Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Populism, as both ideology and social movement, is nearly a universal, albeit sporadic, feature of all modern democratic political systems. Populism is also arguably the only example of an indigenous radical mass movement in America and after the discredited state of socialism, the only continuing source of democratic protest. Yet populism does not enjoy a central place in democratic theory. In fact, many writers contend that when populism arises, it has a destabilizing effect on democratic regimes. Even when others attempt to credit populism, they acknowledge the existence of significant negative features. This essay reviews the contested status of populism and suggests a greater appreciation of its positive contribution to democratic theory can be reached through an analysis of Philip Roth’s “American Trilogy.” Like Roth, students of populism place their assessments in the context of historical narratives. Thus Roth’s fictional recreations of post-war America can be compared to the analyses of “populist moments” in America analyzed by both populist critics and defenders. Unlike most democratic theorists, however, Roth is willing to explore the nature and source of populist anger and related expressions and thus expose its poignant dimensions. By appending Roth’s insights, it is possible to ameliorate populism’s contested status in democratic theory by acknowledging the positive role of emotion, properly understood, in political protest.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The Scopes Evolution Trial of 1925 pitted religious fundamentalism against modern science and drew more attention than any court case of the young century. According to historian George Tindall, the cavalcade of spectators included “publicity-hounds, curiosity-seekers, professional evangelists and professional atheists, a blind mountaineer who proclaimed himself the world’s greatest authority on the Bible, ballyhoo agents for the Florida boom, hot dog and soda pop hucksters, and a miscellany of reporters and publicists.” One such journalist, H. L. Mencken of the Baltimore Sun, described the people in Dayton as “‘yokels,’ ‘morons,’ ‘hillbillies’ and ‘peasants,’” arguing that the display of “‘Baptist and Methodist Barbarism,’” established a cultural and intellectual abyss in the region. Dayton’s new image had a profound impact on the development of American fundamentalist Christianity. Religious historian Karen Armstrong contends that before the Scopes trial, “fundamentalists had been willing to work alongside socialists and liberal Christians.” Whereas after the trial, she continues, “they swung to the far right, where they remained. They felt humiliated by the media attack. It was very nasty. There was a sense of loss of prestige, and, above all, a sense of fear.”

Although the trial itself has been thoroughly documented, scholars have not discussed the psychological implications of this intense media disavowal of Dayton. This paper attempts to examine critically the national and international coverage of the trial and, using psychologist Alfred Adler’s theory of the Inferiority Complex, to analyze the response of local fundamentalist religious groups to this barrage of attention. One particular response to the Inferiority Complex that Adler described is the individual’s rejection of society, a turning inward towards cultural isolation. In a similar vein, historian Edward Larson argues that “as a result of the Scopes trial . . . fundamentalists responded by withdrawing. They did not abandon their faith, however, but set about constructing a separate subculture with independent religious, educational and social institutions.” William Jennings Brian, the leader of the fundamentalist crusade against evolution, died only a few days after the trial, and almost immediately his near-martyrdom set in motion plans to found a college in his honor. Opening its doors in 1930, Bryan College promoted a separatist and defensive stance among its students, and it continues today to lobby for the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design in American schools. The founding of William Jennings Bryan College and its presence in the contemporary fundamentalist movement represents a tangible institutional legacy of the Scopes evolution trial that remains unexamined.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In their day, William Jennings Bryan and Robert M. La Follette spoke for a significant portion of the American people within their respective parties. Their day lasted for three decades (1896-1925). Quite distinct from the elitist, urban, corporate, bureaucratic, and imperial liberalism of Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, the thought and techniques of Bryan and La Follette reflected their base of support—arguably a majority of Americans despite their national election losses. What happened to the liberalism they championed after they left the scene? Where does this ideology fit on the political spectrum today? Neither man has served as a role model for the most powerful politicians in the decades since their deaths, but the type of populist liberalism they embodied is alive and well in 21st-century America. It can be found in surprising places, under a variety of labels. The careers of the two men also suggest unlikely-but-potentially rewarding alliances for Democrats and Republicans of our own day: identification with evangelical Christians in Bryan’s case, and with African Americans in La Follette’s.