So affordable! READ MORE...

  During early Dark Age Britain, the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons were chronically at war with each other. This warfare started around 430 and continued over the centuries that followed. Already by the first half of the 7th century, the Anglo-Saxons had clearly gained supremacy over the island, controlling the majority of what is now England.   Warfare between the two groups did not stop there, however. Yet, despite this centuries-long conflict, the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons were not permanent enemies. Something that has pervaded the study of this period is the idea that all the Anglo-Saxons were united against all the Britons. The reality, as is so often the case, is more complicated than that.   Was Cerdic of Wessex a Brythonic Ally of the Anglo-Saxons? Depiction of Cerdic of Wessex, from Theatre, by John Speed, 1611. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Firstly, let us clarify an issue that often comes up in the context of this subject. One of the most prominent leaders of the Anglo-Saxons in the 6th century is Cerdic of Wessex. He is famous for being the founder of Wessex, one of the most important kingdoms of England. A variety of English documents speak of him, including chronicles and genealogies. It has been widely recognized that his name is Brythonic, a later form of the same name used by the famous Caratacus who fought against the Romans in the 1st century CE. Some of Cerdic’s near descendants also seemingly had Brythonic names. On this basis, many researchers have claimed that he was actually a Brythonic leader fighting on the side of the Anglo-Saxons.   While this possibility cannot be completely discounted, it is not supported by any evidence beyond these names. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does not describe him as spreading out from British territory that he already held. The Anglo-Saxon genealogical records also provide him with a Germanic ancestry, and most of his descendants have Germanic names. In all likelihood, Cerdic had a Brythonic name due to his mother or grandmother, who could easily have been captives, being Brythonic.   The Alliance at Catraeth The Book of Aneirin, containing the poem Y Goddodin. Source: The National Library of Wales   A famous and important poem from this period is the Y Goddodin, usually thought to have been composed and set around the year 600. This text describes a disastrous military expedition by a Brythonic army against Catraeth, a location near the border of England and Scotland. It is usually identified with Catterick in North Yorkshire. According to the traditional translation and interpretation of this poem, this was a straightforward battle between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons.   The Britons were principally the Gododdin, a tribe descended from the Votadini of the Roman era. It appears that they lived approximately in the region between Edinburgh and Hadrian’s Wall. There are also some references to supporting troops of Britons from elsewhere. The opposing side in this war is generally held to have been made up of the Angles from the kingdoms of Bernicia and Deira.   Map of Dark Age Britain showing Rheged, Urien’s kingdom. Source: Wikimedia Commons   However, this is not the only interpretation. Some recent scholarship, principally argued by John T Koch, suggests that this was actually a war between Britons and other Britons, fought along with Anglian allies. In large part, this argument is based on identifying the conflict described in Y Goddodin with a battle described in a different poem, Gweith Gwen Ystrat.   This latter poem concerns the activities of Urien Rheged, a king active in Yorkshire who is normally considered to have been dead by the time the events of Y Goddodin occurred. Koch interprets this latter poem about Urien to be the victor’s version of the same event described in Y Goddodin. On this basis, by comparing the two poems, Koch concludes that Urien was allied with the Angles of the kingdom of Deira. With them, Urien fought against the Goddodin.   Despite the weight of John T Koch’s authority, many other scholars have criticized this interpretation. The supposed evidence that both poems are referring to the same event is not particularly strong, in the opinions of some other scholars.   A Religious Alliance Stained glass depiction of King Edwin of Northumbria, East Riding of Yorkshire, photo by Dave Webster. Source: Flickr   However, there is one piece of evidence that Koch uses in support of his argument concerning Y Goddodin which stands on its own merit. This is a fact recorded in the Historia Brittonum, a British record written in Latin regarding this era. Notice the following claim:   “The following Easter, Edwin himself received baptism, and twelve thousand of his subjects with him. If any one wishes to know who baptized them, it was Rum map Urbgen.”   The Edwin mentioned here is the historical figure often called King Edwin of Northumbria. He was actually the king of Deira and Bernicia. The “Rum map Urbgen” mentioned at the end is Rhun the son of Urien Rheged. Thus, according to this record, the son of Urien was the person who baptized King Edwin and his subjects. This was not the case of an isolated religious figure from British territory going over to enemy territory. Rhun was a royal prince, the son of powerful King Urien. Although this does not necessarily mean that there was any kind of military alliance between the two kingdoms, nonetheless, it does indicate a notable degree of cooperation in at least some areas.   The Major Alliance of the 7th Century Map of the Brythonic and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, c. 600, by Mike Christie. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The most significant alliance between these two ethnic groups (as well as the best documented one), occurred between the 630s and the 650s. During this tumultuous period, Northumbria was growing in power. It was the amalgamation of the kingdoms of Bernicia and Deira. The kings of this kingdom were attempting to expand their power so much that they even posed a threat to other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Mercia was another powerful kingdom, but Penda, its king, was so concerned by the Northumbrian threat that he agreed to an alliance with the Britons.   This was a massive alliance that was so notable that it was mentioned in a variety of different historical records from this era. The Historia Brittonum, for example, mentions “the kings of the Britons who went out with Penda” on a military expedition. It appears that Penda was the most powerful king in this alliance. According to another statement in the Historia Brittonum, this alliance was with “the kings of the Britons,” meaning that a variety of Brythonic kingdoms were involved.   Book of Llandaff, 12th century, Llandaff, Wales. Source: The National Library of Wales   At least one other Anglo-Saxon kingdom was involved in this alliance. This was the kingdom of Deira, under the rulership of Athelwald, the nephew of Oswiu of Northumbria. After Penda, he seems to have been the most powerful Anglo-Saxon king of this grand alliance. This alliance and Athelwald in particular, appear in the Book of Llandaff, a 12th-century record of land grants to the church.   Before one particular entry, the text explains that the border regions of Wales were attacked by the Saxons, particularly in the southeast. It then explains that after peace was established again, and land was restored to its rightful owners, “an alliance of the Britons formed in those parts.” This would appear to be the alliance of “the kings of the Britons” implied by the Historia Brittonum when they went out with Penda.   This account is set in the time of “Telpaldus and Ithailus, kings of Britain.” The latter is Ithael son of Morgan, a mid-7th century king of Glamorgan and Gwent. The former, Telpaldus, appears to be a garbled form of “Athelwald,” the most prominent Anglo-Saxon king after Penda. Likely, Penda was not mentioned here in this church record because he was a pagan king.   Stained glass depiction of the death of Penda of Mercia, Worcester Cathedral, England, photo by violetriga. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This momentous alliance also appears in medieval Welsh poetry. One example is a poem written in honor of Cynddylan son of Cyndrwyn, a prince of the Welsh kingdom of Powys. It may well date from the 7th century. This poem refers to Cynddylan heading out into battle with 700 warriors “when the son of Pyd desired.” The son of Pyd is certainly Penda, whose father Pybba is called “Pyd” in Welsh texts.   There is very little evidence regarding the other kings of the Britons involved in this alliance. The Historia Brittonum refers to the kings of the Britons going out with Penda and dying in battle with him. Penda died in 656, yet the only king of the Britons whom we know was an ally of Penda and may have died then is Cynddylan. He could have died in that year, but there is no confirmation of this. In any case, the Historia Brittonum uses the plural, so there must have been others about whom there is no surviving record. It is also a virtual certainty that King Ithel, son of Morgan of Glamorgan and Gwent, was also involved in this alliance, going by the account in the Book of Llandaff. Yet, he too, did not die until much later.   The Alliances of the Britons With the Anglo-Saxons Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, folio 37r, 17th-century copy. Source: The British Library, London   In summary, we can see that there are very few recorded alliances between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, but they did sometimes happen. One possible early example is Cerdic of Wessex, who is speculated by many to have been a Brythonic leader working for the Anglo-Saxons. In reality, there is little evidence in support of this.   A more convincing proposition is that the kingdom of Rheged was allied in some way with the Anglian kingdom of Deira. While John T Koch’s interpretation of Y Gododdin as referring to an alliance of Urien with Deira has been criticized, there is other evidence for this connection. The fact that Rhun, the son of Urien, is reported to have baptized the king of Deira and his subjects may well be significant.   By far the most famous, significant, and well-documented alliance between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons in the early Dark Ages occurred in the 630s to the 650s. This alliance was headed by Penda, the powerful king of Mercia. It also involved Athelwald of Deira, apparently the Telpaldus of the Book of Llandaff, as well as the kings of Gwynedd, Powys, and Glamorgan, along with others.

  One of the greatest tragedies to impact biological and cultural life in the Amazon rainforest occurred at the end of the 19th century and lasted until the end of World War II. “Rubber fever” is the name given this period of intensive rubber extraction and exportation to the United States and various European countries. During this period, indigenous communities were used as a cheap workforce and subjected to slavery and torture. Some affected communities remain today, including the Uitoto, Nonuya, Muinane, Andoke, Bora and Miraña people.   The History of the “Rubber Fever” in the Amazon Rainforest Photograph from the “Album de viaje de la comisión consular al Putumayo y afluentes” (Travel album from the consular commission to Putumayo and its tributaries) after denunciations of the harsh treatment of the natives of the region. Centro Cultural de España. Source: Radio Nacional de Colombia.   The 19th century saw the rapid invention of machines and transportation systems in Europe and the US that created a rising demand for natural resources, which were exploited in different parts of the world. The excessive demand for rubber incentivized the exploration and establishment of extraction companies in areas where the rubber tree thrived.   Charles Goodyear’s development of the vulcanization process and John Boyd’s invention of an empty chamber inside rubber tires introduced a new period where rubber was intensively used to produce early cars as well as mechanisms for different machines. Rubber’s excellent elasticity led it to become an essential material for manufacturing objects that European and American families were more dependent on day by day. This increased the value of rubber worldwide and attracted the attention of local and foreign merchants looking for a promising business.   The exploitation of rubber in the Amazon rainforest occurred between 1879 and 1945 in two separate periods: the first between 1879 and 1912 (known as the “rubber fever”) and the second shorter one during the last three years of World War II, between 1942 and 1945. Rubber was transported on rivers and exported to Europe from two main ports: Iquitos in Peru and Manaos in Brazil.   Map of the routes for rubber transportation and exportation. Source: BBC.   The precious white liquid could be extracted from different tree species, including the Hevea Brasiliensis, Castilla Ulei, and Sepium Verum in the Amazon rainforest. Commercial development in the forest required a workforce that could easily adapt to the hostilities of the forest and so relied on the local indigenous communities that inhabited the territory when the rubber merchants started to arrive. Locals were forced to submit to horrific conditions of slavery and exploitation. The techniques used to inflict pain were violent and resulted in the deaths of thousands. Some scholars even call this period the “rubber holocaust.”   In the Amazon rainforest, the rubber tree has been known by indigenous communities for centuries as “Cahuchu” or “Cauchu,” meaning the “crying tree.” The tree first began to be exploited around 1789 when the demand for rubber in England, France, and the US increased rapidly. However, it was not until the end of the 19th century, with Henry Ford’s founding of the Ford Motor Company in 1903, that rubber tree exploitation skyrocketed. In 1928, Ford tried to establish a rubber district in the Brazilian Amazon, called “Fordlândia.” The government granted his company 10,000 square kilometers of land, which was expected to be inhabited by more than 10,000 people, to maintain the rubber business.   Before rubber, the Amazon rainforest was the site of commercial extraction of cinchona, a therapeutic plant used to treat malaria. After the cinchona business died out, the first rubber houses were built in the forest around 1885. The commercial networks and workforce exploitation techniques that first began during the period of cinchona exploitation allowed for the rapid establishment of the new rubber business. Rubber extraction facilitated fast colonization of the Amazon rainforest by merchants attracted by private exploitation of empty fields and improved river transportation networks.   How Did the Rubber Extraction System Work? Photo of latex extraction technique, 2005. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   The rubber houses established specific quotas of rubber amounts to be extracted daily and transported to bigger collecting houses. This required large groups of rubber tappers, up to 100 workers, to walk extensively in search of the trees scattered around a challenging landscape.   Rubber is still extracted using the techniques developed during this period. Multiple cuts are made on the tree’s trunk to allow the latex to ooze out, traveling through different channels that spiral down until reaching small collecting pots attached to the tree trunk. Due to the slow speed of the latex, the collection process lasted for several days and required great attention and care.   Photo of enslaved boys carrying loads of rubber weighing 165 lbs, which were transported over 60 miles, taken by Roger Casement, 1910. Source: National Library of Ireland   Indigenous peoples were forced to work over the course of their entire lives through a system of debt. Rubber tappers could trade for different goods by collecting and offering specific amounts of rubber to the overseer. However, most of the time, the amounts of rubber that had to be paid were immense, as the rubber merchants used to inflate the prices, and some people were not able to pay off debt during their lifetimes, so they would agree to transfer the debt to their children after death.   The Peruvian Amazon Company and Julio César Arana Map of the territory exploited under Julio César Arana’s rubber production enterprise. Source: BBC   Julio César Arana was a Peruvian businessman and politician who became one of the biggest rubber producers in the Colombian-Peruvian Amazon rainforest. His business, located on the banks of the Igará Paraná River, began in 1886 and was named the Peruvian Amazon Company in 1907.   Arana’s business was financed by England, which provided Arana with workers from Barbados. His power became so great that he managed to control an entire region around the Putumayo River between Colombia and Peru, with the support of the Peruvian army. Arana displaced smaller owners who were settled in the area and restricted free access to Colombian boats. As a result, years later, a dispute between the two countries over land ownership exploded between 1932 and 1933, when the Colombian army tried to reclaim the areas taken over by Arana.   Sir Roger Casement Denounces the Rubber Atrocities Photo of Roger Casement. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The first person to denounce the atrocities committed by Arana was an American railway engineer named Walter Hardenburg, who traveled to the region in 1907 and published a book called The Putumayo, the Devil’s Paradise in 1912. His complaints were heard in England, and, the same year, the English government sent an Irish diplomat named Sir Roger Casement to investigate what was happening. Casement had already denounced the horrendous treatment of Congolese people under the rubber exploitation carried out by Belgian King Leopold II.   “Mutilaciones” (Mutilations), cartoon published by the Peruvian newspaper “La Felpa,” Jordan Goodman. Source: Gómez López, A. Putumayo: la vorágine de las caucherías: Memoria y testimonio, Primera Parte, 2014   After meeting Arana at his house, Casement returned to London, where he denounced the brutalities committed against the indigenous people of the Putumayo River as a “work system based in terror.” Casement published his diaries under the name The Putumayo Black Book. However, Arana was never convicted of his crimes, and paradoxically, he continued his career as a successful politician in Peru.   The Decline of the “Rubber Holocaust” Photo of the Arana House today. Source: Semana   The rubber market in the Amazon rainforest started to decline by 1912 due to growing rubber tree plantations in Africa and Malaysia created by English settlers with seeds stolen from the Amazon. These places offered excellent quality rubber with lower costs because of more efficient infrastructure and the smaller distances the material had to travel to its commercial destinations.   However, World War II created another short period in which the rubber market in the Amazon was reactivated. Japan had occupied a number of zones where rubber was produced, restricting the Allied Powers’ access to the material. Once the war ended, the rubber market died, and the extraction houses were finally abandoned.   Today, the region is a national park where different local communities have been granted the right to rule over the land as part of their traditional territory. The Arana House is now a school that benefits kids from the communities.   The Legacy of “Rubber Fever” in Indigenous Communities Cover of José Eustacio Rivera’s book “La Vorágine” (1924). Editorial A.B.C. Source: Medellín Public Library System   By 1912, more than 40,000 people had been killed due to the atrocities of the “rubber fever.” The lack of interest from the Colombian government in these Amazonian areas and the refusal to recognize indigenous communities’ sovereignty over the land facilitated the horrors committed against the locals. Today, many people still remember the stories told by their parents about these times. The violence committed was so significant that many opt to remain silent, as the pain and cultural consequences of Arana’s cruelty are still present.   One of the most critical accounts of this history was authored by Colombian writer José Eustacio River in his book La Vorágine (The Vortex) in 1924. The story narrates a couple’s escape to the plains of Colombia’s Casanare region and their later arrival in the forest. Through this tale, Rivera created a work of fiction intended to denounce the crimes committed against the indigenous communities.   The “rubber fever” is another of the thousands of stories about the disastrous consequences of the exploitative relationships Northern countries have established with places rich in the world’s natural resources. Unfortunately, history continues to repeat itself today in different parts of the Amazon, where deforestation caused by soybean plantations and extensive cow farming are reducing biodiversity and displacing indigenous communities.

  When we say “power of the people,” what does that mean? The US’s founders struggled with this question and created various checks and balances in the US Constitution to prevent the rise of tyranny through a majority faction. Over time, fear of the potentially radical whims of the common man cooled, and more political power was given to the voters. At various times, waves of populism have surged through American politics, both among progressives and conservatives.   So, what is populism? Who have been famous populist leaders in American history? How has populism affected our society as a whole? From the early days of the republic to the presidency of Donald Trump, here’s a look at populism in the United States.   Setting the Stage: No Taxation Without Representation An image of an American colonist reading a poster announcing the infamous Stamp Act shortly before the American Revolutionary War. Source: American Battlefield Trust   Populism, or a political focus on the well-being and desires of the common man, began in America during the colonial era. After the French and Indian War, the British increased taxes on the colonies to help pay back the funds spent on the conflict. Without any elected representatives in Britain’s Parliament, many colonists were upset at being taxed without representation. Thus, the famous rallying cry “no taxation without representation” was born. During the 1760s, political feuding between the colonists and Britain escalated, resulting in a series of increased taxes. Eventually, war broke out, and America won its independence through force of arms.   After winning its independence, the new United States of America was so opposed to taxation that its original governing document, the Articles of Confederation, provided no realistic means of revenue to fund a central government. Unfortunately, it was quickly determined that the thirteen states would not fund the central government voluntarily, resulting in a virtually nonexistent central government and no executive authority. Following Shays’ Rebellion in 1786, which had been sparked by populist rage against taxes and creditors, many leaders realized that the Articles needed to be amended to fix the revenue problem. This prompted the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia.   Setting the Stage: Direct Democracy vs. Republicanism A drawing of Federal Hall in New York City, which housed America’s first Congress in 1789. Source: University of Oxford   Quickly, it was realized that the Articles of Confederation needed to be replaced entirely. In secrecy, the convention delegates drafted a new Constitution, which required many intense debates. One such debate dealt with the degree of democracy that could be afforded the common people. This involved creating a new Congress—should states receive equal representation, as had occurred under the Articles, or should they be given representation according to their population? Many delegates wanted to avoid representation based on state population, which would give more direct democracy to the people. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, for example, felt that common people were naïve and should have little to do with government.   To prevent the common voters from allegedly overwhelming the new Congress with radicals, an upper chamber was created that provided each state with two senators. Thus, the Senate was the more elite chamber created for the states, while the House of Representatives was given to the people. The new president would be chosen not directly by voters but by electors selected by the states. How electors would be selected was left up to each state, with some choosing to award them based on some degree of popular voting. The end result of the Constitutional Convention was a reduced degree of populism in the republic, as the common man could only affect one-third of the new central government directly.   The Early 1800s: Property Requirements for Voting A map detailing property [ownership] requirements to be granted suffrage (the right to vote) as of 1830. Source: Boston Public Library Who could vote in the new republic was left up to the states themselves. Many states, siding with Roger Sherman’s distrust of the common man, created property requirements for suffrage. In likely violation of the First Amendment, passed in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, some states also required voting white men to be Christian. The Industrial Revolution quickly weakened these requirements, as wealth was no longer based primarily on land ownership. Additionally, more citizens were moving to cities to work in factories. By the 1810s, states were beginning to do away with property requirements to vote, though many maintained a requirement that voters be taxpayers.   The increasing number of eligible voters increased the popularity of populism as a political theory. Many new voters were relatively poor and viewed the wealthy elites with suspicion. An economic panic (fast-moving recession) in 1819 drastically increased the number of urban poor in the United States. Similar to Shays’ Rebellion in 1786, the soaring bankruptcy rates and threat of debtors’ prisons prompted waves of populist protests. Many new voters angrily blamed banks for their financial woes and felt that the government was spending too much money on the interests of the wealthy.   1820s-1830s: Jacksonian Democracy The County Election by John W. Sartain, 1851. Source: US State Department   War of 1812 hero Andrew Jackson emerged to rise this wave of populism in the 1820s. As a Southerner and military veteran, Jackson was seen as an authentic man of the people as opposed to the wealthy businessmen of the Northeast. He ran in the presidential election of 1824 and won the most popular votes and electoral votes, but the election was given to John Quincy Adams when the House of Representatives chose from among the top three electoral vote winners. Jackson and his supporters were enraged by what seemed like an elitist plot, and the candidate planned his comeback. Four years later, Jackson won the presidency by a tremendous margin.   During Jackson’s tenure, states rapidly reduced the property requirements for suffrage for white men. Almost all states had also changed their laws to apportion presidential electors by popular vote. As a populist, Jackson benefited greatly from this expansion of popular democracy and easily won re-election in 1832. He portrayed himself as a man of the people and took a rather hostile demeanor toward Congress, often trying to negate its agenda. Supporters liked Jackson’s populist rhetoric and aggression, while critics likened him to an arrogant king. He encouraged blatant partisanship and did not shy away from the use of intimidation, which was common in politics of the era due to the lack of a secret ballot.   1890s: The Populist Party An 1891 political cartoon criticizing the new Populist Party, also known as the People’s Party. Source: PBS Learning Media   Populist fervor was reduced after the American Civil War when more power went to industries like the railroads, steel manufacturing, and banking. The Gilded Age from the late 1860s to the 1890s saw political power re-concentrate in the hands of the elites. However, the early 1890s saw several changes that led to the Progressive Era and a renewed interest in populism. In the West, farmers struggled greatly during the Gilded Age due to falling crop prices that led to farm failures. While farmers had often struggled, by the late 1880s and early 1890s, they were joined by a new struggling group: factory workers. Farmers and urban labor combined to create a new Populist Party, also known as the People’s Party.   For a third party, the Populist Party enjoyed unprecedented success in the election of 1892 by seeking economic reforms to aid the poor and middle classes. In 1896, Democratic presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan adopted many populist proposals. Thus, the Populists largely merged with the Democratic Party over time, giving the once-agrarian Democratic Party a pro-labor union platform as well. Although the Populist Party collapsed after 1896, its proposals lived on among both reform-minded Democrats and Republicans. During the Progressive Era, which lasted from the mid-1890s to 1920, many reforms, especially the 16th, 17th, and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution, were very populist in nature.   The Great Depression: Aiding the Poor Directly US Senator Huey Long (D-LA), who thought President Franklin D. Roosevelt did too little to aid the poor during the Great Depression. Source: Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities   World War I greatly increased central government power, and the following era of the Roaring Twenties saw a post-war economic boom that re-concentrated political power among the elites once more. However, the sudden emergence of the Great Depression after the stock market crash of 1929 resulted in another wave of populism. For the first few years of the Depression, Republican US President Herbert Hoover focused more on giving economic aid to corporations rather than the unemployed and homeless. By 1932, unemployment had soared as high as 25 percent, and the public clamored for direct aid to the people.   Democratic presidential nominee Franklin D. Roosevelt won the election of 1932 in a historic landslide and quickly delivered on his promise to provide a New Deal for the public. In his first 100 days in office, Roosevelt pushed through many pro-populist economic reforms. Famously, FDR’s New Deal included massive job programs to employ struggling citizens directly and build new infrastructure simultaneously. A few politicians wanted to go even further, with noted populist Huey Long, a Democratic US Senator from Louisiana, wanting to cap wealth and income through his “Share The Wealth” initiative to divert more money to the poor. Sadly, Long was assassinated in September 1935 before he could challenge FDR in the 1936 Democratic presidential primaries.   1960s: Reforms to Empower the Disenfranchised A photograph of former US Attorney General and 1968 Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, widely seen as a populist. Source: The Century Foundation   Thirty years after FDR’s New Deal provided direct federal aid to the poor for the first time in US history, a new aid initiative for the poor was begun by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and “Great Society” initiatives of the mid-1960s were intended to provide lasting relief for the poor, disenfranchised, and elderly. The simultaneous Civil Rights Movement and anti-war movement protesting the Vietnam War and the draft combined with Johnson’s anti-poverty initiatives to create a new wave of populism. Many Americans protested what they believed to be unfair conditions created by the elites, corporations, and, somewhat ironically, Johnson’s own administration.   The 1960s, however, saw populist rhetoric used by both major parties to criticize supporters of the other. In the 1968 presidential election, Republicans argued that radical liberals were trying to tear down the foundations of a calm and peaceful America. Both Republican candidate Richard Nixon and independent candidate George Wallace appealed to moderates by calling for “law and order” in America. They argued that radicals in both the anti-war movement and the Civil Rights Movement were threatening the peace and prosperity of ordinary Americans. This began a trend of both major parties claiming to represent what was wanted by the middle class and enshrining “middle class values” as a political touchstone.   2008-2011: Great Recession & Populism A photograph of a protest that was part of the Occupy Wall Street movement in October 2011. Source: University of Pennsylvania   After a long trend of relative economic prosperity from the mid-1980s through the early 2000s, punctuated only by brief recessions in 1991 and 2001, financial disaster struck again with the Great Recession. Quickly, liberals promoted populist fervor by criticizing Republican deregulation policies under Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., and George W. Bush as setting the stage for the steep recession.   Both George W. Bush and his Democratic successor, Barack Obama, received populist criticism for bailing out corporations during the Great Recession (2008-2010). Many were upset that banks and automakers were bailed out while thousands of everyday citizens lost their homes due to mortgage defaults.   An image of a crowd carrying banners and a person using a bullhorn to represent populist fervor. Source: Institute for New Economic Thinking.   As in the 1960s, both parties argued that their proposals best benefited the common man. Democrats sought to renew banking and stock market regulations, arguing that Republican deregulation led to “bubbles” of unstable growth that later collapsed, triggering the recession. Republicans countered that it was Democrats’ high taxes and regulations that were preventing companies from hiring and investing, keeping the nation mired in recession. Liberal movements like Occupy Wall Street contrasted with conservative movements like the rise of Tea Party Republicans, with both using populist rhetoric to attract supporters. Both criticized elites and growing income inequality, though they had far different proposals for how to fix the situation.   2016 Election: Trumpism vs. Democratic Socialism Supporters of Republican US President Donald Trump protest the certification of the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democratic rival Joe Biden. Source: Council on Foreign Relations   The 2016 presidential election season saw a significant increase in the populism trend that had begun with the Great Recession, with both liberals and conservatives wary of the increase in income inequality. Liberal populists rallied around US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders, who even called himself a democratic socialist, campaigned on the most comprehensive economic reforms since those of Lyndon B. Johnson, pushing for single-payer health care and tuition-free higher education. Although Sanders did not win the Democratic nomination, he was an unexpectedly close runner-up to the strongest non-incumbent candidate in the modern era, Hillary Clinton.   Conservative populists rallied around political newcomer Donald Trump, the New York real estate mogul and former reality TV host. Like Sanders, Trump was originally considered a long-shot candidate but quickly appealed to voters through unabashed populism. Trump argued that he, as a political outsider, was running to help the common man and could get voters the best deals using his business experience. In a major upset, Trump and his brand of aggressive populism—often known as Trumpism—bested a large field of traditional Republicans, including governors and senators, to win the presidential nomination. That November, Trump defeated Clinton in the greatest general election upset since 1948.   Present Day: Inflationary Fears & Populism A graphic criticizing Democratic US President Joe Biden over soaring inflation, created by Republicans in the US House of Representatives. Source: House Ways and Means Committee   Populism has not faded since the 2016 election. In 2020, Bernie Sanders mounted another attempt at the Democratic presidential nomination and even won the popular vote in the first three primaries before losing momentum to eventual nominee Joe Biden, the former vice president. Despite strong economic growth under President Trump between 2017 and 2019, knocked down by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, continued record-high income inequality kept many liberals espousing populist rhetoric against elites, corporations, and conservatives. The COVID pandemic caused a brief but intense recession, resulting in billions in direct aid spent by both the Trump administration in 2020 and the new Biden administration in 2021.   In 2021 and 2022, after the COVID recovery, inflation reached near-record highs in the United States. This prompted both liberals and conservatives to protest for economic reform to aid the poor and middle classes. Liberals wanted government reforms to limit price increases by corporations, while conservatives wanted tax cuts and reduced government spending to give citizens more financial cushion. As in 1968 and 2016, both wings of the political spectrum blamed the other for hurting the “common man” through misguided economic and social policies. Among Republicans and conservatives in 2024, populist rhetoric remains very prominent as the US heads into presidential election season again.

Miranda Lambert's intimate concert in Austin showcased her deep bond with fans. Continue reading…

The baby bust is here. The reality is clear: Americans are having fewer kids. In 2023, America had 2% fewer births than in 2022, hitting a record low, according to newly released finalized data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While Americans haven’t had enough kids to keep population levels stable for decades, there has been a steep decline in recent years: The number of 2023 births was 17% lower than the number of births in 2007. Yet at the recent Democratic National Convention, Planned Parenthood provided free vasectomies and abortion pills. An 18-foot inflatable IUD, a type of birth control device, was placed on display near the convention by Americans for Contraception. In her speech, Oprah Winfrey negatively highlighted GOP vice presidential candidate JD Vance’s 2021 quip about “childless cat ladies.” (Vance, a Republican senator from Ohio, has said the remark was sarcastic and about political leaders, not individuals struggling with fertility.) Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., told the New York delegation, per the Washington Examiner, “The cat ladies of America are united, OK?” USA Today reported, “What’s the hot merch at the DNC? ’Cat lady’ T-shirts and ’my black job’ buttons,” a reference to a remark Donald Trump made to black journalists about “black jobs.” America’s Future Is Filled With Seniors, Not Children So much for caring about the future of the country, which looks bleaker if births don’t increase. A shrinking population doesn’t bode well for any nation. A smaller tax base will affect government spending and benefits or lead to increased taxes, and fewer workers will create economic challenges. “Low U.S. fertility combined with an aging population have the potential to generate significant headwinds to economic growth,” admitted the Biden administration in a brief this March. Yet a shrinking population is what we’re on track for. By 2029, there will be more seniors, adults 65 or older, than children in the United States, according to a November estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau. By 2038, the U.S. is expected to have more deaths than births. Furthermore, the data suggests that it’s conservatives, not liberals, who are having more children, making the Democrat convention’s focus even more concerning. “The 17 states with the highest general fertility rates are all designated by Cook Political Report as Republican, or GOP-leaning, including such Republican strongholds as North Dakota, Nebraska, Louisiana, Utah, and Texas,” writes Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, in City Journal. “By contrast, the bottom six states—and nine of the 10 states with the lowest fertility rates—are all either Democratic or Democratic-leaning.” Republicans also seem to prefer larger families. A 2023 Gallup Poll found that 50% of Republicans, compared to 40% of Democrats, wanted three or more children. So maybe it’s time for less “childless cat ladies” rah-rah rhetoric from the Left and more pondering about how we can increase the birthrate. To put my cards on the table: I’m a 36-year-old woman who has no children (and while I don’t have a cat, I do own an absurd mini poodle). One of my brothers is a Catholic priest, and another one is studying to be one, and given the Catholic Church’s position on priestly celibacy, neither of them will have children. I don’t think my life or their lives are less valuable because we are childless. I don’t think Mother Teresa made the wrong call by not having biological children, and I certainly don’t think Jesus Christ was a failure for not having kids. But a nuance that seems to be increasingly lost in our childish political squabbles is that you can see that all people, regardless of parenthood status, have inherent value and dignity and that, at the same time, it would be better for our society if we had more children. Why Americans Aren’t Having Children Not everyone can or should have children. But more Americans should reconsider their reasons for not having children. In July, Pew Research Center released an extensive survey of childless Americans. When it came to younger Americans, those 18-49, only 13% citied infertility or other medical matters as a major reason they didn’t have children.  The top major reason, identified by 57% of respondents, was “they just don’t want to.” Other reasons cited as major (respondents were allowed to pick multiple major reasons) were wanting to focus on job or other interests (44%), concerns about the state of the world (38%), concerns about affording a child (36%), concerns about the environment and climate change (26%), and not finding the right partner (24%). Some of these we as a society can help address, from pushing corporations to be more family-friendly to promoting sensible economic policies that make housing and food more affordable. If the corporate media would start allowing a more honest conversation about the environment and climate change, Americans would realize it’s possible to both protect our world and welcome more children, instead of succumbing in despair to the Malthusian mindset. But as shown by the 57% saying “they just don’t want to” have children, this is also a cultural and spiritual crisis. Missing the Magic Children Bring When did we lose the sense of the joy children bring? Sure, as anyone who is a parent or who has observed a parent knows, parenting is incredibly hard work. It involves insane levels of patience, wisdom, and, well, grit. But what happened to talking about the good stuff of parenting? Recently, on Reddit, which generally is a place where the dialogue skews toward recognizing the downsides of having children, there was a thread in a forum for women aged 30 and older from a user asking people to make the case for why she should have kids. Another user responded by talking about how her mindset had shifted after she had become an aunt, after her brother and sister-in-law had an unplanned pregnancy. The user, “heylookoverthere_,” wrote that she thought during the pregnancy the couple was being “weird and irresponsible” and worried about the baby being “annoying and an inconvenience.” “But then he came along, and my worries just … didn’t feel relevant anymore. He wasn’t just an abstract idea of a baby. He was an actual baby. He was a real human being with a head full of hair and little fingers and toes that were just learning to grab things,” she wrote, adding: He slept with his mouth open in my arms for two hours while I worked at my laptop with one hand, letting them just take their first shower and have a nap, and I just looked at him and thought, how incredible is this? An adorable baby who is so loved, a brand new human. A year ago, he didn’t exist and now, he’s sleeping in my arms, and it’s going numb, and I’m working incredibly slowly but I wouldn’t have put him down for anything. How lucky are we to have him? And every day and every week since then, I’ve watched him change. I was the first person he learned to smile at. I watched him grow out of clothes that were once too big for him within like 2 weeks. I watched him go from a blob to opening his eyes and recognizing people. I watched him at baby swim classes and how excited he was when he figured out how to splash his hands in the water. I watched him start to stand, I watched him hear music for the first time and start bouncing where he was sitting. I watched him start to discover things. I watched him develop a personality. He’s brave and daring like his mum, and strong and curious like his dad. He has the best chuckle. The happiest belly laugh. He finds everything so funny, so entertaining. I want to make him laugh all the time. And they love him so much. Both our families love him so much. There is so much more love than I anticipated could be possible. My brother says he never thought he was capable of love like this, never thought it was possible to love something so much. I would move mountains for this child. I would upend my life if he needed me. It’s brought both sides of parents closer together, both families closer. It’s changed my own relationship with my partner, and we’re not even his parents. That’s when it started to feel magical to me. … And yeah, they’re tired all the time, but for the first time, I can see why it’s worth it. These are the kinds of “magical” stories we need to hear more about. In my own life, my reason for not having children has been not finding the right man (until I met my wonderful fiancé). Yet I also, looking at the struggles, sometimes felt ambivalence. However, in recent years, between acquiring nieces and dear friends having babies, I’ve spent more time with kids in any time since my own childhood. I’ve found myself joyful just because my niece stood up in her crib and breathed “Hi” when she saw me, just because my friend’s toddler said my name, just because another friend’s daughter shared her first birthday cupcake with me. In an interview with Megyn Kelly last month, Tucker Carlson spoke about the Vance comment, which Vance made during an interview with Carlson when he was still on Fox News. “I’m pretty sure I egged him on to say something like that … I think I’m responsible for that,” Carlson said about the remark. But he went on to discuss the heart of the matter: how our culture is missing out because we aren’t having children. “I feel sorry for childless people, whether they have cats or not,” Carlson added. “And I mean it as someone who has four children who are the root of my happiness. I really feel compassion. And the whole point, well, the intended point—I may have distorted it in getting cable newsy and being nasty to people—but the whole point is, we should be encouraging people to experience the things that make them the happiest. “And I think any parent will tell you, as hard as it is having kids, that is one of the main sources of happiness for people from the beginning of time. And if we’re discouraging that or making it impossible for people to have kids, that’s on us.” Carlson’s right. Sure, we might be losing out on economic prosperity because of our child-avoidant culture, but even more so, we might be losing out on one of our best chances at a happy, fulfilling life. The post Left’s ‘Childless Cat Ladies’ Focus Overlooks America’s Need for More Kids appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Jazz-funk, solo hits and near-bankruptcy – this is the turbulent story of Ian Gillan’s post-Deep Purple career