3 videos

1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvajEwf1xE

2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyfrb15v-Q

3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2PTn7Tfxq8

In the first video it is asserted by anti-long journalists that he was "Pure Evil" and a "Dictator" while the other two seem to hint at the motivations certain members of society might have for portraying him as such. So my question is, was Huey Long a destructive force in American history rightfully prevented from harming the United States? Or perhaps, was he an enlightened and benevolent leader whose vision of the country may have rearrainged the current status quo? Still, rather, was he overblown by supporters and detractors alike in order to serve loftier narratives of capital and wealth management?

Interesting topic. My approach to Long is generally that he's a complicated figure, not someone who fits easily into one ideological label (other than perhaps a generic "populism"). I would therefore have to answer your question with a non-committal "neither." His reputation as a would-be "dictator" I think is a little overblown because he went up against a lot of powerful people. There is very little that makes me roll my eyes more, however, than the simple characterization of Long as a "fascist." I see very little fascist tendency in Long's thought, outside perhaps his questionable attempt to ally with notorious anti-Semite (and fellow "complicated" figure) Father Charles Coughlin, who did have a lot of favorable things to say about fascists. I usually chalk this alliance up much more to their shared opposition to Roosevelt and populist tactics than deep ideological agreement. He lacked (at least publicly) the militarism, ultra-nationalism, and racism that characterized fascism if we are to meaningfully define the term. Nor was Long any kind of conventional socialist, since he didn't advocate collective ownership of the means of production per se--rather, he favored a redistributive welfare state that utilized private production. That places him firmly on the spectrum of modern social democrats.

Long certainly had some controlling tendencies and an egotistical streak that demanded intense loyalty, but the extent to which he might have become a dictator I think is an exaggeration. I think a far more accurate description is that Long was a master of machine politics, but like many "losers" in American history (ie Boss Tweed), he gets painted as a "demagogue," while successful masters or beneficiaries of these systems (most presidents from 1876 - 1930s, Lyndon Johnson in some senses) don't get the same label.

If I had to sum up Long in two words, they'd be "radical populist," but not all of his positions would be considered radical today (old age pensions, free education, public works funded by progressive taxation, etc).

source

Fair or not, I've seen this comparison in a few places. I've also heard Chavez called a "social democrat" at times as well.

Still, I think there is a lesson for the average or common person in the history of Huey Long about not just taking the status quo lying down. Americans have seen a pretty tough exercise of power by certain national and global "powerful" in recent years, and have be told all the while that the system which made our country great was set up for just the type of consolidation of power that's happened. In other words, "Your life sucks. You have no security. No Pension. We trailed out easy and seemingly free cash for you to use, and now you no longer own your family's land and/or home. We've caused the deterioration of the programs and entities meant to keep you from harm. AND, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THIS WAY."

What would a Huey P Long have to say about the country today?

St. Vitus Dance Government:

Transcript and some Audio - http://www.americanrhetoric.com/spee...government.htm

I'm not sure it's a fair comparison, not so much because of their styles, which I think are similar, but because Long never achieved anywhere near the level of power that Chavez has. Furthermore, it's not clear that he would have been able to reshape a well-defined legal system (the US) to his ends the way that Chavez was able to reshape a poorly-defined legal system (Venezuela).

Rhetorically, stylistically, I think it's a mostly apt comparison. I wouldn't go so far as to call Chavez a social democrat (but neither is he an ultra-leftist dictator the way you hear some people talk about him). He's less of an authoritarian than Putin (who isn't usually tarnished with the same labels), though.