Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Favorable or Unfavorable #544: Huey P Long


vcczar

Favorable or Unfavorable #544: Huey P Long  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Did you read my first comment?

  2. 2. Favorable or Unfavorable #544: Huey P Long



Recommended Posts

Huey P Long (LA-D) is also known as the Kingfish for his statement, "Every Man a King" as a kind of slogan that he continued to use during his Share the Wealth movement, which wanted a more radical New Deal. He virtually controlled Louisiana from 1928 until his assassination in 1935. He also influenced some of the surrounding states.

Long was considered an entertaining and brilliant speaker, but he was certainly authoritarian and power-hungry. He was allegedly gearing up to challenge FDR in 1936 before that was stopped short by assassination in 1935. The plan was that even if didn't beat FDR in 1936 as an independent (if he didn't win the primary), he'd likely help a Republican win (Alf Landon), and then he'd get the Democratic nomination in 1940.

His brother, wife, and son also served as politicians.

I'll post a Huey P Long speech in the thread.

His actions:

Long, Huey P 1928 becomes Gov of LA, initiating several state programs that predate similar New Deal programs
Long, Huey P 1929 Gov of LA impeached for abuses of power, but he is not removed
Long, Huey P 1932 populist Dem backs FDR at Dem convention
Long, Huey P 1932 ties up lameduck session with a filibuster
Long, Huey P 1933 Breaks w/ FDR, believing the New Deal is not radical enough
Long, Huey P 1933 Filibusters amendment to the National Industrial Recovery Act
Long, Huey P 1933 opposes early version of Glass-Steagell, forcing alterations
Long, Huey P 1933 attacks leaders of the Senate
Long, Huey P 1934 peddles his Share Our Wealth program
Long, Huey P 1935 spurs investigation of Farley's Post Office Dept
Long, Huey P 1935 opposes U.S. membership in World Court
Long, Huey P 1935 an influence behind Wealth Tax Act
Long, Huey P 1935 fear of HP Long spurs farm tenancy legislation
Long, Huey P 1935 potential rival to FDR for pres in 1936
Long, Huey P 1935 fights for prevailing wage in relief bill
Long, Huey P 1935 Assassination at age 42; only potential threat to FDR's reelection
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like a lot of his ideas, but he was the wrong person to lead them. He's sort of like a liberal version of Trump if Trump were also intelligent, an orator, and a skilled politician. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internet has really made any association with him quite toxic. (HOI4 Kaiserreich for one example). He'd be unfavorable anyways for me, but he's especially unfavorable with all of the Huey Long cultists roaming about. 😛 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't take too too much to push him into unfavorable for me.  There's a lot of "well we'll never know how that would have played out, because he died", which in this case saves him, when usually it hurts my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

It wouldn't take too too much to push him into unfavorable for me.  There's a lot of "well we'll never know how that would have played out, because he died", which in this case saves him, when usually it hurts my vote.

I oppose just about any "Strong Man" type leader, and he was certainly in that genre. That's different than "strong leader,' which is the class I'd put Lincoln and FDR in. I think at times FDR was tempted by "Strong Man" politics, such as with the court packing scheme, but he was otherwise abiding by the rules, such as allowing Wallace to be replaced by Truman, which is something he didn't want to do, and something he could have prevented if he wanted to. Huey P Long was closer to a one-man show mentality, similar to Trump. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I oppose just about any "Strong Man" type leader, and he was certainly in that genre. That's different than "strong leader,' which is the class I'd put Lincoln and FDR in. I think at times FDR was tempted by "Strong Man" politics, such as with the court packing scheme, but he was otherwise abiding by the rules, such as allowing Wallace to be replaced by Truman, which is something he didn't want to do, and something he could have prevented if he wanted to. Huey P Long was closer to a one-man show mentality, similar to Trump. 

Perhaps so, but for me it falls under the 'we'll never find out' because he died.  I mean, we can make a reasonable inference, sure, but it's a projection, not reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I oppose just about any "Strong Man" type leader, and he was certainly in that genre. That's different than "strong leader,' which is the class I'd put Lincoln and FDR in. I think at times FDR was tempted by "Strong Man" politics, such as with the court packing scheme, but he was otherwise abiding by the rules, such as allowing Wallace to be replaced by Truman, which is something he didn't want to do, and something he could have prevented if he wanted to. Huey P Long was closer to a one-man show mentality, similar to Trump. 

I like the way you put this. Strong leaders don’t need to be a “strong man.” JFK and Reagan are two I’d add with Lincoln and FDR.

Though some might argue Lincoln or FDR were outright tyrants, but I don’t really take those arguments too seriously.

No doubt in my mind Huey Long would’ve been a tyrant, Louisiana was full of crooks in those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pringles said:

Though some might argue Lincoln or FDR were outright tyrants, but I don’t really take those arguments too seriously.

The tyrant arguments for Lincoln and FDR don't make any sense to me. Lincoln was dealing with a Civil War. His lenient Reconstruction plan and early appeals to accept slavery where it currently existed showed that he was trying to muscle in a personal agenda. He just wanted to keep the Union together. 

FDR was dealing with the Great Depression and WWII. I think a stronger argument of him as a tyrant can be made -- court packing and breaking the two-term precedence. However, he backed down on the court packing, backed down on his VP preference in 1944, and there was no rule to bar someone from running for a 3rd and 4th term. Popular opinion was for him running again quite overwhelmingly. FDR's agenda was more coalition based even though he tried to get liberals to replace conservatives where practical. 

In contrast, Trump's is certainly an individual based power. You're either MAGA or a traitor. He firmly believes the "I alone can fix it" mentality. He expects absolutely loyalty and purity to his goals. You have to go back to James Buchanan for a comparison. Look at his war against Douglas Democrats and any interparty critic. Buchanan was limited by the size and expectations of the presidency during his day, so there are differences. Both are failed presidents, in part, because they attacked their own party equally or more to attacking the opponents. Both men were vengeful to the point of losing focus. Some might argue that Jefferson or Jackson were vengeful wannabe strong men, but both Jefferson and Jackson welcomes the coalition. However, Jefferson was vengeful to select rivals and their allies. Jackson seems like a warlord but he'd do things he didn't agree with if an ally gave him a good, logical reason. He'd complain, but he was a leader who was a team player. Jefferson pretended like he was a team player, but sometimes was not. Buchanan was not a team player. Trump is not a team player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about Lincoln is that the courts and later acts walked it back, because it was a bad move.  Everyone knows it was a bad move, they just basically swept it under the rug because they knew it was a bad look instead of doubling down, which to be fair is refreshing in and of itself.  As is topical with the other threads we're involved in right now, I'm big on methods, and even in an emergency, methods matter, and that was not the correct method.  Unlike the people that usually harp on about it, I don't really hold it against Lincoln because of the above, the fact that it was successfully walked back instead of doubled down.  It does, however, put a really sour taste in my mouth about all the rhetoric about Lincoln being "the best President ever", because "the best President ever" wouldn't have done that.  That's why I contend FDR was the best ever, because I find no fault with FDR.

Since I'm already writing a long post, this is the exact same reason I'm still mad about Adams the first, because of the Alien and Sedition Acts being such horrible legislation, whereas I would otherwise probably very much like Adams and the Federalists of the time period.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

I'm still mad about Adams the first, because of the Alien and Sedition Acts

To his credit, he rarely enforced the acts, upsetting many Federalists.

  • Based 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

FDR was dealing with the Great Depression and WWII. I think a stronger argument of him as a tyrant can be made -- court packing and breaking the two-term precedence. However, he backed down on the court packing, backed down on his VP preference in 1944, and there was no rule to bar someone from running for a 3rd and 4th term. Popular opinion was for him running again quite overwhelmingly. FDR's agenda was more coalition based even though he tried to get liberals to replace conservatives where practical. 

There’s basically 4 things that keep FDR out of the top 10 for me. The two you just mentioned, Japanese Internment Camps, and his later domestic initiatives in his final 2 terms. He’s still a good president to me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OrangeP47 said:

That's why I contend FDR was the best ever, because I find no fault with FDR.

I just saw this but how can you fault Lincoln for what was aforementioned, but not FDR for probably the most obvious wrongdoing of his presidency: Japanese Internment Camps? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

There’s basically 4 things that keep FDR out of the top 10 for me. The two you just mentioned, Japanese Internment Camps, and his later domestic initiatives in his final 2 terms. He’s still a good president to me though.

TBH yeah, I suppose Japanese Internment is FDR's Habeus Corpus, in this casual comparison I overlooked that for the moment but that is of course a bad mark against him.  I still rate FDR higher as he built more up than Lincoln long term, but one could argue he had more time to do so.  Now obviously, saving the Union is an impressive accomplishment, and as a one for one comparison beats out any of FDR's individual accomplishments, but FDR has filing cabinets full of accomplishments and Lincoln has a narrow band.  I fear we're (or really, I'm 😛 ) getting off topic though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pringles said:

I just saw this but how can you fault Lincoln for what was aforementioned, but not FDR for probably the most obvious wrongdoing of his presidency: Japanese Internment Camps? 

Hey, I have an idea.  Post 30 seconds slower 😉

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...