in the century that they are thought to have defended. Their political demands, however, were secondary to the movements aims and dreams. The true heart and sole of any reform party, contrary to political myths in this country, is fundamentally economic in nature, not political. The economic demands and, by extension, results of the Populists movement is how they should be judged by history. The history of the west is a myth of independence and self-reliance with the only obstacle being the Native American or stifling federal policy. That myth, reinforced from Buffalo Bill on down as mentioned earlier, is the antithesis it turns out to the reality of the west and its dependence on the federal government. The reality, of course, is the western rancher living off federal land, or the miner plundering a nations assets under the Mining Act of 1872. The point here is that the Populists movement was consistent with this contradiction and, like many in the west today, demanded help from the federal government. Their demand was nothing less than a call for income redistribution, which was more radical than anything they demanded in the political sphere. In a senselike union workers today in Flint, Michigan or corn growers in Ames, Iowathey were belatedly correct in their assessment of subsidies elsewhere: Indeed, as they pointed out, they were expected to compete in the national market in accordance with the free market doctrine of the day while the money to the east, as they saw it, benefited from subsidies. It is another cruel irony that in America the people struggling with survival (like the fisherman today in the east or the family farmer in the Midwest or the union worker in LA) are lectured about the virtues of the free market, while those who preach are frequently rich, subsidized by the government, and club members to the power brokers in Washington and New York. At the same time the Populists fought for government subsidies, ...
