If you’ve spent any time digging into the guts of political history, you’ve hit the phrase Friends of the People. It sounds cozy. It sounds like something a local community center would call its donor list. But honestly, it’s one of the most loaded, double-edged labels in the history of global government. Depending on who you ask and what century you’re standing in, being a "Friend of the People" either makes you a populist hero or a precursor to a very messy revolution.
Words matter. Especially these ones.
The term isn't just a dusty relic from a textbook. It’s a recurring theme that pops up every time the gap between the "elites" and the "masses" gets too wide to ignore. From the streets of 1790s London to the radical pamphlets of the Russian intelligentsia, the Friends of the People have always been the ones claiming to hold the megaphone for the silenced. But the reality is way more complicated than just "helping the little guy."
The Society of the Friends of the People: Not Your Average Book Club
Let's look at 1792. Britain was terrified. Across the English Channel, France was basically on fire, and the French Revolution was in full swing. In London, a group of high-society Whigs—aristocrats, mind you—decided to form the Society of the Friends of the People.
This wasn't some underground peasant movement. It included guys like Charles Grey (the 2nd Earl Grey, yes, the tea guy) and Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Their goal? Parliamentary reform. They wanted to fix the "rotten boroughs" where a handful of voters chose MPs while massive industrial cities had zero representation.
They were moderate. At least, they thought they were.
The British government, led by William Pitt the Younger, absolutely hated them. Why? Because calling yourself a "Friend of the People" in 1792 was basically like saying you were a secret fan of the guillotine. Even though Grey and his buddies were literally nobility, the King saw them as a domestic threat. It’s a classic example of how a name can be used as a political shield. If you oppose the "Friends of the People," what does that make you? An enemy of the people? The logic is sticky.
Eventually, the group folded under the pressure of the Treason Trials and the general "anti-Jacobin" hysteria of the time. But they planted a seed. They proved that you could be part of the establishment and still argue for the rights of the commoner—even if your peers wanted to throw you in the Tower for it.
📖 Related: Trump Derangement Syndrome Definition: What Most People Get Wrong
When "Friends" Get Dangerous: The Russian Perspective
Fast forward to the late 19th century. The phrase took on a much darker, more intense flavor in Russia. If you’ve ever slogged through Lenin’s early writings—and honestly, I don’t recommend it unless you’re a glutton for punishment—you’ll find his 1894 work: What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats.
Lenin wasn't being nice. He was using the term ironically to attack the Narodniks.
The Narodniks were these middle-class intellectuals who basically "went to the people" in the countryside to try and spark a peasant revolt. They thought they were the ultimate allies of the Russian soul. Lenin, being Lenin, thought they were delusional amateurs who didn't understand economics.
This is where the term gets messy.
- The Narodniks saw themselves as protectors of the traditional peasant commune.
- Lenin saw them as obstacles to "scientific" progress and the industrial revolution.
- The actual "People" (the peasants) were often just confused and sometimes even turned these "Friends" over to the police.
It highlights a recurring problem with the Friends of the People concept: the "Friends" are almost always a different social class than the "People" they claim to represent. There’s a paternalism there that’s hard to shake. It’s the "I know what’s best for you" vibe that has fueled everything from genuine charity to some of the worst dictatorships in the 20th century.
The Pop Culture Pivot: Sketch Comedy and Satire
It’s not all guillotines and Siberian exile, though. If you’re a millennial or a Gen Zer, you might recognize Friends of the People as a short-lived but cult-favorite sketch comedy show on TruTV that aired around 2014.
It was actually pretty groundbreaking for its time.
👉 See also: Trump Declared War on Chicago: What Really Happened and Why It Matters
The cast featured people like Lil Rel Howery, Jermaine Fowler, and the Lucas Brothers. It was TruTV’s first foray into scripted sketch comedy, and it leaned heavily into the "people" aspect—meaning it felt raw, urban, and way less polished than Saturday Night Live. They took the name and reclaimed it. Instead of being a stuffy political society, they were just a group of friends making fun of the world from the perspective of people who weren't part of the 1%.
It’s a weird evolution, right? From Earl Grey in a powdered wig to a guy in Brooklyn doing a sketch about Michael Jordan. But the core thread is the same: the idea of a collective voice that belongs to the "rest of us."
Why the Label is a Double-Edged Sword
We see this today in the rise of populism across the US and Europe. Politicians on both the left and the right love to position themselves as the only true Friends of the People.
But there’s a trap here.
When a leader or a group claims this title, they often imply that anyone who disagrees with them is an "Enemy of the People." We saw this rhetoric used heavily in the 2010s and 2020s. It’s a polarizing tactic. It moves the conversation away from policy and into the realm of identity.
- Identity Politics: Are you one of "us" or one of "them"?
- Moral Superiority: If I’m a friend of the people, my motives are inherently pure.
- Gatekeeping: I get to decide who counts as "the people." (Usually, it doesn't include the people the speaker doesn't like).
The historian Jan-Werner Müller talks about this in his work on populism. He argues that the core of this "Friend of the People" energy is the claim that only a specific group represents the "real" people. It’s exclusionary. It’s not about everyone; it’s about a specific version of the public that fits a specific political narrative.
What Most People Get Wrong About the "People"
Honestly, the biggest mistake is thinking "the people" is a monolith.
✨ Don't miss: The Whip Inflation Now Button: Why This Odd 1974 Campaign Still Matters Today
The Friends of the People in 1792 were fighting for middle-class businessmen. The Friends of the People in 1890s Russia were looking at agrarian peasants. The Friends of the People in modern politics might be talking about "the working class" or "marginalized communities."
Everyone has a different definition.
If you’re looking for the "Friends" in any historical or modern context, you have to ask: Which people? And Who is doing the befriending? Usually, the answer reveals more about the person speaking than the public they’re trying to save.
Actionable Insights for the Modern "Friend"
If you're someone who actually wants to support a cause or be a "friend" to a community that isn't your own, history gives us a few clear warnings. Don't be a Narodnik. Don't be the person who shows up with a pre-packaged solution without actually talking to the people on the ground.
- Audit the Rhetoric: When you hear a politician use "the people" as a shield, look at who they are excluding from that definition.
- Check the Class Gap: Are the leaders of the movement coming from the same background as the people they represent? If not, is there a genuine mechanism for the "people" to lead?
- Beware of "Enemy" Logic: Any group that defines itself by who it hates more than what it builds is usually on a fast track to something messy.
- Support Grassroots over Paternalism: Real change usually comes from within a community, not from "friends" who fly in to save the day.
The story of the Friends of the People is basically the story of political ambition masked as altruism. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it changes the world for the better, like the Reform Act of 1832 in Britain. But more often than not, it’s a reminder that "the people" are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves—if the "friends" would just get out of the way and let them.
To understand where a movement is going, stop looking at the leaders and start looking at the friction between their words and their actions. That’s where the truth usually hides.