Channels, Spring 2017

Channels • 2017 • Volume 1 • Number 2 Page 49 and creating schisms. Further, in this early stage, Debs continually refers to his “grand plan” for the spread of socialism but never fully lays it out or explains it. Then, he consistently refuses to serve in party offices, preferring instead to make speeches and public appearances which have little lasting effect. The result is that the party organization is unstable and that Debs’ attempts often go awry, dragging the Socialist Party of America down and preventing it from taking advantage of favorable conditions for its growth and empowerment. Thus, the major opposing position in the historical works on Debs sees his legacy as that of a “misguided zealot.” My research supports the conclusion that the position represented by Professors Ginger and Brommel is more accurate of the impact and effectiveness of Eugene Debs. If Debs was an influential figure of the strong, positive nature argued by James Cannon, there should have been more sustainable political success for Socialism. Ginger’s criticisms are more convincing and reflect reality, and Brommel’s in-depth examination shows the connection between Debs’ failings as a leader and the problems, such as ineffectiveness and schism, which resulted for the Socialist Party of America. My research conducts a nuanced examination of Debs’ ideology to provide a more thorough understanding of the reasons for his lack of success. His program of nonviolent, democratic revolution was stuck in the middle ground between the two wings of American Socialism: social democratic reform and violent, anarchist revolution. While his ideology was a strong balance with a greater popular appeal that provided Debs prominence within the Party, he refused to consistently leverage this strength to set Party positions and strategies. Distracting presidential campaigns and Debs’ own ideological insecurities, having become a Socialist relatively late compared to contemporaries, led him to avoid Party conflict, even skipping nearly every Socialist Party convention. This doomed American Socialism to internal schism, limiting its appeal, legitimacy, and success to the degree that it could not survive without Debs’ personal magnetism after his death. Thus, Debs’ achievements must be measured in relation to the setting in which they occurred and the missed opportunities, ineffective tactics, and specific failures he had as a leader of the Socialist Party of America. While his skilled rhetoric, tireless energy, effective ideology, and ability to relate to the common worker brought increased attention to the Socialist Party of America in his lifetime, Eugene Debs’ obsession with national politics, unwillingness to work on the foundation of the Socialist Party, and failure to create, promote, or implement an organized plan for the spread of socialism led to a rapid decline for socialism as a legitimate political entity in America after his death. Inspiration or Distraction? When Eugene Debs emerged fromWoodstock Prison in 1895, it was not in obscurity. The workers of the Illinois town shouted, “Lift him up so we can see him,” attempting to get a