Huey Long and the Populist Moment

Huey Long

“You cannot let any man own $300,000,000,000 or $400,000,000,000. If you do, one man can own all of the wealth that the United States has in it.”

Thus, Huey Long, United States Senator from Louisiana, giving his national radio speech of February 23, 1934, stated populism’s basic principle. Although the populist movement has since morphed onto oddly contradictory paths, including Donald Trump’s trickle-down populism for the rich, Long himself proposed populism (literally, “of the people”) to promote ordinary people. Long defined his movement as “every man a king” or “share our wealth.” Blaming the elites for their greed and the economic system for brazen unfairness, Long asked for the nation to redistribute its wealth.

In 1934, the United States and, indeed, the world, roiled in turmoil. The world’s economy was collapsing. Unemployment ranged to an astonishing 23%. Many people even felt that the four-year-old Great Depression represented the collapse of the free enterprise system. Horrified Americans watched desperate nations respond to the crisis by turning to cruel dictatorships, left and right wing alike, in Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Russia, and Japan. Instead of pursuing such extreme responses, Long envisioned an audience that wanted to preserve constitutional government even though that government had failed them. Feeling that President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program was falling short, Long offered a more dramatic economic reform.

Long had risen to fame in Louisiana, a state that was, then as now, dominated by extreme conservatives. Yet, Long broadcast his radio speech to the entire nation, not just to his own state. He took a broad approach that offered radical solutions tucked into a conservative frame. This helped him speak, not just to one faction, but to all working Americans. Furthermore, Long appealed to conservatives’ propensity for grievance. Unlike, say, Robert LaFollette or Clarence Darrow, Long did not present himself as a progressive (although his economic ideas were progressive in the extreme). Instead, he asked the nation to return to tradition. Back to the old ways! Back to a (perhaps imaginary) past when the nation served its workers, not its elites! Long’s populism proposed a vision: to rebuild economic justice that had been lost.

Would the same tactic work today for the aggrieved conservative voters who supported Donald Trump, curiously framing him as a populist? I will let my readers reflect and decide.


The Appeal to Tradition and Long’s Economic Arguments

Great Depression Breadline, New York City

Long’s point about wealth inequality resonates exactly with today’s democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Yet, unlike many progressives, Long grounded his argument, not in the idea of progress, but in the restoration of lost traditions. That grounding underlay Long’s populist outlook.

To make his case, Long blamed, not the immigrants, not even the politicians, but the wealthy elites who wielded unchecked power to guard their own wealth:

“It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country – and by rich people I mean the super-rich – will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people.”

Long understood that the haves say that they deserve everything while the have-nots deserve their dire fate. Long took a brilliant hack at that complaint: he quoted the Declaration of Independence – “all men are created equal” – and asked a straightforward question:

“Did that mean, my friends, that someone would come into this world without having had an opportunity, of course, to have hit one lick of work, should be born with more than [they] and all of [their] children and children's children could ever dispose of, but that another one would have to be born into a life of starvation?”

With that searing question, Long reversed the conservatives’ pro-wealth moral argument. We should admit that, although some of the superrich do build massive businesses by hard work and insight, a great many simply inherit or embezzle their wealth and then use it to corrupt government policy to their own benefit. Simultaneously, however, Long pointed out that other people, no less worthy than a billionaire’s heirs, might be born into relentless, hopeless, grinding poverty. Did his audience think that was fair? After all, far more people are workers than are oligarchs, and, so, should populism not be their philosophy?

Continuing to pound on that insight, Long asked:

“Is that, my friends, giving them a fair shake of the dice … when we have today in America thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of children on the verge of starvation in a land that is overflowing with too much to eat and too much to wear?”

Long thus underscored that American inheritance practices produced inherently unfair results. He drove that home with a brilliant, and not entirely inaccurate, analogy:

“… That no one man would get half of it and hand it down to a son, who takes half of what was left, and that son hand it down to another one, who would take half of what was left, until, like a snowball going downhill, all of the snow was off of the ground except what the snowball had.”

Appealing to his core group’s commitment to conservative Christianity, Long then turned to biblical law.

An earlier post traces Huey Long’s appeals to tradition:

Long’s Arguments from Religious Tradition

Long argued that biblical law not only allowed but required sharing the nation’s wealth. He reminded his listeners of the biblical Year of Jubilee which required that, every 50 years, property should revert to its original owners.

Indeed, Long insisted that redistribution was “the law of the Lord.” Furthermore, Long said that biblical law reflected an underlying value:

“We would have to distribute wealth every so often, in order that there could not be people starving to death in a land of plenty, as there is in America today.”

Long also reminded the radio audience that, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, all debts should be forgiven every seven years. He further discussed the growing problem of personal indebtedness, which was crushing Americans’ ability to function economically. This led Long to propose a religious solution for Americans’ debt:

“We have in American today, ladies and gentlemen, $272,000,000,000 of debt. Why, my friends, that cannot be paid. It is not possible for that kind of debt to be paid.”

Although those economic problems may have seemed hopeless, Long next gave an idea.


Long Proposed a Populist Solution

Understanding the importance of raising popular political support to rise against the oligarchs, Long set up a series of organizations to combat the oligarchical wealth:

“Now, we have organized a society, and we call it ‘Share Our Wealth Society,’ a society with the motto ‘every man a king.’”

Continuing, Long proposed that “we have to limit fortunes” by passing appropriate laws. Also, with Social Security still in the future, Long also supported an old age pension that would help ordinary people but, in his version, not pay the wealthy. He proposed limiting the workday and limiting production. He argued that such policies would limit the wealthy elites.

 

It Was All About Tradition

Nearing his conclusion, Long reemphasized his populist traditionalism. A progressive might shout, “Power to the People!” Long had the same idea, but phrased in conservative ideology:

“God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is.” 

Did Long really think that his ideas could become political reality? I believe he did, and he established a program to turn them into reality. Now, public speaking teachers often explain that people will support a policy if they organize in groups to work for it. Understanding this instinctively, Long urged his listeners to “organize your own Share Our Wealth Society” and to express their views to Congress.

Brazilian President Lula’s Populist Speech

Herbert Hoover's Ode to Freedom during the Great Depression

Lessons for Today?

Were Long’s ideas realistic? That could be debated. In 1934, the modern science of macroeconomics was still in its infancy, and it is questionable whether even the greatest experts in 1934 fully understood how to deal with the Great Depression. The financial system had collapsed and crushed the world’s economy as it fell. Even today, people who should know better (but who fear change) continue to resist the most basic macroeconomic policies. Still, Long recognized an economic problem, sympathized with working people, gave them someone to blame, and proposed a solution. Nevertheless, he offered no sympathy to the socialists. Instead, he supported his ideas by citing philosophy, American political heritage, and Judeo-Christian tradition. That brilliant approach helped short-circuit opponents who thought he sounded like a liberal. Long even took a moment to lash out at Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal program, which, perhaps, many conservatives opposed in principle. 

So, Long did not present brilliant economics, nor incisive Bible study. Instead, he offered compelling rhetoric. Maybe Huey Long was, as his critics claimed, merely a con artist, but, if so, he was a con artist for the people. Like all good debaters, Long reset the agenda.

It is no wonder Huey Long was soon assassinated. It is also no wonder that more than 200,000 people thronged to his funeral. For, after all, populism means standing for the people. The established order had failed in 1934, and people yearned for solutions.

Somehow, I cannot reconcile Long’s version of populism (if populism still means government for the people) with President Donald Trump’s faux populism, which offers massive breaks to the wealthy. While Huey Long favored direct wealth redistribution, Trump relies more on the conservative’s usual trickle-down theme, holding that business growth will eventually improve workers’ lives. So, Trump’s speeches feature populist themes with a big-business twist: “I’ll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan. It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”

At the same time, however, although Long’s Share Our Wealth theme was far more radical than anything that today’s progressives suggest, he sold himself as a moral traditionalist. Long’s populism spoke for the people, for religion, and for old-time American goals. In a larger sense, faced with the Great Depression, Long sought, not to destroy capitalism, but to save it—to rescue it—and the nation—from its excesses. So, in Huey Long’s dramatic radio address, the United States heard a literal populism of the people.

I write this post on the United States’ Labor Day holiday 2026. On this day, we still face Huey Long’s ancient question: are we fair to the laboring people?

by William D. Harpine    

__________

P.S. Women had the vote in 1934, so what was Long’s purpose in making “every man a king?” That was no surprise. Louisiana did not ratify the 19th Amendment, which recognized women’s right to vote, until 1970.

By the way, both of my parents grew up during the Great Depression. My father was fortunate, in that my grandfather was a successful small-city businessman. The family lived in a large, beautifully furnished house just outside Harrisonburg, Virginia, drove a good car, and never knew hunger. Desperate hobos who rode the rails looking for temporary work knew that my grandmother was always good for a sandwich. In contrast, my mother’s parents were poor immigrants. Her father worked as a carpenter in a Pennsylvania steel mill, while her mother sold eggs. The mills were not yet unionized in 1934, and life could be hard. Still, luckily, none of my grandparents ever faced unemployment. 


Research Note

There are several excellent studies of Huey Long’s speeches. Professor Michael J. Lee’s 2006 fascinating essay in The Quarterly Journal of Speech, “The Populist Chameleon: The People's Party, Huey Long, George Wallace, and the Populist Argumentative Frame,” points out that different political philosophies have called themselves populist, with such common themes as identifying an enemy (wealthy people, big business, big government, or whatever) and promising restoration to the old ways.

The article lurks behind a paywall, but many large libraries can find an online copy for you. Also, your local library might have any number of biographical books about Huey Long. One can also watch Hollywood-style movies of varying accuracy about Huey Long.

Copyright @2026 by William D. Harpine

Image of Huey Long, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Breadline, United States National Archives, via Wikimedia Commons

Huey Long's Populist Speech: "Every Man a King!"

Huey Long

“Is that a right of life, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it is by 120 million people?”

Those were Louisiana’s United States Senator’s Huey Long’s opening words in a nationwide radio speech, broadcast on February 23, 1934. In this classic speech, “Every Man a King,” Long demonstrated, with rhetorical skill that few politicians have ever matched, how a liberal politician can dominate the conservative South. He made income inequality into a moral, biblical, and philosophical injustice. Income inequality continues to plague the Western economies in 2025, and one suspects that this is the underlying issue that is leading to world-wide political turmoil. Yet, conservative doctrine often blocks the Western nations from solving the wealth gap.

A populist politician represents economic protection for ordinary persons, in contrast to the rich and powerful. As we shall see in a moment, Huey Long brilliantly wielded a trifecta of conservative values to promote his populist policies. Reaching out to America’s poor, Huey Long’s stunning speech did not refute his conservative opponents: no, Long preempted them. A liberal in conservative dress, a speaker who cited conservative values to relieve his voters’ economic oppression, Long was a populist phenomenon. No populist like him has emerged since.

Speaking during the desperation of the Great Depression, and ahead of his time in economic policy, a Keynesian before Keynes, Long pounded against the wealthy oligarchs and huge corporations that dominated the American economy, leaving ordinary workers to struggle in grinding poverty. In contrast to modern-day liberals, who issue tedious economic lectures, Long posed a simple point:

“We have no very difficult problem to solve.” [italics added]

And what was that “no very difficult problem”? The only difficulty, Long insisted, came when the greedy, “super-rich” economic barons wielded political power:

“It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country—and by rich people I mean the super-rich—will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people.”

Now, what were Long’s arguments?


Long’s First Traditional Authority: The Declaration of Independence

Declaration of Independence

First, Long cited the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America’s founding document. In that Declaration, Thomas Jefferson spoke for equality:

“How many of you remember the first thing that the Declaration of Independence said? It said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are certain inalienable rights of the people, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’; and it said, further, ‘We hold the view that all men are created equal.’”

Long instantly gave that premise startling economic application:

“Now, what did they mean by that? Did they mean, my friends, to say that all men were created equal and that that meant that any one man was born to inherit $10,000,000,000 and that another child was to be born to inherit nothing?”

Now, since Thomas Jefferson was an oligarch among oligarchs, I suspect that he meant exactly that. But Long was on a roll!

“Is that right of life, my friends, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it is by 120,000,000 people?”

Having repurposed Thomas Jefferson, Long then turned to the Holy Bible.


Long's Second Traditional Source: The Bible

Long’s audience was, in general, deeply religious. Long accordingly gave a rather long explanation that he intended to refer to the Scriptures and emphasize “the wisdom of the Lord.” What part of the Bible supports populism, the audience might wonder? (I certainly did!) Long eventually got specific:

“But the Scripture says, ladies and gentlemen, that no country can survive, or for a country to survive it is necessary that we keep the wealth scattered among the people.”

To prove this, Long cited the Year of Jubilee:

“50 years seems to be the year of jubilee in which all property would be scattered about and returned to the sources from which it originally came, and every seventh year debt should be remitted.”

Long neglected to say whether the United States should practice universal debt relief every seven years, nor did he mention the economic consequences of revamping the banking system so radically. That, however, was not the point. Instead, Long's point was that debt was overwhelming ordinary Americans, and that biblical morality justified offering relief. Indeed, not content merely to cite the Bible, Long emphasized the moral principle behind the Jubilee:

“I believe that was the judgment and the view and the law of the Lord, that we would have to distribute wealth every so often, in order that there could not be people starving to death in a land of plenty.”

Over the years, conservative Christians, especially the prosperity gospel preachers, cite the Bible to justify leaving the economic structure untouched. Long turned this around. Biblical law, he emphasized at length, required the community to reverse growing inequality and restore a measure of economic justice.

Long insisted that the Jubilee required systematic debt forgiveness:

“‘Then,’ said the Lord, in effect, ‘every seventh year there shall be a remission of debts; there will be no debts after 7 years.’ That was the law.”

It was only then that Long reviewed figures about American indebtedness. He claimed that the total amount of American currency was only about $6 trillion, and that the total amount of American debt was “45 times the entire money supply of the United States.” But he had already established the solution to that shocking, unpayable debt: the Year of Jubilee. And who would pay the price? The super-rich.


Long's Third Traditional Source: Plato's Republic

For his third authority, Long turned to the Greek philosopher Plato:

“Read what Plato said; that you must not let any one man be too poor, and you must not let any one man be too rich; that the same mill that grinds out the extra rich is the mill that will grind out the extra poor, because, in order that the extra rich can become so affluent, they must necessarily take more of what ordinarily would belong to the average man.”

Only as his speech neared his conclusion did Long state his utopian solution, a new kind of society, a new kind of government, a new kind of nation: 

“Now, we have organized a society, and we call it ‘Share Our Wealth Society,’ a society with the motto ‘every man a king.’”

Forestalling an obvious criticism, Long declined to speak for total income or wealth equality. That might have branded him as a communist, not a populist. He slyly moderated his views into something that a conservative voter might find reasonable; Long argued more for a minimum wage and old-age pensions. Thus, as his speech neared his conclusion, Long spoke for moderate equality. Not really “every man a king” at all. The slogan gave way to political realities:

“We do not propose to divide it up equally. We do not propose a division of wealth, but we propose to limit [the] poverty that we will allow to be inflicted upon any man's family.”

Long’s Proposal

Only now, having made his case for change, did Long lay out his economic policy. He proposed reducing the wealth of a superrich person to “less than $50 million.” He proposed a modest old-age pension and a limited work week.

Yet, as he continued his speech, Long reiterated the cumulative, traditional wisdom that underlay his policies: that God, the philosophers, and economics all pointed toward “Share the Wealth:”

“God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is.”

Okay, who was going to argue against God? Long had demonstrated how to use conservative authorities to support liberal policies.

Huey Long Campaign Poster

You could call Long’s conclusion arrogant, or you could call it biblical. You could say that he was wrong, your choice. But no one can doubt that Long was incredibly persuasive. No one in 1934 could ignore him. The man had grown up in the grinding poverty of the Deep South, and he came to prominence during the horrors of the Great Depression, when the capitalist system was falling apart at the seams.

Simple math shows that only very high taxes on the wealthy could have paid for Long’s policies. However, perhaps sensing that no one would vote for higher taxes, at any time, for any reason, Long cleverly depicted himself as an anti-tax conservative. 

Can Later Speakers Learn from Long? 

Modern-day politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez echo many of Long’s policy concepts. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are persuasive enough in their own right, but they never seem to break out of the extreme liberal mold into which they have poured themselves. Long, in contrast, started with the conservative mold, stating conservative values that were supported by conservative authorities. He then showed how those ideas could help ordinary people. Long did not carefully smooth around the worries and ministrations of the conservative religious right. Not at all! Instead, he utterly preempted the religious right. And, unlike populists like Donald Trump, who speak for the ordinary people while serving the oligarchs, Long reached out to people who, like him, had grown up poor, neglected, and hopeless.

Bernie Sander's 2019 Democratic Socialism Speech: Is He Trying to Be a Politician or a College Professor?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

As a leader, Huey Long was often described as a dictator who bullied people and overrode the Constitution. I do not doubt those criticisms for a moment, and I do not defend Long’s leadership. Long was perhaps less racist than most successful southern politicians of the time, although that doesn’t say much. Long's slogan “Every Man a King” omits women, although the fact that he addressed his audience as “ladies and gentlemen,” not “gentlemen,” put him a bit ahead of his time. All the same, modern-day liberals could learn from the way he spoke, encapsulated by conservative values and pithy slogans: Share Our Wealth (not share the wealth, but share our wealth) and Every Man a King.  

by William D. Harpine

________________

Biblical Note: 

The Jubilee is described in Leviticus 25 KJV:

“And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.”

Philosophical Note: 

Plato’s views about wealth were more detailed and subtle that what Long implied. But, by that point, Long was steaming along, and I wonder how many of his voters had actually studied Plato anyway. Plato did write this (in Jowett's translation):

“Wealth, I said, and poverty; the one is the parent of luxury and indolence, and the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent.” Plato, Republic, 422

Research Note: 

Income inequality continues to plague the Western economies, and one suspects that this is the underlying issue that is leading to world-wide political turmoil. The super-wealthy wield enormous political power today, maybe more than in 1934, and inequality has become entrenched into our economic, political, and moral systems. On a personal note, I suspect that Long was indeed prescient, that, indeed, no nation can survive the degree of inequality that infests the United States economy today. The French economist Thomas Piketty has analyzed income inequality in great historical and theoretical depth. I am intermittently plowing through his magnum opus, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and it is worth struggling through every word. I understand that some of his later work is a bit more readable. 

Readers might want to look at Professor Ernest Bormann’s brilliant article, “A Rhetorical Analysis of the National Radio Broadcasts of Senator Huey Pierce Long,” published in Speech Monographs. It is behind a paywall, but a good library can probably get it for you.

Special thanks to AmericanRhetoric.com for posting a transcript of Long's speech. 

Copyright 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image of Huey Long, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Huey Long's campaign poster, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons