Would the Jews have been persecuted if Huey Long was elected in 1936?
- Thread starter WildBoulder
- Start date
When you get down to it Long wasn't fundamentally different from other machine politicians in the way he maintained power. It was the extent of control and power that set him apart from the pack - and what made him the perfect image for the idea of an "American fascism".
Long was a lot of things but a fascist was not one of them. He was quiet isolationist in his foreign policy, and what few views he *did* have on issues like that, they were sort of anti-imperialist.
Jews are not an issue for Long. I can't find much on his opinions on other groups outside African Americans, but I can't find him saying anything being explicitly anti-immigrant or anti-semitic. Maybe others can but so far I can't, or at least I can't remember one, which, knowing my memory, is possible.
Long was a lot of things but a fascist was not one of them. He was quiet isolationist in his foreign policy, and what few views he *did* have on issues like that, they were sort of anti-imperialist.
Jews are not an issue for Long. I can't find much on his opinions on other groups outside African Americans, but I can't find him saying anything being explicitly anti-immigrant or anti-semitic. Maybe others can but so far I can't, or at least I can't remember one, which, knowing my memory, is possible.
The most pertinent quote I found indicated that he disapproved of institutionalized antisemitism, if anything.
That one is...questionable, since a lot of anti-semites think Jews run the world. In such a worldview, if followed logically, "putting its heel down on Jews" would therefore be the single stupidest thing a country could do. Course most anti-semites don't care since as with all such people the enemy must be overwhelmingly strong, allowing any and all action against them, and also weak so they can be oppressed.
The more relevant quote is: "Don't compare with that so-and-so. Anybody that lets his public policies be mixed up with religious prejudice is a plain God-damned fool."
Given Long's extreme anti-corporate appeal, I really don't see Henry Ford joining him.
Is there any indication that he thought Jews ran the world? If not, it seems reasonable to take his statement at face value.
Long was absolutely not an anti-Semite. Period.
"Although often denounced as a fascist, Long was not anti-Semitic, nor any more anti-Communist than most politicians at the time. When asked about common comparisons between him and Adolf Hitler, Long replied "Don't compare with that so-and-so. Anybody that lets his public policies be mixed up with religious prejudice is a plain God-damned fool." and later commented "I don't know much about Hitler. Except that last thing, about the Jews. There has never been a country that put its heel down on the Jews that ever lived afterwards."[16] Several of Long's political and personal friends were Jews, such as Abraham Shushan and Seymour Weiss. Additionally, Long's hostile attitude to corporations was not compatible with fascism. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. noted that "Long's political fantasies had no tensions, no conflicts, except of the most banal kind, no heroism or sacrifice, no compelling myths of class or race or nation."[17]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Huey_Long
(Yes, Gerald L. K. Smith, a Long supporter, made a name for himself as an anti-Semite, but that was after Long's death.)
More generally, the whole idea of Long as a "fascist" is IMO misguided. It may be useful here to quote the judgment of James Weinstein: "Of all the 1930s radical politicians, Louisiana Governor Huey Pierce Long Jr. was by far the most successful. A charismatic figure, he is often mistakenly remembered as the first American dictator or the first great native fascist. As his biographer T. Harry Williams wrote, Long was in fact a uniquely democratic politician who had nothing in common with the dictators except their popularity. As a consistent champion of working people and an implacable enemy of the corporate monopolies and Eastern banks, he commanded one of the largest mass followings in the country. " https://books.google.com/books?id=pYHeUBZzCDYC&pg=PT105
@David T is a great poster. Intelligent, well written and sources his comments. low key carrying this forum.
I think it should be noted that two of the first three Jewish US Senators were from Louisiana, including the first practicing Jew. (The other two were nominal Christian converts who never attended church.)
I’m not saying he did, just that that soet of statement shouldn’t be taken on its own as being non-anti-semitic.
Personally I could see it being a reference to the concept of the Jews being God's chosen people, athough, as yo usaid, it could *easily* be taken as a "Jews run the world" type of propaganda, which is what I did when I originally saw it.
True. But Coughlin and Lindbergh would. Maybe Long even makes his own party but with a socially conservative wing led by Coughlin and Lindbergh and a social liberal wing that might pick up Farmer-Labor type movements up north.
He called the leader of the KKK the same thing, and said he wasn't using profanity but was stating the circumstances of the KKK leader's birth.
I think if anything he would see Jewish people as a powerful ally. His share our wealth program, was based on the Levitical concept of a debt jubilee, and Anglo-Israelite ideas of government support A minimum income of $5000 a year $75000 in today's money. I'm sure prominent leaders, would be coopted. Just as African americans, although not integrated were treated better than in other southern states.
I search a lot about 1920s-50s clothing and aesthetics in general, and it is quite sad to know that the most common pic in threads and posts about Boater hats comes from a man who was lynchedThat I should've gotten more sleep when I wrote that.
Long was authoritarian and he used violence to further his goals but he was populist and not strictly ideological, more pragmatic. So he's more akin to postwar Latin American dictators, than the European equivalents during the interwar and, war.
I feel that FDR was a caudillo-lite in his way, as the country was undergoing immense crises at the time and he exercised and expanded great amounts of executive power for a president. I picked Vargas because idk, he seems less militaristic than Perón I guess and he also died while in office. Maybe there's a better analogous leader.
Long was authoritarian and he used violence to further his goals but he was populist and not strictly ideological, more pragmatic. So he's more akin to postwar Latin American dictators, than the European equivalents during the interwar and, war.
I feel that FDR was a caudillo-lite in his way, as the country was undergoing immense crises at the time and he exercised and expanded great amounts of executive power for a president. I picked Vargas because idk, he seems less militaristic than Perón I guess and he also died while in office. Maybe there's a better analogous leader.