Talk:People's Party (United States)

message: What were the specific details of the social reform populists advocated? 24.223.200.243 02:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Maybe its just me, but does anybody else understand why there is a link to this page on this page? --Xen Antares 14:02, 10 Aug 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Link to this Page

message: Missing from this description is the collapse of the southern branch into racism and antisemitism. At least some mention should be made.  That's why I edited the 1980s version text. --Cberlet 03:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that just the peculiar POV of Richard Hofstadter that has since been rejected by most historians? Kaibabsquirrel
Cberlet was right in that the South was highly reluctant to join due to racism. The textbook I'm reading (The American Pageant) says that "The South, although a hotbed of agrarian agitation, proved especially unwilling to throw in its lot with the new party. Race was the reason." Nonamer98 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: That's very  gay because bush said it haha... from what Cberlet is saying.  Your textbook is saying that Southerners were reluctant to vote for the People's Party because the Southerners were racist.  The Democrats in the South were able to appeal to many farmers to support the state Democratic Party (despite anti-agrarian view of the dominant Bourbon Democrats) instead of supporting the Populists.  That doesn't mean that the state People's Parties were themselves racist.  In actuality, there was a strong divide-- in several Southern states the Populists performed electoral fusion with the Republicans and even helped elect black members of state legislatures and even Congress.  It's true that racism made these fusion efforts vulnerable to Democrats playing the race card, like in North Carolina's 1898 White Supremacy election, but that doesn't make the Populist parties particularly racist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.193.32.140 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The historian's views have gone in several cycles.  Hofstadter and the "pluralist school" did demonize the Populist Party; and then a series of historians wrote overly-romanticized books. The books by Canovan and Kazin find a more balanced view that see the pluses and minuses.--Cberlet 14:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: In The American Pageant it says "They further called for a graduated income tax...and immigration restrictions..." MK2 is right. Nonamer98 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be clear here, racism was very prevalent in all aspects of American society at this point in U.S. history. The Populists were not inherently more racist or nativist than many other entities, and individuals at this time. We must be careful not to fall into the traps of presentism when analyzing a historical topic. In addition, much of the Populist's nativist sentiments were seeded in land speculation by western European immigrants and real estate tycoons.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of collapse details?

message: The later parties are unrelated to the 19th century party,poo, except in name.  There is no historical continuity, or at any rate there is less than exists between the Socialist Party of America and the Socialist Party, USA or the different parties calling themselves Progressive Party.  I'd like to create new pages for the right-wing party of the 1980's and the currently existing party founded for the 2004 Ralph Nader campaign.
DJ Silverfish 16:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles for the later parties  

message: The 19th C party was known officially as the People's Party.  All the contemporary refernces made by its organizers and publications seem to refer to it as such.  Populist seems to be the name it was given in history. If we make People's Party the primary page, then redirect  Populist Party (United States) to the page with the historically correct name. As for the two subsequent parties, we split them off into Populist Party (United States,  1988) and Populist Party of America (for the 2004 party), including the date of year of founding, or the distinguishing official name with a disambig note at the top of the People's Party entry.  DJ Silverfish 17:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Old statement here that I agree with, I will do it at some point in the near future as I begin work on Populism related articles. This move would improve all of the articles, and eliminate the confusion created by associated completely unassociated groups on one page.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Peoples" vs "Populist" party name 

message: In 1984, the Populist Party name was revived by some extreme right activists including Willis Carto. 
This sentance hardly seems to come from a neutral point of view.  What makes them extreme?  Is it because they disagree with the writer of that sentance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.16.41.245 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carto is an anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier. Far outside the mainstream in any sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.225.245 (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPV--extreme right wing 

message: I don't know if it is just me, but it sounds like this is saying that the Populist Party nominated WJB AFTER he was nominated by the Democrats. He was in fact nominated by the populists first. If it sounds fine to everyone else then by all means, leave it. But would someone consider changing if they think it sounds wrong as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aethen (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populist Party nominated Democratic Candidate WJB 

message: There were governors and Congressmen from Nebraska and other states.  There needs to be a list of state and local elected Gilded Age Populist Party officials, not just the Congress members.Dogru144 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: State legislature members?

message: They need to improve their image because when you have too much land noones going to listen to you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.243.23 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalists have to much land

message: Everybody else gives a later date (usually 1891).  Let's discuss major issues like this before renaming the article. Rjensen (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Founded in 1887????? says who?

message: I am not very familiar with this party but most populist parties are considered right if not far right parties with even similarities to fascism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "populist" mean s anti-elite and the Populists of the 1890s were against the capitalist elites, bankers and railroads. They collaborated with labor unions and wanted to nationalize rfailroads.  Historians of the left celebrate them. see Bruce Palmer, "Man over money": the Southern Populist critique of American capitalism (1980); also Michael Kazin. The Populist Persuasion: An American History (1998)  Rjensen (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this party labeled left wing 

message: The page The Populist Party and Modernity has been proposed for a merger here since May 2009. I agree it should be merged. Any thoughts? --KarlB (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really no significant content over at the other page, and no talk page was ever generated, so I think a simple redirect is in order. Done. WTF? (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Shouldn't Edward Bellamy e mentioned?Kdammers (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellamy 

message: Wondering how the new People's Party that is being established in the USA should be covered in this article. It is being established by an organization called Movement for a People's Party with significantly prominent supporters, as referenced in this Washington Post article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/08/trailer-it-not-2016-third-party-candidates/
I do not have a source that can legitimately be cited on this, but I have heard from Facebook posts that the party recently voted to approve "People's Party" as its official name as well. If and when there are quality citations affirming that fact, should a mention of the 2020s People's Party also be merged into this page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastoralist (talk • contribs) 16:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New incarnation of People's Party (2020)