Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, & the Great Depression

By Alan Brinkley

The study of two great demagogues in American history--Huey P. Long, a first-term United States Senator from the red-clay, piney-woods country of nothern Louisiana; and Charles E. Coughlin, a Catholic priest from an industrial suburb near Detroit. Award-winning historian Alan Brinkely describes their modest origins and their parallel rise together in the early years of the Great Depression to become the two most successful leaders of national political dissidence of their era. 

*Winner of the American Book Award for History*

• Language: English
• Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
• Release date: Aug 10, 2011
• ISBN: 9780307803221

Reviews for Voices of Protest

[stevesmits · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This 25-year old book that recounts the political scene over 85 years ago resonates to our political sensibilities even today. Professor Brinkley analyzes the populist dissident movements of the 1930's led by Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin. (Although he distinguishes the differences between the populism of the 1890's and Long's and Coughlin's campaigns, the grass-roots populist reactions to the prevailing power institutions of the former time are conceptually akin to what happened in the 1930's and the early 21st century in American politics.)The onset of the Depression sent shock waves throughout the country's political and social milieu. Long and Coughlin inspired mass protests against the purported causes of economic calamity and put forth solutions that they held would right things. Although their depictions of the causes of economic distress and their solutions were different they shared a common belief that the excesses of the capitalist system were, in a sense, the work of corporate and financial "villians". These elite classes created a system that resulted in gross inequities in the distribution of wealth among the people. Both Long and Coughlin were charismatic figures extraordinarily adept at capturing widespread public support for their ideas. Both men were flamboyant and masterful at shaping public opinion through the use of publicity, especially the new phenomena of radio. Both were considered by their critics to be demagogues whose solutions were deeply flawed and unworkable. Long's approach was to redistribute personal wealth in excess of 1 million dollars to the rest of the nation so as to provide enough for a comfortable living for everyone. Coughlin pushed for reforms of the banking system by re-monetizing silver to back currency and eliminate private banks. While their solutions had a tinge of Socialism, both men were decidedly anti-Communist; indeed, they held that the excesses of capitalism presented the danger of pushing public sentiment toward Communism. Both men had a love-hate relationship with the new Roosevelt administration, trying at first to ingratiate themselves to gain influence over policy and later turning against Roosevelt when their overtures were rebuffed. The nation's political leaders considered Long and Coughlin politically dangerous opponents whose influence over millions of people could sway the outcome of political campaigns. The threat of third-party intervention in congressional and presidential elections was a major concern to the political establishment. This did not materialize because of two factors. While Long and Coughlin were quite able to stimulate episodic public outcry on issues neither had truly effective national political organizations. Long's "Share the Wealth Clubs" and Coughlin's "National Union for Social Justice" affiliates were undisciplined and ineffective as true political parties. Moreover, when, in the 1936 election, their adherents had to choose between Roosevelt and the maverick third-party candidates they stayed loyal to Roosevelt.Both movements faded quickly after 1936. Huey Long was assassinated in 1935 and without his personal charisma his successors could not sustain his hold on the public. Coughlin was chastened by the overwhelming rejection by the voters of his candidate in 1936 and dropped out of view. He did re-emerge a short time later, but he adopted an anti-Semitic message that brought him to general disrepute.It is interesting to consider the similarities between the appeal of these two figures and the successes of the Trump phenomena in 2016. There is the attack on the political establishment; in Trump's case against the Republicans, but also generally on the Washington political classes. There is the employment of demagoguery to attack opponents and to put forth simplistic solutions that were claimed to readily fix complex problems. There is the use of new media technology to communicate directly to people without needing to rely on existing institutional channels of communication. Perhaps most significant is the strategy of tapping into the angst of the middle class who have lost, or perceive they are about to lose, the economic and social status they have held.

[heather67 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I didn't read this exhaustively - I was more interested in Huey Long than Father Coughlin (who was a more bitter, anti-semitic figure, and flirted with fascism in a way that Long did not). I think I understand better now the nature of US dissent - that it is conservative, not radical, and that it tends to focus on the 'little man' - decentralisation and independence, not bigger government. This is something hard to comprehend for those with more immediate experience of radical European history. I am not sure I entirely buy the notion that centralisation of industrial capitalism just 'happens' historically without agency, and it is futile to resist it. But I may well be proved wrong.