Why is Huey Long seen as evil?

Because he did a lot of evil things. He did a lot of good things too. The corrupt criminal who fought for the common people. The demagogue who was the most liberal politician in the deep South on race. The authoritarian who broadened suffrage. Probably the closest to any of the left-wing populist Latin American authoritarians like Chavez to appear in America. It's a good thing he didn't come to power in America. Did he do some bad things in Louisiana? Yes. Was he better than the equally corrupt and authoritarian, and more racist right-wing opposition? I'd say so. Like most really fun alternate presidents, it's better that he's only president in AH.
 
So, from what I gather, he's the American Hugo Chavez? A populist that did some good things but is very authoritarian and dictatorial?
 
Because uber-populist demagogues make sensible people nervous. Just look at the Donald.
Sure, but in terms of policy, there are a lot fewer actual benefits to what Trump offers. That both figures are "populist" doesn't mean a ton.

Long is up there with Tito and Castro on my benevolent dictators list tbh. And as with them, he was stuck in a lot of circumstances where he could play dirty or lose. There's a lot he did that can't be justified, but he was a product of a generally corrupt and authoritative political system that was nigh impossible for a decent man to navigate. Like, moreso than American politics outside Louisiana. It's a credit to his ingenuity that he was able to build an interfaith coalition and break the machine politics of his day, if only to replace them with his own machine. But given his work in challenging corporate interests and materially improving the standard of living in his state, it isn't entirely fair to characterize it as a "Meet the new boss, same as the old" scenario.

He probably gets a worse rep around here than he deserves, and I don't think him becoming president would have been a disastrous thing. His lack of accomplishment in the Senate suggests he would have struggled to be particularly influential in national politics, let alone as authoritative as he was in Louisiana. There, he had the advantage of working in a de facto one party state, and once he was able to assert control over the Democratic Party he was in almost complete control politically. Even if he could become a figure of similar stature in the Democratic Party nationally, able to replace Democratic officials disloyal to him with relative ease, he'd have a lot of trouble handling political opposition, especially in a period when the two-party system wasn't as firmly set as it is now.

So, from what I gather, he's the American Hugo Chavez? A populist that did some good things but is very authoritarian and dictatorial?
The comparison to Chavez probably overstates Chavez's authoritarian streak tbh. According to international observers, elections in Venezuela were something Chavez's government ran fairly cleanly. I doubt they'd have the same assessment of Long-era Louisiana, with all the voter intimidation and ballot box stuffing and similar sliminess going on.
 
So, from what I gather, he's the American Hugo Chavez? A populist that did some good things but is very authoritarian and dictatorial?

That probably undersells Long's authoritarianism and his competence at the same time, really.
 
Top