Stolen Thunder? Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth," Political Mediation, and the Second New Deal

Abstract

In 1934 Huey Long created "Share Our Wealth," a national challenger that sought economic redistribution. Our study explores the outcomes of this insurgency and the reasons for its successes and failures. We first review perspectives on success for social protest movements and provide a new definition of success, based on securing collective goods for a beneficiary group through movement organization efforts. Next we elaborate a "political mediation" theory of movement success. This theory holds that to be successful a movement organization must do more than just mobilize supporters and engage in collective action-political conditions must also be favorable to winning new advantages. We then examine historical information about national policymaking in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and quantitative data on spending by the Works Progress Administration. To assess the influence of Share Our Wealth, we analyze a secret poll undertaken by the Roosevelt Administration. The historical and quantitative analyses indicate that Share Our Wealth achieved partial success in ways that support the political mediation theory. 1935, the New Deal of President In April 1935, the Democratic National Com-I n Franklin D. Roosevelt was at a crossroads. mittee conducted a secret poll, and, to the The programs of his "first 100 days" in 1933 Committee's chairman, James Farley (1938), had failed to end the Great Depression, and the results suggested that Long might hold criticism was mounting. From the left, Sena-the balance of power in the 1936 Presidential tor Huey P. Long of Louisiana promoted a contest. The summer of 1935 saw the beginplan to "Share Our Wealth"; by February he ning of Roosevelt's "second hundred days." claimed that 7.7 million had joined more than In June, Roosevelt demanded the passage of 27,000 Share Our Wealth societies or clubs. four liberal bills and added a "soak;the-rich" tax proposal to his "must" list of indispens-* Direct all correspondence to Edwin Amenta, able legislation. Could Long have upset

The Stages of the Policy Process and the Equal Rights Amendment, 1972–1982

“…682-83). 9 However, the political mediation model suggests that social movement mobilization has positive effects on policy change when mediated by an advantageous POS-in particular, when the movement has allies in influential positions (Amenta et al 1992;Amenta et al 1994;Amenta and Young 1999;Cress and Snow 2000;Schneiberg 2002). In this model, elite allies are important because they may facilitate movements through sponsorship of legislation or because they may signal that repression of the movement is less likely or simply because sympathetic elites may provide the requisite number of votes needed to pass desired legislation.…”

“…Some scholars also add that these factors interact and combine in specific ways to produce policy change (Amenta, Carruthers, and Zylan 1992;Amenta, Dunleavy, and Bernstein 1994;Costain and Majstorovic 1994;Banaszak 1996;Giugni and Passy 1998;Cress and Snow 2000;Schneiberg 2002;Soule and Olzak 2004;Soule 2004;Giugni 2004). And others have recently noted the importance of examining social movements on both sides of a policy debate to assess the countervailing effects of movements and countermovements on policy outcomes (Meyer and Staggenborg 1996;McCammon et al 2001;Andrews 2001;Soule and Olzak 2004;Soule 2004).…”

The consequences of social movements: taking stock and looking forward

“…With this new wave, attention shifted from an interest in the impact of movement-controlled variables to the role of the context, especially the political-institutional context. In this vein, a number of studies have shown that the political impact of social movements is conditional and contingent on political opportunity structures (e.g., institutional allies, state structures, political regimes) and public opinion (Agnone 2007;Amenta 2005Amenta , 2006Amenta et al 1992Amenta et al , 1994Cress and Snow 2000;Huberts 1989;Kane 2003;Olzak and Soule 2009;Schumaker 1978;Soule and Olzak 2004;Uba 2009). In addition, some have shown that the impact of social movements varies across different stages of policy making, being more effective at the stages of agenda setting and less influential at the stages of adoption and implementation of policies (King et al 2005;Soule and King 2006).…”

Business responses to environmental and social protection policies: toward a framework for analysis

“…First, the country context limits or amplifies the level of influence and participation that different groups can exert on government decisions by constraining the payoffs of political involvement, and defining legitimate collective action strategies (Amenta et al 1994; Bartley and Schneiberg 2002;Friedland and Alford 1991). Second, besides its constraining effect, country contextual characteristics also exert a constitutive effect on individuals and organizations, contributing to giving meaning that molds the interests and identities of the actors involved in the policy process (Bartley and Schneiberg 2002;Clemens and Cook 1999;Hall and Taylor 1996;Meyer et al 1997).…”