Michael J. Lansing
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780226283500
- eISBN:
- 9780226283647
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226283647.003.0005
- Subject:
- History, Political History
NPL leaders admitted to a tight hold on the organization. They suggested that their objective—“to obtain democracy”—nonetheless made the League democratic. The strength of their opponents cemented ...
More
NPL leaders admitted to a tight hold on the organization. They suggested that their objective—“to obtain democracy”—nonetheless made the League democratic. The strength of their opponents cemented this belief even as many farmers developed a new confidence in their own clout. Tensions between the two visions—one insistent on tight control from above, the other equally insistent on expanding farmer participation in the organization’s decision-making—broke the NPL wide open. Furthermore, farmers’ emerging commitment to citizen-centered democracy belied the emerging perception that popular politics threatened the nation’s stability. Meantime, NPL leaders devised and promoted commercial enterprises without consulting the membership. Established political parties responded to the NPL by attacking the open and direct primary. Adversaries engaged in vicious smear campaigns. Fissures in the unified farmers front began to show. Failure in the 1920 election season made this fragmentation apparent. Even though the NPL did not disappear in the wake of these electoral losses, it never fully recovered.Less
NPL leaders admitted to a tight hold on the organization. They suggested that their objective—“to obtain democracy”—nonetheless made the League democratic. The strength of their opponents cemented this belief even as many farmers developed a new confidence in their own clout. Tensions between the two visions—one insistent on tight control from above, the other equally insistent on expanding farmer participation in the organization’s decision-making—broke the NPL wide open. Furthermore, farmers’ emerging commitment to citizen-centered democracy belied the emerging perception that popular politics threatened the nation’s stability. Meantime, NPL leaders devised and promoted commercial enterprises without consulting the membership. Established political parties responded to the NPL by attacking the open and direct primary. Adversaries engaged in vicious smear campaigns. Fissures in the unified farmers front began to show. Failure in the 1920 election season made this fragmentation apparent. Even though the NPL did not disappear in the wake of these electoral losses, it never fully recovered.
Michael J. Lansing
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- May 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780226283500
- eISBN:
- 9780226283647
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226283647.003.0002
- Subject:
- History, Political History
In North Dakota, previous farmer movements created agrarian cohesion in the face of economic inequity and tin-eared politicians. In other places, however, transcending ethnic, religious, and ...
More
In North Dakota, previous farmer movements created agrarian cohesion in the face of economic inequity and tin-eared politicians. In other places, however, transcending ethnic, religious, and political differences in a wide range of contexts depended on organizing instead of mobilizing. In 1916 and 1917, as the NPL expanded into Minnesota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wisconsin—and as Canadian agrarians adapted the model for Saskatchewan and Alberta—it confronted this tension. Automobiles, credit, and newspapers helped the League address it. North of the border, Canadians in similar circumstances adopted the League model, drew from Social Gospel predilections, and engaged women more fully than their American counterparts.Less
In North Dakota, previous farmer movements created agrarian cohesion in the face of economic inequity and tin-eared politicians. In other places, however, transcending ethnic, religious, and political differences in a wide range of contexts depended on organizing instead of mobilizing. In 1916 and 1917, as the NPL expanded into Minnesota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wisconsin—and as Canadian agrarians adapted the model for Saskatchewan and Alberta—it confronted this tension. Automobiles, credit, and newspapers helped the League address it. North of the border, Canadians in similar circumstances adopted the League model, drew from Social Gospel predilections, and engaged women more fully than their American counterparts.
