“Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, & the Great Depression”, by Alan Brinkley, explains the journey, ambition, and purposes of two of the most infamous and memorable political leaders of the 1930’s, Huey Long and Father Coughlin, during one of the most challenging and memorable periods of America’s history. The text expresses the struggles and adversities during profound economic depression and political hardship with the helpful, yet also hindering, part Long and Coughlin played in it. While Long and Coughlin were “voices” that reformed some sanctions of American politics, they failed to effectively revolutionize the United States, and instead were bystanders during great leadership movements.
Huey P. Long, most noteworthy for …show more content…
Brinkley argues that the central problem of the aspiring two was their goal to reverse changes set into place long before them. Long emphasized misdistribution of wealth, while Coughlin primarily focused on the international banking system. Long’s followers grew skeptic, knowing he wanted out of the American economy, but expectant that he would succeed in holding office during the election year of 1936. Like Long, Coughlin’s problems drew from his uncertainty and indecisiveness regarding the future. Coughlin envisioned that the National Union for Social Justice would be a coherent and centralized lobby of people, however lack of promotion or advertising failed to yield either two goals. The National Union for Social Justice, along with the Share Our Wealth program, fell short of their expectations because of the ideology that criticizes centralized power of it’s institutions. Desiring their supporters to get involved, but not having the skills to carry it out, were two toxic factors combined that destroyed their movements. Neither Long or Coughlin “encouraged their followers to undertake active political efforts of their own” (193). While these men portrayed themselves as individuals who could successfully lead the country,
Huey P. Long, most noteworthy for …show more content…
Brinkley argues that the central problem of the aspiring two was their goal to reverse changes set into place long before them. Long emphasized misdistribution of wealth, while Coughlin primarily focused on the international banking system. Long’s followers grew skeptic, knowing he wanted out of the American economy, but expectant that he would succeed in holding office during the election year of 1936. Like Long, Coughlin’s problems drew from his uncertainty and indecisiveness regarding the future. Coughlin envisioned that the National Union for Social Justice would be a coherent and centralized lobby of people, however lack of promotion or advertising failed to yield either two goals. The National Union for Social Justice, along with the Share Our Wealth program, fell short of their expectations because of the ideology that criticizes centralized power of it’s institutions. Desiring their supporters to get involved, but not having the skills to carry it out, were two toxic factors combined that destroyed their movements. Neither Long or Coughlin “encouraged their followers to undertake active political efforts of their own” (193). While these men portrayed themselves as individuals who could successfully lead the country,