LAD/Blog #24: Populist (People's) Party Platform

1. In the preamble the Populist Party outlines its stance against the rampant corruption in politics of the time. They address the state of the union by saying that it is on the verge of demoralization, with the people's free speech being silenced and the means of production in the hands of a select few. They feel that the people are being abused by these oligarchs and that the government is simply a puppet for them, seeing as all the politicians are backed by their donations. They end the preamble with the bold claim that given the power they would fix all the problems the working class faced. (side-note: Mao said very similar things)

2. In their platform they further clarify their views on how wealth should be distributed. They say that they think wealth should remain in the hands of those who have earned it. However, they don't believe that market forces can accurately depict a persons contribution to society. and rather they feel that market forces over-allocate wealth to those who exploit the workers. They feel that the wealth should remain in the hands of the working man, who rightfully earned it. Furthermore, they stated that the government should re-evaluate its role in the market. They stated that the government should control transportation, such as railroads, seeing as their construction and operation often times yields abuse of workers and consumers because there is generally only one or two railroad companies, making price fixing common.

3. In the conclusion they re-affirm their stance against corruption, as well as asking for more reforms in the workplace. On corruption, they ask for fair vote counting and uncorrupt electoral vote, which is a fair thing to ask in a democracy. They also ask that the two-term precedent be set to law, seeing as many recent presidents had considered running for a third term and they feared that one man would hold power for too long due to the corrupt voting system. Regarding workplace reform, they asked for a standard 8-hour workday, and for safer conditions in factories. \

Populist Party:
Image result for populist party symbol

GOP (claiming to support the average american):

Comments

LAD/Blog #35: Home was a Horse Stall

Executive order 9066 was essentially a racist program that excluded Japanese Americans from everyday life in America due to the actions of their former nation. They were banned from the west coast and forced into internment camps where they essentially lived under oppressive, racist marshal law. This was especially painful for first generation immigrants as they had a personal connection with both nations. Many of them did not want to see their two home nations fighting, and held some allegiance to both, but most were more prone to defending the United States.This was also hard on Japanese children, as they were ripped away from their friends, lives, and schools and taken to internment camps. One example of this is Sox, and her difficult upbringing during this time. She is taken away from her home and placed in a new one. That home is a horse stall. This stall was in a small, crowded internment camp which Sox was forced to grow up in. Her experience illustrates how poorly the Japanese ...

LAD #37: FDR’s Executive Order 9066

On February 19th, 1942, FDR proposed executive order 9066, the order that gave the Secretary of War the ability to create designated areas for specific people to stay during wartime that could pose a threat to the US military. In WWII these areas became known as internment camps, and the people put in them were Japanese-American citizens. This allowed for the rampant mistreatment of these people with cramped living conditions and improper education. While FDR did say these areas were to be provided adequate food, shelter, and transportation, the word "adequate" is very subjective, and allowed for very poor conditions. One example of this is the story "Home was a Horse Stall", where a young girl, Sox, and her family were forced to live in a horse stall and had very little rights and no access to programs many citizens would such as a good education. I, personally, think this is a horribly executed order. While it was FDR's intention to avoid the influence of spie...

LAD #39: Brown V. Board of Education

This case marks the beginning of the civil rights movements of the late 1950s to even present day. In Brown v. Board the supreme court unanimously ruled that schools can no longer be racially segregated. This contradicted the previous ruling of 1896, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, that stated all publicly funded buildings could be separate but equal. This previous case had been deemed ineffective because all to often these separated facilities were not equal, with facilities that were dedicated to African Americans being significantly lower quality. This case was brought up originally because of Linda Brown, a girl barred from an all white school, and only given access to black schools which did not provide an equal education. Her defendants cited the 14th amendment, stressing that the State could not deny any person the equal right to protection of the laws, specifically the equal treatment under those laws which Linda Brown was not receiving. The Kansas District Court acknowledge...

Jack's AP American Blog

Search This Blog