Scan barcode
arockinsamsara's review against another edition
3.0
Overall this is a great history of the populist movement, and it emphasizes the actual power in mass-movement based politics that focus on working-class solidarity. So for that history alone it is worth the read.
I don't think he is wrong that, generally speaking, the contemporary DNC has become a party of and for the elite, and that the term "populism" has become an invective that lumps all mass movements, or even the potential for them, into a category defined by the worst of what they can become. But up until his final chapter he doesn't seem willing to admit that the current GOP use the rhetoric of populism, and combine it with the demagoguery that has been the highlight of post 2016 GOP politicking, to win the support of nearly half the voting population. It doesn't matter that the GOP leadership have no intention to actually follow through with the promises their populist rhetoric makes, they still have the support of their voting base using such rhetoric, and therefor referring to their tactics as based in populism isn't necessarily misleading.
In his efforts to show the working-class, anti-elite basis for the development of first the Peoples' Party and then the concept of populist social action in general Frank really doesn't want to acknowledge that mass movements *can* be hoodwinked by charismatic hucksters who embody the elite class they pretend to rally against. I think the work would have benefited from a frank discussion about how mass movements that use the rhetoric of class-solidarity and populism do not always actually serve the will of the people. This wouldn't undermine the power of an actual populist movement that is actually focused on empowering the populace. In fact this would only have served to strengthen his claim about how a ruling elite/academic class has explicitly turned against populism, and how they spit that label as an invective against any movement challenging their power, because it shows that their claims can have a basis in truth, at least in terms of their opponents rhetoric, and not just in their desperate belief in their own meritocratic right to rule.
So, in short, it is a really useful history of the Peoples' Party and the populist movement within 20th and 21st century American politics. The criticisms he levels against those who use anti-populist rhetoric are valid and incredibly useful as a way of investigating why and how those in power work to maintain their power and denigrate their political and social opponents. It fell short in fully exploring the difference between the use of populist rhetoric and actual populist organizing, and the antagonism against each of those. But it is a quick read, never boring or lagging, and offers an important history without feeling either dry or preachy.
I don't think he is wrong that, generally speaking, the contemporary DNC has become a party of and for the elite, and that the term "populism" has become an invective that lumps all mass movements, or even the potential for them, into a category defined by the worst of what they can become. But up until his final chapter he doesn't seem willing to admit that the current GOP use the rhetoric of populism, and combine it with the demagoguery that has been the highlight of post 2016 GOP politicking, to win the support of nearly half the voting population. It doesn't matter that the GOP leadership have no intention to actually follow through with the promises their populist rhetoric makes, they still have the support of their voting base using such rhetoric, and therefor referring to their tactics as based in populism isn't necessarily misleading.
In his efforts to show the working-class, anti-elite basis for the development of first the Peoples' Party and then the concept of populist social action in general Frank really doesn't want to acknowledge that mass movements *can* be hoodwinked by charismatic hucksters who embody the elite class they pretend to rally against. I think the work would have benefited from a frank discussion about how mass movements that use the rhetoric of class-solidarity and populism do not always actually serve the will of the people. This wouldn't undermine the power of an actual populist movement that is actually focused on empowering the populace. In fact this would only have served to strengthen his claim about how a ruling elite/academic class has explicitly turned against populism, and how they spit that label as an invective against any movement challenging their power, because it shows that their claims can have a basis in truth, at least in terms of their opponents rhetoric, and not just in their desperate belief in their own meritocratic right to rule.
So, in short, it is a really useful history of the Peoples' Party and the populist movement within 20th and 21st century American politics. The criticisms he levels against those who use anti-populist rhetoric are valid and incredibly useful as a way of investigating why and how those in power work to maintain their power and denigrate their political and social opponents. It fell short in fully exploring the difference between the use of populist rhetoric and actual populist organizing, and the antagonism against each of those. But it is a quick read, never boring or lagging, and offers an important history without feeling either dry or preachy.
benrogerswpg's review against another edition
2.0
I didn't enjoy this one very much.
Would not recommend.
1.9/5
Would not recommend.
1.9/5
gingerreader99's review against another edition
5.0
You have to enter into this book with an open mind. Or at least shift to one, you have to discard what you think you know of Populism and the hate you may have for it and allow for Frank to show you the reality of Populism. The good and the bad parts of it. How it is the very thing that ushered in the progress created by our most beloved leaders. This book surprised Me and even shocked me at times, but most importantly it changed the way I look at Populism. Frank is obviously not a fan of Trump but yet is an advocate for what Populism is at its core. A movement of people, for the people against an elite that does not care for them. If you do not embrace the position Frank is speaking from however you will get little from this book, if you go into it simply thinking Populism= bad because that's all you've ever been told and do not allow for a different explanation you will finish in the same position you started and will have missed the point entirely.
doctormabuse's review against another edition
4.0
Entertaining tour through a 140 year history of "populism" and the panics that its few surges in power have instigated. The prairie populists of the end of the 19th-century represented a new class-based political movement in the United States that has been largely forgotten. Frank gives an effective and concise overview of their history as a political movement (including their foibles, most notably being investing too much into William Jennings Bryan the man, as well as emphasizing the Free Silver movement as *the* end-all be-all) but more importantly, presents a survey of the absurdly frenzied panic that the movement promoted from those who represented the interests of capital.
Frank offers the term "Democracy Scare" (stemming from "red scares") as a way of understanding the panics that emerged first in the 1890s, then the 1930s, then, 1960s, and finally again in the 2010s. The elites, coalescing around their preferred politicians, organizations, academic posts, magazines, and news outlets, Frank demonstrates, have consistently managed to present an all-encompassing response to the ebbs and flows of populist movements by painting their leaders and ideas as retrograde, insane, idiotic, and doomed to fail. Frank provides an excellent overview of the emergence of anti-populism as an academic movement among professors and researchers of political science, history, and sociology in the 1950s. The ideas and attitudes formed then have since been absorbed into the liberal worldview, centered around a belief in "meritocracy", code for rule by elites over the ignorant masses of peons.
Frank's work is frustrating and hilarious, but ultimately hopeful, offering those sympathetic to the aims of American history's various populist movements some refreshing context, and a welcome reminder of one's own sanity in the face of repeated admonishment from the elite establishment who wishes to suppress the ideas hostile to capital at any cost.
Frank offers the term "Democracy Scare" (stemming from "red scares") as a way of understanding the panics that emerged first in the 1890s, then the 1930s, then, 1960s, and finally again in the 2010s. The elites, coalescing around their preferred politicians, organizations, academic posts, magazines, and news outlets, Frank demonstrates, have consistently managed to present an all-encompassing response to the ebbs and flows of populist movements by painting their leaders and ideas as retrograde, insane, idiotic, and doomed to fail. Frank provides an excellent overview of the emergence of anti-populism as an academic movement among professors and researchers of political science, history, and sociology in the 1950s. The ideas and attitudes formed then have since been absorbed into the liberal worldview, centered around a belief in "meritocracy", code for rule by elites over the ignorant masses of peons.
Frank's work is frustrating and hilarious, but ultimately hopeful, offering those sympathetic to the aims of American history's various populist movements some refreshing context, and a welcome reminder of one's own sanity in the face of repeated admonishment from the elite establishment who wishes to suppress the ideas hostile to capital at any cost.
doowpik's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
4.5
The word populist is used carelessly these days. Every controversial leader is labeled a populist. Thomas Frank’s book is helpful for readers wanting a better understanding of the word.
porlarta's review against another edition
4.0
A fascinating deep dive into the origins of American populism and how that word and movement have evolved and been weaponized over the decades by numerous movements on both the left and right. Much of the book is concerned with history, and it is these earlier sections I felt were somewhat slow and more difficult to get through.
With that said, the book ends incredibly strongly, with the sections on Carter, Trump, and Obama filled with insightful and scathing critique that directly attacks much of the mythology that has been built up around why Trump won in 2016. He makes a convincing argument that the Democratic party has ceded much of the working class to the Republicans by insisting on the moral and ideological superiority of an educated class that has for decades, failed to justify its place at the top of the hierarchy as it leads us in foreign policy quagmires and economic disasters.
It's a good book that left me with much to think about. It put into clean English much of the scattershot doubts that I have had about the democrats and their aversion to actually progressive politics in the last few years.
With that said, the book ends incredibly strongly, with the sections on Carter, Trump, and Obama filled with insightful and scathing critique that directly attacks much of the mythology that has been built up around why Trump won in 2016. He makes a convincing argument that the Democratic party has ceded much of the working class to the Republicans by insisting on the moral and ideological superiority of an educated class that has for decades, failed to justify its place at the top of the hierarchy as it leads us in foreign policy quagmires and economic disasters.
It's a good book that left me with much to think about. It put into clean English much of the scattershot doubts that I have had about the democrats and their aversion to actually progressive politics in the last few years.
kristenleeluna's review against another edition
I found it hard to stay focussed reading this. Perhaps it’s because I’m not from the US and don’t properly understand the context. Just found it a chore.
miguelf's review against another edition
4.0
Thomas Frank has fewer airtime and media appearances these days, something he always seems to mention in those rare appearances he does make. It’s likely because his message doesn’t appeal to either current conservative or popular progressive ideology which is ironic given his message here of populism as a positive influence on society. In this book Frank dwells on both the original US populist wave in the 1890’s and the later one during the depression, both of which ushered in many of the benefits we take for granted today like the 5 day work week and social security. He shows how populism was turned on its head in starting in the 60’s in favor of elite opinion. It’s a very strong and thoughtful argument and fits squarely with a more class based approach to political and social issues as opposed to one drawn on cultural ones. A message that few seem willing to hear.