#1 What is the platform’s tone? Can it be said to be hopeful? Cynical? Optimistic? Worrisome?

The tone of the platform for the Populist Party can be seen as very cynical. It is said in the Preamble that many people were tired of the rash ways that the government acted when it came to Political Parties and large scale corporations, and that the actions were the causes of "grievous wrongs that have been inflicted upon the suffering people." It goes on to explain that it is their opinion that these parties at fault have carelessly gone about creating these situations with little to no thought about the repercussions that they would have upon the poor and impoverished workers in the country, and that they have personally disregarded any issues of the time other than the ones regarding "high tariffs" which are the only problems that could directly affect themselves. A worrisome tone can also be detected in the the platform as well, with the authors going on to explain that they believe their current situation and the status of The United States in general as being unlike anything the world has ever beheld and that an immediate intervention and solution is required. They mention frequently the issue that America was faced with at the time of the Gold Standard and bi-metalism which haunted the nation for years, and sparked countless debates all the way up to the Presidential ballots, with William Jennings Bryan being the go to advocate for the use of gold AND silver to back up the national currency, an idea that was supported by both the Democratic and Populist Parties due to it's potential to increase the amount of tender in the system and therefore create more opportunities for profit. 

#2 What political and economic problems do the Populists identify as America’s problems?

The Populist Party were firm believers that the nation was crippled and at the mercy of many formidable and potentially devastating problems. They address issues in the Omaha Platform such as the the lack of a stable national currency backed by a reliable source such as gold and silver, not one backed solely by gold which came about in much smaller quantities resulting in less money to be circulated and used for purchasing crops. They issue an ultimatum of sorts when they state that the time has come for deciding whether the people will become eternal subjects of the corrupt railroad system, or they will own it and therefore become not subject to it, but be in control and not at the mercy of avarice and ruthlessness. The authors also address of land ownership in the United States. They believed that the land was destined to be owned and cultivated by only the hardworking and determined Americans that were willing to sacrifice in order to better the country, even going so far as to quote John Smith by stating that you must work in order to be successful, and any large company such as the railroad that takes land for the people in excess should immediately return the land to it’s caretakers.  

#3 What are their solutions to these problems?

 In the platform itself, the Populists suggest several solutions to the many problems they faced at the time. One of the main solutions that they pushed for was a graduated income tax. This would replace many costly tariffs that plagued the burdened and indebted farmers while at the same time supplying a stable monetary flow to the federal government. They also recommend that as much of the nation’s money be kept in circulation and therefore in the hands of the people and that the state and government not enact harsh and unnecessarily large taxes on the impoverished. Furthermore, the suggest that all railroads, telephone companies, and telegraph companies should, like the post office, be publicly owned and therefore not subject to large price hikes and expensive fees. 

#4  Which solutions seem radical or too far to the left to you?

 I believe that although unreasonable fees and prices in railroad companies and other corporations aren’t beneficial to the state of the economy, complete control of these by the federal government is not a good idea and goes beyond the boundaries that the founding fathers bestowed on the government. Instead, I would break up larger companies that are owned by wealthy men who had little to do with it’s actual creation and create several other companies to create competition and therefore effectively reduce prices. I don’t agree with the idea of a unionization of all industry and labor. I believe it is in the best interest of the country and of Capitalism to have failures in the world of corporations, and that these failures will in turn inspire harder work and the drive to improve on societies workforce. 

#5  Which solutions seem moderate and acceptable?

I agree with the Populist movement when it comes to government interference and subsidies. I believe whole heartedly that in order for a Capitalist society to prosper, the federal government should step back and let it run it’s course. When it comes to a free market, minimal interference is the best kind, as it lets the system run and survive on it’s own, eventually allowing it to ease into the cycle of ebbing and flowing that has always been observed in Capitalist societies. Not everyone has to succeed in life, but unfortunately many people today would not agree and believe this policy to be “modern.”