One of the many fascinating observations in Charles Postel’s The Populist Vision (Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 164) is the sweet spot that American populists of the late 19th century generally had for emperor Napoléon Bonaparte, the French dictator at the beginning of the century:
In the 1890s, a Napoleon revival spread in the United States, as many Americans hoped for a strong man to deliver the nation from its multiple ills. Reporting on the so-called “Napoleon craze,” Century magazine reported that “the interest in Napoleon has recently had a revival that is phenomenal in its extent and intensity.” Muckraking journalist Ida M. Tarbell and Princeton Professor William Milligan Sloane contributed serialized Napoleon biographies in the Century and McClure’s Magazine. Politicians preened themselves in Napoleon’s image. Harper’s Weekly reported that then Ohio governor William McKinley, known as “the Napoleon of Protection,” also “looks like Napoleon and knows it.” The fascination with the French emperor corresponded to a broad discontent with corrupt and impotent political institutions, as well as strong currents of militarism and nationalism in American public life. The Populists were not immune to these currents. Tom Watson [a politician and writer of the times] and the Populists, however, were drawn less to military valor and patriotic glory than to the example of Napoleon’s administrative systems and energized state power. … In Watson’s treatment, Napoleon towers as “the peerless developer, organizer, [and] administrator,” who had applied the science of government to build a centralized and rational system of law and education, the Bank of France, and a strong state. … The general, Watson noted, was a “master builder” with “modern tone.”
Contrary to today’s populists in America and in other countries, the American populists of the late 19th century believed in science and experts as Enlightenment people did in the previous century. Yet, both kinds of populism–the old one and the new one–are similar in favoring state intervention. In the old American populism, authoritarian experts and science represented rationality, hence the reverence for Napoleon; today’s populists prefer authoritarian politicians and their intuitions.
In its military version, the American infatuation with Napoleon appears to go back at least to the Civil War as illustrated above by the picture of General George B. McClellan in a typical Napoleonic pose. The Library of Congress says that McClellan was popularly known as the “little Napoleon.” General Ulysses S. Grant stroke the same pose. Craig Walenta, a frequent commenter on this blog, brought these pictures and others to my attention.
A Napoleonic infatuation is not surprising. Since the “will of the people” does not exist and is unknowable, populists have to find a dear leader to incarnate it. (See “What Is Populism? The People V. the People,” Econlog, September 11, 2020.)
PS: I owe the Postel book reference to Jeff Hummel who, besides being a scholarly economist, is a walking encyclopedia on American history.
READER COMMENTS
MarkW
Nov 19 2020 at 7:37am
<i>…today’s populists prefer authoritarian politicians and their intuitions.</i>
If you mean Trump and his supporters, this seems a stretch. I mean, they do like Trump and his strong-man bombast, of course, but they’re quite distrusting of state institutions and interventions generally (unlike their opponents). They do like the military but really don’t want it to be used for foreign adventures and nation building — they’re pleased that their authoritarian hero didn’t find any new places to send in the troops and didn’t try to impose national pandemic rules by executive order (the first of which, his predecessors did and the second of which his successor has promised to do). And their distrust of science seems to stem from its obvious politicization. Just this morning I ran across this and one of the interesting things is how much trouble the authors had finding a journal to publish because of the ‘incorrect’ findings from an RCT. Just one of many instances of science and scientists being attacked for political reasons. Unfortunately, the current levels of distrust of Science seems increasingly well earned — I can’t blame populist Trump supporters for that.
Thomas Hutcheson
Nov 19 2020 at 9:14am
[Trump supporters are] “distrusting of state institutions and interventions generally (unlike their opponents?” 🙂
The most important and growth destroying economic policies of the Trump Administration –rounding up immigrants who have not committed felonies, reducing the number of refugees, restricting H1B visas, trade wars, and deficit-increasing tax transfers to high-income folks — are not the natural workings of the market, but very definite state interventions.
David Henderson
Nov 19 2020 at 10:31am
“deficit-increasing tax transfers to high-income folks?”
In other words, cutting taxes for those who pay the most.
And by the way, the taxes of the high-income people were taxed by about the same percent as the taxes of the low-income people.
Vivian Darkbloom
Nov 20 2020 at 10:29am
“And by the way, the taxes of the high-income people were taxed by about the same percent as the taxes of the low-income people.”
I’m pretty sure that this is not what you intended to write. Perhaps, “the taxes of the high-income people were *reduced* by about the same percent as the taxes of the low-income people”?
If that is what you intended to write, it would be generally true depending on who does the analysis. For example, Kotlikoff finds that the middle income taxpayers got the largest rate reduction:
“TCJA’s generally small percentage-point cuts in remaining lifetime net tax rates are largest for the middle class. The cut is 1.7 percentage points for the middle fifth (third quintile) compared with 1.1 for the poorest fifth (bottom quintile) and 0.8 for the richest 1 percent.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2019/07/23/did-the-rich-get-all-of-trumps-tax-cuts/?sh=230ea61df209
MarkW
Nov 19 2020 at 10:50am
The most important and growth destroying economic policies of the Trump Administration –rounding up immigrants who have not committed felonies, reducing the number of refugees, restricting H1B visas, trade wars
I’m with you on the lamentable anti-immigrant and anti-trade policies — I’d be very happy to see them go. But tax policy really has nothing to do with any kind of enthusiasm for state institutions.
Jens
Nov 19 2020 at 8:13am
I just read the linked article https://www.econlib.org/what-is-populism-the-people-v-the-people/. Incidentally, it is very informative, including the author’s comments in the comment section. But i went looking for the work “Liberalism Against Democracy” by William Riker mentioned there, but only found one “Liberalism against Populism”. The comment section there is unfortunately closed.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 19 2020 at 10:08am
Thank you, Jens. I corrected the typo.
Craig
Nov 19 2020 at 10:22am
The link out goes to a pinterest page showing Winfield Scott in his later years. Sometimes Scott is overlooked because of his age but he was the original author of the Union’s Anaconda Plan and is the historical bridge to a different era. Scott’s exploits in the War of 1812 are what ultimately put him into the position he was in at the beginning of the US Civil War.
Indeed it is not surprising that Civil War generals on both sides had a certain reverence for Napoleon, generally, though that was mostly a reverence for Napoleon’s martial prowess. This reverence would actually wind up in Civil War generally initially adopting ill-suited tactics for the Civil War era. Stonewall Jackson once famously said to General Bee at the First Battle of Bull Run, “Then, Sir, we will give them the bayonet!”
This harkens to Napoleonic tactics of smooth bore muskets delivering a volley at a range where a subsequent bayonet charge made sense. In the face of rifled musketry which had a much greater range, that was not the case. Indeed, Robert E. Lee was, initially, derisively known as ‘Spades’ Lee referring to his penchant for having his soldiers actually dig into their positions.
The US Civil War sees the initial battles fought in a Napoleonesque style which would slowly change over the course of the conflict to a point which would foreshadow the industrialized killing of WWI in the trenches of Petersburg, VA. Pictures from the Union siege of Petersburg can easily be mistaken as coming from Verdun.
Thomas Strenge
Nov 21 2020 at 9:30am
Interestingly, the first commenter took issue with the same passage as I do. Trump supporters take issue with the “government rule by experts”. Soviet and East German socialism often relied on those very same justifications! Of course, this expert government often fails because it lacks the knowledge of time and place (and I would add individual’s risk preferences). Hayek wrote an essay on that. Give me a populist with intuition over an expert who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Comments are closed.