The Fight against Income Inequality
From Huey Long to Occupy Wall Street
Many popular expressions about income inequality from the past century (e.g., “We are the 99%,” “Share the wealth,” “A chicken in every pot”) have enjoyed the public limelight at some point or another. And while each may reflect a different political, economic, and social climate, they all represent a battle cry heard far and wide through the decades.
The income inequality movement—emerging in the Progressive era of the early 1900s and reappearing in 2011—has campaigned to ask society to look under the glossy sheen of the “world’s wealthiest country” and instead see an economy that appears to be stacked against the vast majority of citizens. The movement points to the continually growing gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” as the cause all too many to give up on the American dream.
Income inequality is not new in America. But the earliest statistics we are able to find are from the early part of the 20th century. At that time—the era of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, and Carnegies—the richest 1 percent of Americans controlled roughly 18 percent of all income.
Some 70 years later that gap had grown by 6 percent, which represents a disparity of tens of billions of dollars. By 2007, the top one percent accounted for 24 percent (Slote 2010).
The Beginnings of a Movement
The first campaigns railing against income inequality were triggered by the Great Depression, which began in America in 1929. Lasting 10 years, it was the deepest and longest-lasting economic downturn in the history of the Western industrialized world (“The Great Depression” n.d.). The stock market crashed, consumer spending declined, and unemployment reached unprecedented proportions. By 1933, when the Great Depression reached its nadir, some 13 to 15 million Americans were unemployed and nearly half of the country’s banks had failed.
From the darkness of the Depression came two notable campaigns that brought this issue to the forefront of the national attention. Senator Huey Long’s 1932 Senatorial campaign championed the idea that every man should be a king (Amenta, Kathleen, and Mary 1994). And socialist writer Upton Sinclair ran for Governor of California on a redistribution of wealth platform called EPIC (“Upton Sinclair, the California EPIC Movement–1934” 2015). And later came the 2011 #OccupyWallStreet campaign.
These programs are milestone movements because of the communications campaigns that drove them. The news coverage not only brought “income inequality” to the forefront, it gave voice to a once “silent majority.” It also managed to put in easy-to-understand terms what this disparity was all about, and what the long-term consequences would be if these trends continued. Finally, the smart messaging—like, “we are the 99 percent”—brought the message home to the American public, and also helped fuel the anti-Romney sentiment of the 2012 U.S. presidential election.
Huey Long
In the early years of the Great Depression, Huey Long, the one-time governor of Louisiana, campaigned for a U.S. Senate seat, leveraging the timely issue of income inequality and bringing it for the first time to the forefront of the national agenda. Doing this demonstrated his compassion for the common man—who most likely was out of work and securing meager rations on bread lines. With the phrase, “Every man a king!” he showed Americans that he believed in them, that they, too, deserved better in this life. Finally, there was someone in Washington who “felt” their pain and knew how to fix it. Masterfully seizing upon the newest technology of the day—talking pictures—he managed to build a more intimate and trusting relationship with the public than many other politicians of the day. He continued using “income disparity” as this platform long after his successful bid for the Senate to pave the way for his presidential campaign in 1936 (Amenta n.d.).
Senator Long frequently spoke of this disparity by framing it in statistics: 85 percent of the wealth in the nation was owned by 4 percent of the people. In his speeches, he often used the analogy of diners at a barbeque, asking, “What should be done when one man comes in to a barbeque and takes what is meant for 9/10 of the people to eat?” His answer was “make that man come back and give back some of the grub he ain’t got no business with” (Amenta n.d.). Most often, the line was met by thunderous applause and showers of laughter from the crowds.
At the time, Long’s views were seen by many as extreme. And charges of corruption swirled around him, eroding the trust and credibility he had built. The Louisiana State Legislature tried, but failed to impeach him. His many detractors fought against his popularity through negative comments in the press and through the popular new communications tool of newsreels—film compilations of news stories presented in movie theatres in the first half of the century. In a newsreel, the voice-over rather bluntly declares that under Long’s leadership, the State of Louisiana “is in the grip of a decidedly un-American dictator” (“Radio’s America: The Great Depression and the Rise of Modern Mass Culture” 2015).
But Long remained steadfast in his views about what was needed to help the American economy, and continued to campaign for an improvement in the nation’s income distribution. He even founded “Share Our Wealth” clubs in communities across the country. By 1935, the height of the Depression, active membership was 7.5 million. On his radio interviews, he regularly drew more than 25 million listeners. And for years, more than 60,000 supporters sent him letters (more than President Roosevelt was receiving) (Amenta n.d.).
Upton Sinclair
Upton Sinclair, one of the most prolific writers of the Progressive Era, is perhaps best known for his “muckraking” activities. Muckrakers were investigative journalists who “dug up the dirt” on unscrupulous business and political practices and used the press to expose the many social ills of our increasingly industrialized, over-populated cities. Sinclair’s first book, and perhaps the one that most readers associate with him, is The Jungle, a brutal expose of the unsanitary conditions of meatpacking factories. Published in 1906, the book sparked a public uproar. The fallout led to the creation of the Pure Food and Drug and the Meat Inspection Acts (“Tour the Project” 2015).
In 1934, after publishing several successful books, Sinclair set out for politics, running for governor in hope of improving conditions for the people of California. Much like Huey Long, Sinclair tied his political campaign to the income inequality issue, which resonated well with Depression-era audiences. While vast numbers of people throughout the country were going hungry, California farmers were literally burning their crops due to overproduction.
Thus, Sinclair created a plan called End Poverty In California (EPIC). He proposed that available land in California be used for cooperatives where inhabitants would live peacefully and share labor and crops with each other (“Tour the Project” n.d.). But to many in politics, the EPIC plan, as much as it would help starving citizens, reeked of socialism. And for that reason, opponents railed against it, and him, in the media.
One high-profile part of the campaign against Sinclair was a faked newsreel item. It seemed to show every day Americans “spontaneously” sharing their views, connecting the EPIC plan with the Russian government, and claiming the programs seemed radical. While on the surface the film seemed real, it was ultimately proven by Variety magazine to be a fake, produced by Hollywood movie mogul Louis B. Mayer. This is considered by many to be the earliest use of “attack” advertising in America (“The Campaign of the Century,” Mitchell, Random House 1992).
The Financial Crisis of 2008
The most recent cries for “income inequality” were borne of the “Great Recession,” following the “Financial Crisis” of 2008. The damage it caused to economies around the world, as well as on the lives of the vast majority of Americans, was second only to that caused by the Great Depression.
The major cause cited for the 2008 crash was the rampant issuance of “sub-prime mortgages”—cheap home loans given out to people with poor credit—during a time in the early 2000s when home values across the United States were skyrocketing. Everyone, especially first-time homebuyers, wanted “in” on the action. And the banks were only too happy to encourage them—advertising “no interest, no money down” mortgages. Unlike the “old” days when banks would be responsible for collecting the monthly mortgages, banks now were able to get the loans off their books immediately after they were granted. So there was little risk involved. Once the banks made the loans, they instantly sold them off to the big investment banks on Wall Street, who then repackaged them into complex financial products, and marketed as investments to unsuspecting buyers. What the investors did not know was that these portfolios of home loans—“mortgage-backed securities”—would one day turn into “toxic assets” and practically overnight poison every aspect of the economy.
After the height of the real estate market, prices for these homes began to drop precipitously. Interest rates rose on the mortgages, far more than what the new homeowners were able to pay. Many soon found themselves “underwater,” owing more debt than the value of their homes.
What started so innocently on Main Street was now threatening the very survival of Wall Street. Banks that had so heavily invested in these bad home loans now found themselves scurrying to cover their losses, causing the credit markets to all but seize. Under the weight of plummeting stock prices, failing finances and loss of public confidence, two of Wall Street’s legends—Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers—failed within months of each other. Others were soon to follow, had it not been for the intervention of the Federal Reserve in September 2008, and the enactment of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The government’s intervention prevented an all-out economic apocalypse, far greater than even the Great Depression. But, while the banks were saved, the rages of economic destruction swept across the nation—stealing jobs, homes, security, and dreams, leaving very little in its path unscathed.
Occupy Wall Street
The Financial Crisis was felt by all but a small, and very lucky, percentage of the public. Thus, it was no surprise that income disparity became greater anytime in history. From 2008–2010, while the vast majority of households suffered enormous financial losses, the top 1 percent increased their share of wealth by nearly 40 percent (Wolf 2010).
This created a new opportunity to speak out against the disparity between the rich and the poor. The Internet, smart phones, and social media all helped to create a landscape, at the turn of the 21st century, that was very different from what had existed for Senator Huey Long and Upton Sinclair. People gained the ability to connect instantly with one another through the Internet, even if they lived in different parts of the country or the world. A single individual was empowered by having easy access to a video camera, which came as part of the increasingly ubiquitous “smart phone.” Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram gave people the ability to post videos on the Internet instantly and to reach potential viewers all around the world.
The Occupy Wall Street movement burst onto the scene during this age of social media when its protesters filled the streets of Manhattan on September 17, 2011 (“A Message From Occupied Wall Street Day Five,” Web. 29 May 2015).
Occupy was inspired by social movements in Egypt and Tunisia during the same year that the movement launched. While it was known as a leaderless movement, Kalle Lasn is known for originating the call to action, and Micah White assisted him. Social media played a major role in helping Occupy organize itself into a movement. In early June of 2011 the domain name OccupyWallStreet.org was registered by Lasn, and 90,000 of the Subscribers of Adbusters (the media organization he ran) were emailed with the subject line: “America Needs Its Own Tahrir” (“Pre-Occupied” 2015).
The email referred to the name of the park, literally translated as “Liberation Square,” in Cairo where the “Arab Spring” protests began.
In New York, protesters gathered in September 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in the city’s financial district. They adopted the slogan “we are the 99%” and took their messages about income inequality to the public. While the movement gained global attention for the problem, some critics have labeled it “slactivism,” since no specific outcomes resulted and the encampment had a distinctively “hippie” tone to it (‘Pre-Occupied” n.a.) and the protesters were evicted from the park only two months later.
All three of these movements made extensive use of public relations strategies and tactics to advance their cause.
Huey Long reached the public by using his flamboyance and charisma. He was known to deliver dramatic speeches that garnered comparisons to church sermons. Long took advantage of the availability of the radio, and used it as a tool to communicate his ideals with the people. Long’s radio speeches were very effective due partly to the fact that, by the 1930s, 90 percent of American families had a radio in their homes (“Radio’s America” n.d.). Radio made it possible for Long to affect large groups of individuals in a far more intimate way than had been available before. And the popularity of newsreels was a great aid in building up (and even taking down) Long’s reputation with the public.
Upton Sinclair used similar techniques to Long’s in championing his idea. His election campaign also made use of special events, media coverage, and the distribution of flyers to take his message to the public.
Finally, the Occupy movement used social media to spread its message and gain supporters. A survey showed that 59 percent of its supporters engaged with the movement through Facebook and 70.6 percent through YouTube. The video for Occupy Wall Street was posted on YouTube about a month after the movement began (“YouTube,” September 24, 2011). It features the encampment at Zucotti Park, which the demonstrators renamed Liberty Plaza, and shows individuals who had joined the movement in the park as they peacefully shared their views about changes they hoped to see as the result of their protests.
Internal communications also became critical to the Occupy movement as potential protestors formed a virtual community on social media to plan their activities before physically meeting at Zuccotti Park.
Conclusion
Long was assassinated in 1935. We will never know if he would have succeeded in implementing the plans he proposed in his “Share Our Wealth” program. But his presence was felt on the social and political landscape even after his death. Some have speculated that Long played a role in the shaping and emergence of FDR’s New Deal (Amenta n.a.). As a result of Sinclair’s EPIC campaign approximately 350,000 voters became Democrats in California. But his opponents waged a huge campaign, and Sinclair ultimately lost the gubernatorial race. While neither Long nor Sinclair fulfilled their ultimate political aspirations, they brought so much attention to their movements they have become part of the social and political landscape that informed the types of reforms that were made in America after the Great Depression.
Occupy Wall Street never resulted in any specific political or economic outcomes. But the protesters’ efforts rekindled the debate about income quality in America.
Takeaway
This case shows that while communication channels tactics may have changed over the years—from newsreels and radio to TV and social media—the messages about income inequality still produce outrage and indignation. From the speeches of Huey Long to the footage of the “Occupiers,” the topic continues to resonate with news reporters, op-ed writers, talk show producers and in this election year, even candidates for the presidency.
It was Senator Long who first brought the traditionally taboo topic onto center stage, where it was given due attention by radio and newsreels. But through the Depression, Second World War, post-war economic boom, and Vietnam, America’s attention focused elsewhere. The issue lay relatively dormant for nearly 90 years. Not until the 2012 election cycle, (when a hidden mic recorded Mitt Romney’s swipe at the “47 percent” of Americans relying on public support), did the issue spark the national front-page coverage it so deserved.
The media-savvy leaders of “Occupy,” as it became popularly known, were experts at creating sound bites, visual effects, and rallying cries to attract reporters’ attention. The idea of the “99 percent” has become embedded in our lingo today. And by keeping it on the front burner, the problem of income inequality has a chance of being rectified one day.