over the state from, and their well educated social peers. I'll explain why that matters below.

The truth of the matter is that post-Reconstruction (and indeed antebellum) Louisiana was not a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. Not only had Jim Crow laws disenfranchised the entire black population of the state, poor white voters had to jump through hoops as well (though this was not as complete in other states, since Louisiana had a 'grandfather clause' to get poor whites through past the literacy test). Around 60% of the votes in any given parish were controlled by 'courthouse rings' that were essentially well oiled graft networks run by the local sheriff. Elections (by which of course we mean the white-only Democratic primary) operated by corralling as many of these rings under your own organization as possible, with regional and confessional loyalties (the catholic/Cajun south vs the Baptist North) holding heavy precedence.

Huey Long "upended" this system by bringing many new voters into the system, and when he governed by taking a very personal and active role in the administration of his machine. When we're talking about Huey Long being a 'fascist' we mostly mean that A) his manners were offensive to southern gentlemen B) he would force through legislation via strong legislative discipline and C) he liked measures that many southern conservatives thought 'socialistic.' Like providing schoolbooks for the state's public schools. But a big part of it was that he was simply better at the very game of corrupt politics that the aristocrats and New Orleans bosses had set up. He controlled a large number of courthouse rings. He was adept at dispensing graft to his deputies.

So was Huey Long anti-democratic? Maybe. But that's because he was working in a thoroughly anti-democratic system. He just happened to play the game better than anyone else, and wanted a government in motion rather than a languid engine of corruption. The well respected Southern aristocracy that governed the state before him had no accountability to the people, governed by fraud and corruption, and indeed governed by violence towards the black citizens of the state. Compared to them, Huey looks like a good-government angel.

[Miles]

The best.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why did I somehow know that lefties on Atlas would see someone FDR called "one of the two most dangerous men in America" and who said that anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer Charles Coughlin "has a damned good platform and I'm 100% percent for him...What he thinks is right down my alley," overwhelmingly positively?

Although I will say, I wish he hadn't been assassinated. Either he could have become a major force of workers' rights at a time when they needed it most, or he would have embraced full authoritarianism and been left in the historical gutter.

I think the context of the time should be included. Have you ever considered why the elites of the time let FDR get away with curtailing the their power? Because they knew that if they pushed too hard against relatively non-left legislation, the public ran a risk of shifting even further left in desperation, to Long and the like, or even further left. So in that way Long was a useful bogeyman for prodding the powers that be.

[White Trash]

Why did I somehow know that lefties on Atlas would see someone FDR called "one of the two most dangerous men in America" and who said that anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer Charles Coughlin "has a damned good platform and I'm 100% percent for him...What he thinks is right down my alley," overwhelmingly positively?

Although I will say, I wish he hadn't been assassinated. Either he could have become a major force of workers' rights at a time when they needed it most, or he would have embraced full authoritarianism and been left in the historical gutter.

Mind you, Long died before Coughlin really started getting into anti-semitism and being a Nazi sympathizer.

[Torie]

HP

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why do we keep pretending every "populist" is the same? Jesus.

[RINO Tom]

Why do we keep pretending every "populist" is the same? Jesus.

As you have (correctly) mentioned many times before (sometimes even "correcting" me, IIRC), populism is a style, not an ideology.  However, many people (TRADITIONALLY, mostly on "the right") very much oppose the style in nature.  After all, at its core, populism is the mobilization of people who have a serious discontent with the way things are and (usually) blaming the fortunate among us for their circumstances.  To me, that doesn't jive with my brand of conservatism.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Why do we keep pretending every "populist" is the same? Jesus.

As you have (correctly) mentioned many times before (sometimes even "correcting" me, IIRC), populism is a style, not an ideology.  However, many people (TRADITIONALLY, mostly on "the right") very much oppose the style in nature.  After all, at its core, populism is the mobilization of people who have a serious discontent with the way things are and (usually) blaming the fortunate among us for their circumstances.  To me, that doesn't jive with my brand of conservatism.

-You don't have a brand of conservatism, you have a brand of elitism.

[RINO Tom]

Why do we keep pretending every "populist" is the same? Jesus.

As you have (correctly) mentioned many times before (sometimes even "correcting" me, IIRC), populism is a style, not an ideology.  However, many people (TRADITIONALLY, mostly on "the right") very much oppose the style in nature.  After all, at its core, populism is the mobilization of people who have a serious discontent with the way things are and (usually) blaming the fortunate among us for their circumstances.  To me, that doesn't jive with my brand of conservatism.

-You don't have a brand of conservatism, you have a brand of elitism.

LOL, whatever guy.