OPINION: The Rise of the DSA, Populism, and the Labor Perspective.
- Connor Morris
- 48 minutes ago
- 9 min read
By Connor Morris
September 7, 2026
“In form the struggle is on the currency question. But these are only symbols, and behind them are gathered the world-opposing forces of aristocratic special privilege and democratic freedom. I can have no question of how I ought to vote.” – Henry George
In a decade defined by corporate skepticism and political polarization, it is no surprise that we have seen an increasing level of radicalization and excitement from both fringes of the political spectrum. However, since the last general election, no surge in American politics has been more vibrant, energetic, and divisive than that of the Democratic Socialists of America. Members of the right characterize the DSA as chaotic, communistic, and vehemently anti-American. Even their own moderate partners on the left criticize DSA ideology as being too radical and out of touch with the average American to fit under the tent of the Democratic Party. However, regardless of the slew of criticisms received from both Republicans and mainstream Democrats, the DSA has swelled in recent popularity. As surprising as the DSA’s rise in popularity may seem to some, it is certainly nothing new that we have seen in American history. In fact, there have been many instances where reform politics have burst onto the political stage. The Populist movement of the 1880s and 1890s is one early example that, in many ways, mirrors the current lived experiences of the DSA. In this article, we will explore the many similarities between both political movements, what lessons the DSA can learn from the Populist Party, and how the needs of the working class are attributed to both their relevancy.
The Democratic Socialists of America is a political organization that seeks to dismantle the supposed oppression of capitalism by promoting the organization of labor unions, encouraging financial and social equity, and sharing control of resources and production among the people. Despite the history of negative connotations of ‘socialism’ in the United States, the national attitude towards Democratic Socialism has tempered within the last decade to the point where many welcome it as a viable alternative to the two major political parties. This began with Vermont Senator and Democratic Socialist, Bernie Sanders’ first presidential campaign in 2016 where many Americans (both liberal and conservative) turned towards the Vermonter as a means to escape the status quo of a two-party system that they saw being controlled by corporate interests.
Following the Democratic defeat in the 2024 Presidential Election, many of us have witnessed (either in the news or in-person) speeches given by both Bernie Sanders and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; another prominent Democratic Socialist. These speeches, known as the “Fighting Oligarchy Tour”, have been given to countless audiences across the nation to warn the working class of the looming threat of billionaires within the United States. Moreover, it can be seen as a political attempt to grab the reigns dropped by the ousted Biden-Harris administration and steer the narrative of the Democratic Party away from the status quo and towards reform.
As in the 2020s, there was a growing antagonism towards corporate interests in the United States during the period of rapid industrialization following the Civil War. As cities grew in the East and agriculture moved farther west, many western farmers began to organize in an attempt to improve their commercial standing, lobby for reform, and regulate the railroad. These rural organizations, such as the Farmer’s Alliance, eventually evolved and consolidated into the Populist Party (aka: People’s Party) in the 1890s. At the beginning, the Populist Party saw substantial success in state and local elections. For example, in 1890, both the Nebraska state Senate and the House were controlled by a Populist Majority. This success could be seen across other states as well, specifically out west where the farmer’s plight began.
Much like the DSA today, national success was the ultimate aim of the Populist Party in order to implement reforms. The first major attempt for the presidency occurred in 1892 when the Populists nominated Iowa Congressman, James Weaver. The Populist platform called for government ownership of the railroads, income tax, and the unlimited coinage of silver. Silver specifically became a paramount issue among the Populist movement during the 1890s when farmers pressured the Federal Government to increase the coinage of silver in order to improve the price of crops. Despite ultimately losing to Democratic candidate, Grover Cleveland, the new Populist Party performed exceptionally well with securing twenty-two electoral votes from five western states. However, winning the presidency would require far more support than just the West, and the Populist knew that they had to push deep into Republican and Democratic strongholds in the Northeast and South.
The election of 1896 would see such a push with the Populists campaigning heavily in both the industrial Midwest and the rural South. So cognizant of the need for success in both these areas, the Populists established its campaign headquarters in the Midwest city of Chicago and relied heavily on Southern Populists, such as Populist Party Chairman, Marion Butler of North Carolina, to rally the Populist cause in the deeply Democratic Southern states.
At the center of the Populist cause in 1896 was a charismatic young Congressman from Nebraska, William Jennings Bryan, who championed the unlimited coinage of silver. Unlike James Weaver in 1892, Bryan himself was not a member of the Populist Party. In fact, Bryan had received the Democratic nomination in 1896 after giving an impassionate speech for silver during the Democratic Convention in Chicago.
It was because of Bryan’s sympathy towards workers, farmers, and silver that the Populist Party nominated Bryan as well. This led to the exercise of “fusion” across key battleground states, where Populists and Democrats would fuse together in order to elect Bryan as President. Fusion was nothing new to Populist politics, as Populists and Democrats in the West fused together in support of Weaver in 1892 in order to weaken Republican performance in western states.
Despite its success, fusion did not come without its drawbacks. In the South, the Democratic majority was seen as the main political antagonist to Southern Populists. Many Southern Populists disliked the idea of cooperation with the Democrats. Moreover, even though both Democrats and Populists nominated Bryan, they also nominated two separate vice-presidential candidates. Despite their support for Bryan, anti-fusion Populists, also known as ‘midroaders’, were ardent supporters for Populist vice-presidential candidate, Thomas Watson of Georgia, and saw the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Arthur Sewell of Maine, as representing the conservative Democratic wing of the Northeast. These sectional differences led to bitter infighting between pro-fusion and midroader Populists throughout the 1896 campaign. The Republican Party, who had nominated Ohio governor, William McKinley, used this infighting to paint the allied Democrat-Populist ticket as unstable and weak.
Despite a national popularity towards William Jennings Bryan and his Populist reforms, the joint Democrat-Populist ticket failed to reach the electoral votes necessary for victory, which led to McKinley being elected president. Following this defeat, the Populist Party made the effort to further separate itself from the Democratic Party, despite the Democrat’s continued support for Bryan. This was done in an attempt to preserve the unique identity of the Populist Party and to avoid being absorbed by the Democrats. This action would ultimately lead to the Populist collapse.
So, how do the Populist Party of the 1890s and the Democratic Socialists of today compare? Firstly, the popularity of both were born out of economic turmoil and social skepticism towards corporations. As discussed, the decades following the Civil War saw an increase of industrialization in the Northeast and agriculture in the West. This precipitated the parallel growth of the railroad industry that sought to connect western crops and northern goods across the country. Despite the logistical benefits the railroad brought, many western farmers were caught paying high rates set by large corporations. Additionally, many farmers fell into debt after failing to pay for the large amount of land and mechanized equipment that were bought to turn a profit. These factors ultimately led to a deep resentment of the banks, railroads, corporations, and politicians. A similar social climate can be seen today with an equal resentment towards corporations and the banks. Specific events we can point to in recent history that have pushed many voters towards the DSA and its ideas include the bailout of the banks following the 2008 Recession, the threat of AI in the workplace, the rise of housing prices, and the national debate of the American Healthcare System. While the critics of its time compared the Populists to communists and anarchists, the economic pressures of the 1890s caused thousands of farmers and organized workers to turn to the Populists as a means to diminish the power of corporations. In a similar way today, many Americans are looking at the DSA as a means to achieve affordable housing, social welfare, and equity in the workplace, despite mainstream criticisms of the DSA being communistic and out-of-touch.
Another aspect that likens the DSA to the Populists is regional and local success. Since the 2024 Election, we have seen many local victories for Democratic Socialists such as Zohran Mamdani in the 2025 New York Mayoral Race and Abdul El-Sayed in the 2026 Michigan Democratic Primary. Observers today often believe that DSA success will remain limited only to local elections and will not translate down the road to a presidential victory. Critics would argue that DSA policies that are popular in New York City may not resonate with rural voters in the Midwest and the South. This is similar to how the Populist demand for silver that was popular in Western states did not resonate with Republican voters in the Midwest and Northeast. Based on research conducted by Brookings, many DSA candidates perform better in locations where Democratic candidates historically perform well; indicating that electoral success in newer conservative regions will be more difficult. Similar to how Populists performed far better in Western states where the plight of farmers was more prevalent than in the East, the DSA may encounter challenges to reaching a wider, national audience.
Despite being limited to local success, the DSA is also likened to the Populists in regard to its grassroots movement. As we have seen with Senator Sander’s and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s “Fighting Oligarchy Tour” of 2025, the Populists of the 1896 campaign travelled extensively across the United States to preach the importance of silver. Joint Democrat-Populist candidate, William Jennings Bryan, travelled extensively across all parts of the country to give speeches and spread the populist reform platform. Bryan’s speech tour extended far beyond the Populist strongholds of the Western states and included the Republican strongholds of the Northeast and industrial Midwest as well as the Democratic South. Likewise, both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez travelled extensively following the Democratic defeat in 2024 to give speeches in states such as Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Similar to the Populist tactic in 1896, the DSA aims to spread the message of working-class solidarity in heavily blue-collar and rural states that are not commonly associated with their ideology.
So, what can the DSA of today learn from the Populist movement of the 1890s? Firstly, the Democratic Socialists have inherited many good habits from the Populists. The Populist movement was unique in its day in its effort to spread a pro-labor message to a wider audience across the country. The DSA would be wise to continue its practice of speaking with working-class Americans in different regions of the country in order to spread their message and champion their ideals as being the surest path for success for the Democratic Party. This is especially important during a time where many voters believe both the Republican and mainstream Democratic Parties no longer act within their best interests.
However, in order to achieve national success, I believe that a continued pragmatic approach in cooperating with the Democratic Party would be ideal for the DSA. After the election loss in 1896, many Populists tried to separate themselves from the Democratic Party in an attempt to ensure the survival of their separate, third party. Although the DSA is currently a political organization and not a separate party, I believe that the DSA should learn from the Populist mistake and continue their efforts to work exclusively with the Democrats in future elections rather than split the progressive vote between Democratic, Green Party candidates, and independents. After the Populist split in 1896, many Populists voters moved towards the Republican and Democratic Parties in the next election. If the Populists were to remain pragmatic and recognize their goal as being policy reform rather than political autonomy, then perhaps they should have continued to assimilate with the Bryan Democratic party in order to pursue the reforms they wanted. Any talks of DSA autonomy as a third party plus the varied approach for supporting candidates from several different progressive parties may run the risk of splitting the progressive vote. The DSA should continue to serve as a vocal progressive branch of the Democratic party and demonstrate how their policies can help benefit Americans. This achievement does not seem too far out of reach given the local electoral success we have seen. And with the low popularity that many Democratic voters have with the current party leadership, the field is wide open for DSA Democrats to take control of the party narrative and excite a base that is eager and ready for change.
References:
Durden, Robert F. The Climax of Populism: The Election of 1896. University of Kentucky Press, 1965.
Comments