Quote:
Originally Posted by longmissedblind
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).