A Thesis Outline?

I've spent the past week since I embarked on this project considering how to create a dramatic conclusion rather than the process by which I'd arrive at it. I've read and re-read, and finally boiled my thoughts down to a brief outline of points.

1) Warren's definition of populism. This, I think, will be the most critical part of the thesis. I intend to draw on Warren's letters, novels, poems, books, and statements to establish a working view of what populism is. Drawing on historical primary and secondary sources that discuss populism as well as Warren's personal experience with the political movement, I hope to establish both a hard and fast definition of what characterizes populism and an attitude toward the movement with which to judge it. That is, if Warren finds the kind of grassroots politics that come along with populism distasteful--and I think he does--then I'll color my evaluation of populism with Warren's ideas and attitude. My intention with this method is to arrive at last at a reasonable speculation of what Warren would think of contemporary American politics. A few works I intend to use in this evaluation include All the King's Men, Night Rider, At Heaven's Gate, Democracy and Poetry, and The Legacy of the Civil War. From these sources, I believe I can garner a holistic picture of populism as Warren portrays it.

My tentative, working definition of populism based on what I have read and considered thus far:

Populism as a political system pits the crowd against the ruling elite in a struggle for control. Its success means the rise of the so-called "common man;" it asserts that "the plainest, poorest fellow can be Governor if his fellow citizens find he has got the stuff and the character for the job." Its domination of the political system signifies more robust social programs and hails a redistribution of wealth; it holds that though "there is a passel of pore folks living in [the state] and no mistake, but the state isn’t poor. It is just a question of who has got his front feet in the trough when slopping time comes." Its rhetoric demonizes an abstract government whose services do not match the taxes it receives to the satisfaction of its constituents.

The crowd will figure prominently in my discussion, as I believe the crowd mentality fuels a populist movement and, more importantly, is the characteristic of populist movements that Warren most strongly despises.

2) Populism's impact on the American political landscape. This is the point that inspired my thesis originally, given the Tea Party's ascendance in the nation's most recent mid-term elections and Obama's mobilization of youth for support during his Obama for America campaign. I have a few sub-points I hope to integrate into this discussion:
a) The emergence of populist attitude--that is, how populism becomes a viable political movement. I intend to go to Willie Stark's initial election in All the King's Men to examine some of the circumstances surrounding that event, and then compare that with the Tea Party victories in 2010 and Obama's victory in 2008. Here, I suspect that populism results from distrust of the existing governmental apparatus or from a disconnect between the engine of government and the people it serves. I hope to establish that populist sentiment arises out of similar circumstances, regardless of partisanship.
b) Populist rhetoric--using speeches from Warren's political characters, I intend to analyze rhetoric to determine populism's ethos, as well as pathos that populist politicians evoke. I believe that discovering the main thrust of these speeches and the kind of emotion it generates will shed important light on the circumstances that lead to populist political movements. I intend to take these analyses to speeches made by President Obama and Tea Party politicians to compare their speeches both to Warren's view of populism and to each other. That way, I can determine whether or not partisanship alters the representation of the government--I think it likely does--and assess the validity of Warren's view of populism as a guide to understanding contemporary politics. The more correlation I find between the rhetorical devices he employs and the rhetorical devices contemporary politicians employ, the more valid I feel his beliefs will be in evaluating populism in the 21st century. A side tangent I think would be interesting here would be the crowd's response to populist rhetoric--both the crowds in Warren's novels and the crowds in the blogosphere/Twittersphere who disseminate political rhetoric.
c) Populism's sustainability. The poetic justice that meets Willie Stark in the capitol suggest that Warren does not view populism as a sustainable movement--or at least, that he views populist politicians as unsustainable, a point I will return to later. Here I want to arrive at a conclusion regarding the extent to which populism influences American politics--the kind of things that last as opposed to the transience of the movement. Here, I hope to show that Warren augurs the downfall of populism by illustrating the downfall of its representatives in government.

My first and second topics dealt largely with institutions and ideas. In the next point, I want to focus more on the individuals who make populism a viable movement rather than the ideology of the movement itself. Which brings me to...

3) The populist politician--demagogue or representative of the people? Here I intend to go straight to the characters who represent idealistic populism--or even just plain idealism. Here, Brother to Dragons will prove useful. Jefferson's character in that poem represents the idealistic politician whose faith in government, American exceptionalism, and ideals erases his human-ness from history, leaving modern students of history with a portrait of a titanic thinker instead of a man. In seeking to reclaim the man, Warren redeems Jefferson. The process of reclaiming him will prove useful as I explore the modern constituent's relationship with political figures. I think a comparison of Obama as a president forced to compromise with Obama as the idealistic leader of the liberal movement--all in context of BtD--will yield a better understanding of role leaders play in shaping populist movements. Warren, I think, provides an "out" when thinking about politicians, advocating recognition of shared humanity rather than expecting a larger-than-life change-agent. A few other ideas to explore include:
a) The relationship between politicians and the "establishment." Populism installs representatives of the people in the established government in hopes of effecting a more responsive and more accessible political system. Willie Stark, however, becomes corrupted by the establishment, acknowledging the graft in the very institution he sought to reform. He hides this fact from his constituents, who believe he has created an administration free from crooks. Warren clearly believes in a fallen humanity, and it follows that he would think humanity's institutions would be corrupt. Stark's character further illustrates that broken institutions have the power to corrupt even those who enter to reform them. Out of this point, I hope to conclude not pessimistically about the inefficacy of trying to reform government, but rather to advocate more realistic expectations of politicians dealing with flawed institutions.
b) The Tea Party as a "leader-less movement." One characteristic of populism is its goal of placing politicians in government. The Tea Party deviates from this norm, presenting itself as a movement led by the crowd instead of an individual. I consider the veracity of that assertion questionable, but nevertheless believe the rhetoric suggests an interesting difference worth investigating. This is one sub-point I'm interested in investigating, but not one I have a hypothesis for yet. This is one I'll have to return to.

4) Finally, I'll conclude. I'm unsure what I'll draw out of all of the above yet, because I haven't dug in yet. I intend to address the tension between my second and third points, namely between institutions and individuals. I think this conflict may be at the heart of what this work will mean for using Warren to evaluating the contemporary political scene.

I expect the thesis to follow generally in the order I presented these points, and I intend to investigate them vaguely in that order. There is some overlap, and some points depend on conclusions I make elsewhere, but here's a general outline for my work.

On that note, I'm off to figure out a more thorough definition of populism.