Podcasts de história

Convenção Democrática de 1944 - História

Convenção Democrática de 1944 - História

Chicago Stadium Chicago, Condado de Cook, Illinois

19 a 21 de julho de 1944

Nomeado: Franklin D Roosevelt de Nova York para Presidente

Nomeado: Harry S. Truman de Missouri para vice-presidente

Com os Estados Unidos totalmente engajados na Segunda Guerra Mundial, não havia dúvida de que Roosevelt buscaria e receberia a indicação mais uma vez. A questão de quem seria o vice-presidente. O atual vice-presidente Henry Wallace inspirou oposição significativa e Roosevelt decidiu substituí-lo por Harry Truman. A vitória de Truman não foi fácil. Na primeira votação, ele recebeu apenas cinco votos a mais que Truman. Rapidamente, porém, o apoio a Truman cresceu e garantiu a indicação.

.


Plataforma do Partido Democrático de 1944

O Partido Democrata mantém sua reputação na paz e na guerra.

Para acelerar a vitória, estabelecer e manter a paz, garantir pleno emprego e proporcionar prosperidade - esta é a sua plataforma.

Não detalhamos aqui dezenas de pranchas. Citamos ação.

A partir de março de 1933, a Administração Democrática empreendeu uma série de ações que salvaram nosso sistema de livre iniciativa.

Tirou o sistema do colapso e depois eliminou os abusos que o colocavam em perigo.

Usou os poderes do governo para criar empregos na indústria e salvar a agricultura.

Escreveu uma nova Carta Magna para o trabalho.

Fornecia seguridade social, incluindo pensões de velhice, seguro-desemprego, segurança para crianças deficientes e dependentes e cegos. Estabeleceu escritórios de emprego. Forneceu seguro de depósitos bancários federais, prevenção de enchentes, conservação do solo e evitou abusos nos mercados de títulos. Ele salvou fazendas e casas da execução hipotecária e garantiu preços lucrativos para produtos agrícolas.

Adotou um programa eficaz de recuperação, energia hidroelétrica e desenvolvimento mineral.

Ela encontrou o caminho para a prosperidade por meio da produção e do emprego.

Comprometemo-nos com a continuidade e aprimoramento desses programas.

Antes da guerra, a Administração Democrática despertou a Nação, com o tempo, para os perigos que ameaçavam sua própria existência.

Conseguiu construir, com o tempo, o exército mais bem treinado e equipado do mundo, a marinha mais poderosa do mundo, a maior força aérea do mundo e a maior marinha mercante do mundo.

Ganhou para o nosso país, e salvou para o nosso país, poderosos aliados.

Quando a guerra veio, ela conseguiu elaborar com aqueles aliados uma grande estratégia eficaz contra o inimigo.

Isso colocou essa estratégia em movimento e a maré da batalha mudou.

Manteve a linha contra a inflação do tempo de guerra.

Assegurava uma distribuição justa e compartilhada de alimentos e outros itens essenciais.

Está conduzindo nosso país à vitória certa.

O dever principal e imperativo dos Estados Unidos é travar a guerra com todos os recursos disponíveis para o triunfo final sobre nossos inimigos, e prometemos que continuaremos a lutar lado a lado com as Nações Unidas até que este objetivo supremo seja alcançado e depois disso, para garantir uma paz justa e duradoura.

Para que o mundo não volte a ser ensopado de sangue por bandidos e criminosos internacionais, prometemos:

Unir-se às outras Nações Unidas no estabelecimento de uma organização internacional baseada no princípio da igualdade soberana de todos os estados amantes da paz, aberta à adesão de todos esses estados, grandes e pequenos, para a prevenção de agressões e a manutenção de paz e segurança internacionais.

Fazer todos os acordos e arranjos necessários e eficazes por meio dos quais as nações mantenham forças adequadas para atender às necessidades de prevenção da guerra e de tornar impossível a preparação para a guerra e que tenham essas forças disponíveis para ação conjunta quando necessário.

Essa organização deve ser dotada de poder para empregar as forças armadas quando necessário para prevenir a agressão e preservar a paz.

Somos a favor da manutenção de um tribunal internacional de justiça da qual os Estados Unidos sejam membros e o emprego da diplomacia, conciliação, arbitragem e outros métodos semelhantes, quando apropriado, na solução de controvérsias internacionais.

A paz mundial é de importância transcendente. Nossos valentes filhos estão morrendo na terra, no mar e no ar. Eles não morrem como republicanos. Eles não morrem como democratas. Eles morrem como americanos. Juramos que seu sangue não será derramado em vão. A América tem a oportunidade de liderar o mundo neste grande serviço à humanidade. Os Estados Unidos devem enfrentar o desafio. Sob a Providência Divina, ela deve avançar para seu destino superior.

Prometemos nosso apoio à Carta do Atlântico e às Quatro Liberdades e à aplicação dos princípios nela enunciados às Nações Unidas e a outras nações amantes da paz, grandes e pequenas.

Devemos defender a política de boa vizinhança e estender as políticas comerciais iniciadas pelo atual governo.

Somos a favor da abertura da Palestina à imigração e colonização judaica irrestrita, e tal política que resulte no estabelecimento de uma comunidade judaica livre e democrática.

Somos a favor de legislação que garanta salário igual para trabalho igual, independentemente do sexo.

Recomendamos ao Congresso a apresentação de uma emenda constitucional sobre direitos iguais para as mulheres.

Favorecemos a ajuda federal à educação administrada pelos estados sem interferência do Governo Federal.

Favorecemos a legislação federal para garantir a estabilidade dos produtos, emprego, distribuição e preços na indústria do carvão betuminoso, para criar um equilíbrio adequado entre consumidor, produtor e mineiro.

Endossamos a declaração do presidente reconhecendo a importância do uso da água em estados áridos para fins domésticos e de irrigação.

Somos a favor de tarifas de transporte não discriminatórias e nos declaramos pela correção antecipada de desigualdades em tais tarifas.

Somos a favor da promulgação de legislação que conceda a mais ampla medida de autogoverno para o Alasca, Havaí e Porto Rico, e eventual constituição de um Estado para o Alasca e o Havaí.

Somos a favor da extensão do direito de sufrágio ao povo do Distrito de Columbia. Oferecemos estes programas de pós-guerra:

Uma continuação da nossa política de benefícios totais para ex-militares e mulheres com consideração especial para os deficientes. Temos como primeiro dever assegurar emprego e segurança econômica a todos os que serviram na defesa de nosso país.

Garantias de preço e seguro de safra para os agricultores com todas as etapas práticas:

Para manter a agricultura em paridade com a indústria e o trabalho.

Promover o sucesso do pequeno agricultor independente.

Para ajudar na aquisição de casa própria em fazendas de porte familiar.

Estender a eletrificação rural e desenvolver mercados internos e externos mais amplos para produtos agrícolas.

Remuneração adequada para trabalhadores durante a desmobilização.

A promulgação de legislação adicional humanitária, trabalhista, social e agrícola conforme o tempo e a experiência possam exigir, incluindo a emenda ou revogação de qualquer lei promulgada nos últimos anos que não tenha cumprido seu propósito.

Promoção do sucesso das pequenas empresas. Liberação mais precoce possível dos controles de tempo de guerra.

Adaptação das leis tributárias a uma economia em expansão em tempos de paz, com estrutura simplificada e impostos em tempos de guerra reduzidos ou revogados o mais rápido possível.

Incentivo ao capital de risco, novos empreendimentos, desenvolvimento de recursos naturais no Ocidente e em outras partes do país e a reabertura imediata das minas de ouro e prata do Ocidente assim que houver mão de obra disponível.

Reafirmamos nossa fé na empresa privada competitiva, livre do controle de monopólios, cartéis ou qualquer autoridade privada ou pública arbitrária.

Afirmamos que a humanidade acredita nas Quatro Liberdades.

Acreditamos que o país que tem a maior medida de justiça social é capaz das maiores conquistas.

Acreditamos que as minorias raciais e religiosas têm o direito de viver, desenvolver-se e votar em igualdade com todos os cidadãos e compartilhar os direitos garantidos por nossa Constituição. O Congresso deve exercer todos os seus poderes constitucionais para proteger esses direitos.

Acreditamos que, sem perda de soberania, o desenvolvimento mundial e a paz duradoura estão ao alcance da humanidade. Eles virão com o maior gozo dessas liberdades pelos povos do mundo e com o fluxo mais livre de idéias e bens entre eles.

Acreditamos no direito mundial de todos os homens de escrever, enviar e publicar notícias em taxas de comunicação uniformes e sem interferência de monopólio governamental ou privado e esse direito deve ser protegido por tratado.

O Partido Democrata concorda com essas crenças.

O Partido Democrata se compromete a manter esses princípios com solene sinceridade.

Finalmente, esta Convenção envia suas saudações afetuosas ao nosso amado e incomparável líder e Presidente, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Ele está diante da nação e do mundo, o campeão da liberdade e dignidade humanas. Ele resgatou nosso povo da devastação do desastre econômico. Sua rara previsão e magnífica coragem salvaram nossa nação do ataque de bandidos e ditadores internacionais. Cumprindo a ardente esperança de sua vida, ele já lançou os alicerces da paz duradoura para um mundo conturbado e do bem-estar de nossa nação. Toda a humanidade é sua devedora. Sua vida e serviços têm sido uma grande bênção para a humanidade.

Que Deus o mantenha forte no corpo e no espírito para continuar sua obra ainda inacabada é nossa esperança e nossa oração.

Nota do APP: O Projeto da Presidência Americana usou o primeiro dia da convenção nacional de nomeações como a "data" desta plataforma, uma vez que o documento original não tem data.


Convenções políticas nacionais semelhantes ou semelhantes à Convenção Nacional Democrática de 1944

Realizada em Chicago, Illinois, de 27 de junho a 2 de julho de 1932. A convenção resultou na nomeação do governador Franklin D. Roosevelt, de Nova York, para presidente e presidente da Câmara, John N. Garner, do Texas, para vice-presidente. Wikipedia

Determinado na Convenção Nacional Democrata de 1944, em 21 de julho de 1944. Indicado para ser o presidente Franklin D. Roosevelt e companheiro de chapa em sua tentativa de ser reeleito para um quarto mandato. Wikipedia

Realizado no Coliseu de Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, de 18 a 22 de junho de 1912. O partido nomeou o presidente William H. Taft e o vice-presidente James S. Sherman para a reeleição para a eleição presidencial de 1912 nos Estados Unidos. Wikipedia

Realizado no Anfiteatro Internacional em Chicago, Illinois, de 21 a 26 de julho de 1952, que foi a mesma arena que os republicanos haviam reunido algumas semanas antes para sua convenção nacional de 7 a 11 de julho de 1952. Quatro candidatos principais buscaram o indicação presidencial: o senador dos EUA Estes Kefauver do Tennessee, o governador Adlai Stevenson II de Illinois, o senador Richard Russell da Geórgia e Averell Harriman de Nova York. Wikipedia

Convenção de nomeação presidencial, realizada no Wells Fargo Center na Filadélfia, Pensilvânia, de 25 a 28 de julho de 2016. A convenção reuniu delegados do Partido Democrata, a maioria deles eleitos em uma série anterior de primárias e caucuses, para indicar um candidato para presidente e vice-presidente na eleição presidencial de 2016 nos Estados Unidos. Wikipedia

Convenção de nomeação presidencial realizada de 17 a 20 de agosto de 2020, no Wisconsin Center em Milwaukee, Wisconsin, e praticamente em todos os Estados Unidos. Na convenção, os delegados do Partido Democrata dos Estados Unidos escolheram formalmente o ex-vice-presidente Joe Biden e a senadora Kamala Harris da Califórnia como os indicados do partido para presidente e vice-presidente, respectivamente, nas eleições presidenciais de 2020 nos Estados Unidos. Wikipedia

Realizado no Convention Hall em Kansas City, Missouri, de 12 de junho a 15 de junho de 1928. Como o presidente Coolidge havia anunciado inesperadamente que não concorreria à reeleição em 1928, o secretário de Comércio Herbert Clark Hoover tornou-se o favorito natural do republicano nomeação. Wikipedia

Realizado no Philadelphia Convention Hall, na Filadélfia, Pensilvânia, de 12 a 14 de julho de 1948, e resultou nas nomeações do presidente Harry S. Truman para um mandato completo e do senador Alben W. Barkley, de Kentucky, para vice-presidente na eleição presidencial de 1948 . Que a área oriental da Pensilvânia fazia parte do mercado de televisão aberta em desenvolvimento. Wikipedia

Eventos do ano de 1944 nos Estados Unidos. <| recolhível recolhido & quot Wikipedia


O ano em que os Veepstakes realmente importaram

Se você está procurando a escolha de VP mais importante nos tempos modernos - uma que justifique nossa obsessão por "veepstakes" - olhe para 1944.

Jeff Greenfield é autor e analista de televisão cinco vezes vencedor do Emmy.

É o tópico que dominará as próximas três semanas de cobertura política - e se a história servir de guia, pode não importar muito. “É” o veepstakes, quando os indicados presidenciais anunciam seus companheiros de chapa.

Ao meio-dia de 20 de janeiro de 2017, o vencedor da eleição presidencial de novembro será empossado. Naquele dia, Donald Trump se tornaria, aos 70 anos, o presidente mais velho na posse da história americana Hillary Clinton, que completa 69 anos poucas semanas antes do eleição, seria a segunda mais velha, atrás apenas de Ronald Reagan. Desta vez, é fácil imaginar que a escolha do companheiro de chapa presidencial pode realmente importar.

Mas, apesar de toda a especulação febril de pré-escolha e análise pós-escolha, há um bom caso a ser feito de que o candidato a vice-presidente faz uma diferença marginal, na melhor das hipóteses. No início deste ano, dois acadêmicos argumentaram neste espaço que o candidato quase nunca apresenta seu estado natal. A força que outras escolhas podem ter tido - Al Gore enfatizando o tema "futuro x passado" de Bill Clinton em 1992, "seriedade" de Dick Cheney para George W. Bush em 2000 - é mais bem confinada ao "quem sabe?" reino (é difícil argumentar contrafactual).

É até difícil argumentar que as escolhas menos auspiciosas tiveram algum impacto real: a febre aftosa de Spiro Agnew, a vacuidade dos faróis dianteiros de Dan Quayle, os negócios vagos do marido de Geraldine Ferraro e os desafios cognitivos de Sarah Palin foram notas de rodapé no máximo - nenhuma delas ajudou a decidir a eleição. Mesmo a escolha mais desastrosa de vice-presidente - a escolha de George McGovern do senador Thomas Eagleton, que teve de ser descartado da multa depois que seu histórico de saúde mental foi revelado - não significou muito no contexto do deslizamento de terra de Richard Nixon em 49 estados em 1972.

Por que correr companheiros é menos importante do que você pensa

Por KYLE C. KOPKO e CHRISTOPHER J. DEVINE

Há, no entanto, uma escolha de companheiro de chapa que muito provavelmente mudou o curso da história - aquele em que qualquer escolha entre três fortes contendores teria levado a três trajetórias radicalmente diferentes para a nação.

Se você está procurando a escolha mais importante para o vice-presidente nos tempos modernos - uma que talvez justifique nossa obsessão quadrienal com os veepstakes -, olhe para trás, para a convenção democrata de 1944.

Conforme a convenção de 1944 se aproximava, não havia dúvida real sobre quem seria o candidato democrata à presidência. Franklin Delano Roosevelt enfrentou séria oposição em 1940, quando quebrou a tradição do “não terceiro mandato” que começou com George Washington, mas no meio de uma guerra global, havia pouco apetite para destituir o comandante-chefe. Além disso, os republicanos indicaram o governador de Nova York, Thomas Dewey, de 42 anos, que trouxe para a campanha sua reputação de reformador liberal e escolheu o popular governador de Ohio, John Bricker, como seu companheiro de chapa. A chapa republicana era formidável. FDR, pensavam os poderes democratas, era o único candidato que poderia detê-los.

Até aí, eles concordaram. Havia, no entanto, uma divisão profunda sobre quem Roosevelt deveria escolher como seu companheiro de chapa - e por um motivo que transcendia em muito os argumentos políticos normais: FDR estava morrendo.

Era uma convicção mantida por uma ampla variedade de pessoas que haviam entrado em contato com Roosevelt - nenhuma das quais foi revelada ao público.

FDR estava morrendo. Ao escolher seu companheiro de chapa, eles estavam escolhendo o próximo presidente. E o público não tinha ideia.

Em março de 1944, o Dr. Howard Bruenn examinou o presidente a pedido do médico de FDR. Bruenn escreveu que Roosevelt era “um indivíduo abatido, cinzento e exausto, que ficava sem fôlego ao menor esforço. O exame de seus olhos revelou algumas alterações devido à arteriosclerose e hipertensão. ” Outros especialistas médicos concordaram. No início de julho, algumas semanas antes da convenção nacional, uma equipe de médicos estudou Roosevelt. Um desses médicos, Frank Lahey, escreveu um memorando ao médico de cuidados primários de FDR, afirmando categoricamente: "Eu não acreditava que se o Sr. Roosevelt fosse eleito presidente novamente, ele teria a capacidade física para completar um mandato. … Era minha opinião que durante os quatro anos de outro mandato com seus fardos, ele teria novamente insuficiência cardíaca e seria incapaz de completá-la. ”

Integrantes políticos democratas compartilhavam essa visão em particular. Quando o presidente do Comitê Nacional Democrata, Robert Hannegan, e sua esposa visitaram a Casa Branca em junho de 1944, eles ficaram tão consternados com a saúde do presidente que o casal passou horas angustiados conversando sobre isso. À medida que a convenção se aproximava, os mediadores democratas sabiam o que o público não sabia: ao selecionar o companheiro de chapa de Roosevelt, quase certamente estavam escolhendo o próximo presidente dos Estados Unidos.

A vice-presidência que ninguém deveria desejar

Por que, entretanto, havia qualquer escolha a ser feita? Quatro anos antes, Henry Wallace havia sido colocado na chapa por insistência do próprio FDR. Roosevelt foi tão inflexível quanto a concorrer com seu então secretário da Agricultura que, quando surgiu uma oposição séria - ele estava muito comprometido com os direitos civis, muito liberal para Democratas mais conservadores, "entusiasmados" demais com o espiritualismo - a única maneira de Roosevelt fazer com que ele apareça foi ameaçando publicamente que, de outra forma, ele recusaria a indicação presidencial.

Em 1944, o vice-presidente Wallace era um herói tanto para o trabalho organizado quanto para as comunidades afro-americanas cada vez mais poderosas nas maiores cidades da América. Mas entre a elite democrata, a oposição a ele era ainda mais fervorosa do que em 1940.

As denúncias veementes de Wallace sobre a segregação inflamaram a oposição em todo o Sul, irritando um bloco vital da coalizão democrata. Seus impulsos esquerdistas o levaram a responder ao ensaio de 1941 do editor TIME-LIFE Henry Luce sobre "o século americano" com um discurso no qual Wallace o proclamou "o século do homem comum", argumentando que "nenhuma nação terá o direito dado por Deus para explorar outras nações. … Não deve haver imperialismo militar nem econômico. ” Para insiders democratas como Hannegan, o tesoureiro do DNC Ed Pauley, o prefeito de Chicago Ed Kelly e outros, Wallace era simplesmente indisciplinado e pouco confiável para ocupar o Salão Oval.

A certa altura, a alternativa mais clara para Wallace foi James Byrnes, que serviu na Câmara, no Senado e na Suprema Corte antes de ser escolhido por Roosevelt para chefiar o Escritório de Estabilização da Guerra - na verdade, tornando-o, nas próprias palavras de Roosevelt , “Presidente assistente”.

Mas, para dizer o mínimo, houve problemas com Byrnes. Em seu papel como "presidente assistente", ele irritou os trabalhadores com decretos sobre aumentos salariais. Ele era um católico que mudou de fé quando se casou com um episcopal, e membros do partido temiam que sua conversão do catolicismo ofendesse as etnias brancas em cidades por todo o Norte. E as opiniões de Byrnes sobre raça refletiam totalmente suas raízes na Carolina do Sul: ele já se opôs às leis federais anti-linchamento, alegando que o linchamento era um meio eficaz de "controlar o negro no Sul".

Nate Silver de FDR

É uma medida das vezes que essas opiniões não pareciam desqualificadoras imediatamente para os chefes democratas ou para o presidente Roosevelt - que mais de uma vez garantiu a Byrnes que ele era sua escolha para companheiro de chapa. Claro, FDR sendo FDR, ele também garantiu a Henry Wallace que ele foi o candidato favorito, chegando a escrever uma nota pública - "Se eu fosse um delegado", votaria em Wallace - um "endosso" que ficou tão aquém do entusiasmo que foi rotulado de "beijo da morte" carta.

Pouco antes da convenção democrata, um grupo de fazedores de reis partidários se reuniu com Roosevelt na Casa Branca para argumentar que nem Wallace nem Byrnes seriam companheiros de chapa aceitáveis. O que finalmente persuadiu Roosevelt a abandonar Byrnes foi a oposição implacável do líder trabalhista Sidney Hillman - cujo poder de veto durante o mandato de FDR deu origem à zombaria republicana de que, quando se tratava de política, o governo de FDR era "claro para Sidney".

O presidente pareceu aprovar sua escolha de compromisso: o senador do Missouri Harry Truman.

Kingmakers se reuniu com FDR e o convenceu de que nem Wallace nem Byrnes seriam companheiros de corrida aceitáveis.

Ele assinou sua escolha de compromisso: Truman.

Mas a preferência de Roosevelt quase não importou. Wallace teve o apoio da maioria dos delegados, bem como da esmagadora maioria dos democratas de todo o país. Em 1944, uma pesquisa Gallup descobriu que 65% dos democratas apoiavam Wallace como companheiro de chapa de FDR, enquanto o relativamente desconhecido Truman ganhava o apoio de apenas 2%.

Na quinta-feira, 20 de julho, a segunda noite da Convenção Nacional Democrata, eclodiu uma enorme manifestação pró-Wallace. O senador Claude Pepper, da Flórida, um dos membros mais liberais do Congresso, tentou lutar para chegar ao pódio para colocar o nome de Wallace na indicação - um movimento que provavelmente teria resultado em uma corrida de votos. Mas o presidente da convenção, o prefeito da Filadélfia David Lawrence, de repente pediu uma votação verbal para encerrar o dia. Apesar da maioria clara e esmagadora de “não!”, Lawrence fez a convenção terminar com o senador Pepper a apenas alguns metros dos microfones.

No dia seguinte, os esforços de Hannegan, o prefeito de Chicago Kelly, o chefe democrata do condado do Bronx Ed Flynn e outros valeram a pena: embora Wallace liderasse a primeira votação com 429,5 votos (Truman tinha 319,5), ele estava significativamente aquém de uma maioria. Na segunda votação, a corrida para Truman começou.

Em novembro daquele ano, a chapa Roosevelt-Truman obteve 432 votos eleitorais. Em abril de 1945, menos de três meses depois de iniciar seu quarto mandato, FDR morreu de derrame. Truman agora era o presidente.

Byrnes tornou-se secretário de Estado de Truman e então governador da Carolina do Sul, onde se opôs veementemente à integração escolar enquanto tentava conter as respostas violentas da Ku Klux Klan.

Wallace se tornou secretário de Comércio de Truman, mas depois de romper bruscamente com as políticas de Truman da Guerra Fria, o presidente o despediu. Em 1948, Wallace concorreu contra Truman como candidato presidencial do Partido Progressista, uma organização que ficou sob o controle crescente do Partido Comunista dos EUA, ele recebeu 2,5 por cento do voto popular. Quatro anos depois, Wallace escreveu um ensaio, Onde eu estava errado, no qual ele reconheceu que foi ingênuo sobre os crimes de Joseph Stalin, a natureza da União Soviética e as intenções internacionais da URSS.

Imagine se Claude Pepper tivesse chegado ao pódio da convenção em 1944 e colocou o nome de Wallace na indicação: os Estados Unidos provavelmente teriam enfrentado o período do pós-guerra com um presidente que, como ele próprio admitiu, era perigosamente ingênuo em relação aos soviéticos. Historiadores revisionistas, entre eles o cineasta Oliver Stone, sugerem que não teria havido Guerra Fria. Mas, dado o que sabemos sobre as intenções soviéticas e o poder dos partidos comunistas na Europa Ocidental, também é concebível que os EUA possam ter adotado uma política de apaziguamento em relação aos objetivos expansionistas de Stalin e, pós-Wallace, enfrentado um continente dominado por Moscou até o canal inglês.

Imagine o presidente Wallace, um simpatizante soviético. Ou o presidente Byrnes, um segregacionista total.

Em vez disso, temos o presidente Harry Truman.

Ou imagine que Roosevelt tivesse de alguma forma persuadido os trabalhadores a aprovar Byrnes. O que significaria para um segregacionista total estar no Salão Oval no momento em que a demanda do pós-guerra por justiça racial estava começando a crescer? A convenção democrata de 1948 teria aprovado a forte plataforma de direitos civis que começou a resolver a tensão intrapartidária histórica entre o Norte liberal e o Sul segregacionista? Sem a ordem executiva de Truman naquele ano, as Forças Armadas da América teriam se desagregado? É fácil imaginar que sob a presidência de Byrnes, o Partido Republicano - então sem uma presença sulista e com ardentes defensores dos direitos civis em suas fileiras de frente - poderia ter emergido como o partido preferido dos afro-americanos por gerações.

Portanto, deixe a obsessão dos veepstakes prosseguir, deixe incontáveis ​​árvores mortas e pixels serem gastos na perseguição dos Gingriches e Kaines, dos Pences e Castros, dos Christies e dos Warren. Talvez desta vez, o companheiro de chapa vai fazer uma diferença clara e mensurável, mas é difícil imaginar que chegará perto do impacto de primeiro lugar que a escolha do segundo lugar teve há mais de sete décadas.


Desfazendo o novo acordo: o golpe de 1944 contra o vice-presidente Henry Wallace

Enquanto você estiver aqui, queremos ter certeza de que sabe o quão vital é o apoio de pessoas como você para o nosso trabalho.

À medida que 2021 se desenrola, o jornalismo intransigente e incansavelmente crítico que chega às raízes das crises que enfrentamos será mais importante do que nunca. Não contamos com a publicidade para financiar nosso trabalho - contamos com nossos leitores e espectadores.

Se você quiser nos ajudar a continuar produzindo mais notícias radicalmente independentes e análises aprofundadas que o The Real News oferece, considere fazer uma doação dedutível de impostos ou tornar-se um sustentador mensal.

PAUL JAY: Bem-vindo à Real News Network. Eu sou Paul Jay. No Real News, temos feito muitas coberturas, histórias, sobre a batalha dentro do Partido Democrata entre a ala Sanders e o que eu chamaria de anel oligárquico, também às vezes chamada de ala Clinton ou Clinton / Obama ala, às vezes chamada de ala democrática corporativa. Bem, queremos voltar um pouco na história e falar sobre as origens dessa luta. Pelo menos, um dos pontos de inflexão críticos. Não vamos voltar ao início do Partido Democrata. Mais ou menos no passado para Roosevelt e o New Deal e Henry Wallace, que se tornou o vice-presidente de Roosevelt de '41 a '45, o que acontece em 1944, quando Wallace é dispensado do cargo de vice-presidente de Roosevelt, e Wallace representa talvez a política mais progressista que um vice presidente certamente já teve. Talvez a política mais progressista que alguém já fez para ter esse tipo de poder nos Estados Unidos. Vamos passar ao longo de alguns segmentos como essa batalha se desenrolou e colocou a luta Sanders e a ala Sanders da luta do partido com a ala Democrata Corporativa em algum contexto histórico. Agora se juntando a nós para discutir tudo isso está o historiador Peter Kuznick, que agora se junta a nós de sua casa em Washington. Peter é professor de história e diretor do Instituto de Estudos Nucleares da American University. Ele é o co-escritor de Oliver Stone, The Untold History of the United States. Obrigado por se juntar a nós novamente, Peter. PETER KUZNICK: É um prazer estar aqui, Paul. PAUL JAY: Acho que vamos começar a contextualizar as pessoas que ainda não conheceram, certamente pessoas mais jovens que não conhecem essa história. Número um, deixe-me dizer que fizemos uma série de várias partes com Peter sobre toda a série Oliver Stone que ele fez junto com Peter. Eu realmente recomendo que você assista a isso porque ele é muito aprofundado, cobrindo grande parte da história. Vamos escolher esse ângulo específico de como isso se desdobra no Partido Democrata nas próximas décadas após a guerra. Para definir o contexto, vamos repassar algumas das bases básicas. Em primeiro lugar, dê-nos um pouco de contexto. Roosevelt não é eleito como um New Dealer superliberal e progressivo, mas dado na Depressão torna-se isso e Wallace tem um papel a desempenhar em tudo isso. Talvez você possa nos ajudar a começar, Peter. PETER KUZNICK: Bem, Paul, deixe-me enquadrar de forma um pouco diferente para começar. Se olharmos para o partido democrata nos anos 1930 e na primeira metade dos anos 1940, o vemos como um partido progressista. Se voltarmos um pouco mais longe, até mesmo para o governo Wilson, então você tem um tipo de partido liberal internacionalista. Torna-se que as políticas de Wilson são muito, muito contra-revolucionárias em todo o mundo. Progressivismo wilsoniano, embora tivesse certos ideais elevados que vemos em seu programa de pós-guerra, a realidade das políticas de Wilson era muito mais conservadora e contra-revolucionária, como vemos manifestado no Tratado de Versalhes e o que teria sido a Liga das Nações. os Estados Unidos o abraçaram. Teria sido, como argumentaram os críticos da época, uma defesa do colonialismo europeu. Em vez disso, vamos para a década de 1920, porque na década de 1920 o partido democrata era muito conservador. Na verdade, na convenção de 1924, era dominado pela Klu Klux Klan. Você sempre teve uma divisão no Partido Democrata. Havia certos elementos progressivos. O Bryan Wing era, de certa forma, internacional e globalmente progressivo. Embora, culturalmente, como eu digo, muito mais conservador. Na década de 1920, você tinha uma forte direita no Partido Democrata. Até Al Smith, o candidato democrata em 1928, vira bruscamente para a direita na década de 1930, é um oponente do New Deal, está do lado dos DuPonts e dos Morgans e dos outros direitistas da década de 1930 em oposição ao New Deal e pode ter esteve envolvido neste golpe de Smedley Butler de que falamos antes. O partido democrata sempre teve um legado misto. Houve momentos, houve muitos momentos, de real promessa progressiva, mas a história geral não foi consistentemente progressiva. As coisas mudaram na década de 1930 conforme você estava chegando. Eles mudam, Roosevelt é eleito em 1932, não como um progressista flamejante de forma alguma. Na verdade, ele ataca Hoover e os republicanos pela direita em muitos sentidos durante a campanha. Ele ataca Hoover por desequilibrar o orçamento, por ser um grande gastador durante a campanha de 1932. Houve vislumbres do New Deal em alguns de seus discursos e declarações, mas você não teria esperado, ou não poderia ter previsto, ver Roosevelt se transformando no tipo de líder visionário progressista que em certa medida ele vem durante os anos 1930, especialmente durante seu segundo termo e depois durante o período de guerra. Acho que precisamos entender isso principalmente no contexto da mudança geral na política americana na década de 1930. A força mais importante, é claro, foi o movimento trabalhista. Você tem a AFL se movendo para a esquerda e você tem a ascensão do CIO, que agora estava organizando a América industrial. Essa é a base, essa é a espinha dorsal do Partido Democrata na década de 1930. We see that influence of the Labor movement, especially in the 1936 election in which the Democrats sweep the election across the country. The New York Times declares that the Republican right is dead and they never rise again. Unfortunately, they were wrong in that one. It was a clear victory for liberal, left, progressive forces. We see that same kind of change occurring with the African-American movement, with American intellectuals. I wrote a book, for example, about the shift in American scientists in the 1930s, how the scientists begin the decade as perhaps the most conservative force in American politics and they end up the decade as the most left wing force in American politics. In the December 1938 election for president of the triple AS, the largest scientific body in the United States, all five leading vote getters were proponents of the Science and Society movement and the president of the triple AS, Walter Cannon was not only a socialist but he was very pro-Soviet in the 1930, Harvard physiologist. That kind of shift is taking place across the country in the 1930s. Roosevelt rode that wave and Henry Wallace was his secretary of agriculture in the first two terms of the New Deal. PAUL JAY: Peter, before we continue with the story, let me suggest the framing at least the way I look at this. I don’t know if you agree. The Democratic party and the Republican party as well, but the Democratic party more so, it’s an alliance of different classes. It’s not just a dispute or fight over ideology, that some people believe in progressive values and some people believe in conservative values. There’s a class alliance here between sections of the elites, which include sections of the oligarchy at the time in the ’20s or ’30s and going forward, sections of the working class, especially starting in the ’30s, represented by the trade unions. There’s a convergence of interest and also a battle that takes place within the party between these class forces that gets represented through progressive ideas or conservative ideas. The elites have always, with perhaps a few exceptional moments, really been dominant even if there’s been some breakthroughs. Even during Roosevelt’s time while he proposes a progressive policies he clearly does it to save capitalism. I’m not suggesting that it would have been better to have some other kind of onerous policy. The New Deal was better for people. He wasn’t a left winger looking to be anti-capitalist. Still represented the section of the elites. PETER KUZNICK: Yes, I agree with you. Roosevelt was a pragmatic politician. The Democratic party was a coalition of progressive forces and reactionary forces. You have to remember that the Democratic party’s strength during that time was in the south. The southern Democrats had the most seniority and they controlled the key positions in the legislature. Roosevelt was always walking this tightrope w here he had to placate and try to slowly bring along the southern Democrats, by ’68, they move to become Republicans but between ’32 and ’68 they’re very much part of the Democratic coalition. PAUL JAY: And they’re thoroughly racist, yes? PETER KUZNICK: Strongly racist. Support aspects of the New Deal but they even tweak the New Deal in ways to make sure that Blacks are not going to get equal benefits with whites in the south. It’s always a struggle for the soul of the Democratic party. Roosevelt was more pragmatic than he was ideological and progressive. His wife, Eleanor was much more progressive and always pushing him to the left on these policies, much more sympathetic to the civil rights movement and was a big supporter of course of Henry Wallace’s. Wallace, as representing a wing of the party that was the opposite of the southern reactionary Democrats. We also have during this time the rise of fascism. Roosevelt supported the neutrality during the late 1930s, which stopped the United States from supporting the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War. Roosevelt later said it was a terrible mistake but if we had intervened to support the progressives in the Spanish Civil War against Franco and Mussolini and backed by Hitler, we could have perhaps preempted a lot of the terrible things that are going to happen in the 1930s and 1940s. The Soviets would not have been the only force supporting the left in Spain perhaps in the 1930s. You had Churchill, for example, supporting Franco and the fascists. Roosevelt had maintained this neutrality. When he was looking to run again in 1940 he knew the United States was inching toward war with Nazi Germany and perhaps Japan. He wanted a leading progressive on the ticket. The most outspoken anti-fascist in the New Deal coalition in the ’30s was Henry Wallace. Wallace was a real internationalist. He caused a rebound in the agricultural economy. Farmers were quite progressive during the 1930s to go along with labor. Wallace had a strong constituency but the party bosses who had enormous influence in the party during this period, the party bosses opposed Wallace. Why did they oppose him? Partly because he was much too progressive for the party bosses who came out of the big urban machines in large part and partly because he had never been a Democrat. His father had been Secretary of Agriculture under Harding and Coolidge. PAUL JAY: Wallace himself was a Republican to begin with, wasn’t he? PETER KUZNICK: He didn’t change his party affiliation until the mid ’30s. The party bosses didn’t trust him for that but they also thought he was potentially much too radical, much too outspoken and the party bosses, the Walkers and the Haigs and Kelly and these people, were much more conservative. PAUL JAY: How much in terms of the design of the New Deal, these direct national work programs where millions of people were hired and an enormous amount of stimulus to the economy and various regulations both in terms of Wall Street and commodities, how much was that Wallace? What kind of role did he play in that? PETER KUZNICK: I would give more of the credit to Roosevelt himself on a lot of that. Wallace had some influence, especially on the foreign programs and the overall tenor of the administration. You also had people like Francis Perkins, Harold Ickes, you had a lot of progressives. That’s part of the tragedy of what happens under Truman. Wallace is going to be the last of the New Deal progressives to survive until 1946. Truman is going to purge the party. Just as we see the Democratic leadership under Perez now trying to purge the Bernie Sanders supporters from the Democratic National Committee, we saw Truman purge the New Dealers from the Democratic party and the cabinet in the mid-1940s. PAUL JAY: Let’s tell them a little bit of the story of what happens to Wallace in ’44. Now again you’ll see linked over to the side if you’re on the RealNews.com watching this, and you should be because there’s a lot more on our website than on our YouTube site or on other places but over on the side you’ll see the whole history series. In great detail, you’ll see what happened at the convention in ’44 where Wallace is dumped by the right wing of the party. Recap it a bit for us, Peter. PETER KUZNICK: Wallace was the leading progressive force in the party. Roosevelt fought to get him on the ticket in 1940. Roosevelt wrote a letter to the Democratic convention when it looked like they weren’t going to put Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt wrote a remarkable letter saying that we already have one conservative Wall Street-dominated party in the United States, the Republicans, and if the Democrats aren’t going to be a liberal, progressive, social justice party they have no reason to exist and he turned down the nomination. Eleanor went to the floor of the convention and warned them that he was going to do so and not run for a third term in 1940. They begrudgingly put Wallace on the ticket. Wallace was the progressive vision. When Henry Luce says that the 20th century must be the American century and the United States should dominate the world, Henry Wallace counters with that wonderful speech saying the 20th century must be the century of the common man. He calls for a worldwide people’s revolution. It was Wallace who says that America’s fascists are those people who think that Wall Street comes first and the American people come second. Wallace was the enemy of Wall Street. Wallace opposed British and French colonialism and the British and the French hated Wallace for being the leading spokesperson in opposition to colonialism. He was the leading spokesperson for Black civil rights, for women’s rights. Across the board, Wallace represented everything that we see as good in American progressivism. There were a lot of people out to get him. PAUL JAY: In today’s terms Wallace would be quite to the left of Bernie Sanders. PETER KUZNICK: Far to the left of Bernie Sanders. PAUL JAY: Why does Roosevelt pick someone so on the left? PETER KUZNICK: Because Wallace was also tremendously popular. As the Democratic party convention launches July 20, 1944, Gallup asked potential voters who they wanted on the ticket as vice president. 65% of potential voters said they wanted Wallace back as vice president, 2% said they wanted Harry Truman. Wallace was the second most popular man in America behind Roosevelt. When the magazines in the late ’30s asked who should replace Roosevelt the number one choice was Henry Wallace. Wallace was a safe choice in 1940 and despite what the bosses told him he would have been a safe choice in 1944. The American people, we were fighting a war against fascism in the 1940s. We were a different country. There was a war against fascism, a war against racism. We had our own racism of course but the United States was a much more progressive country devoted to more progressive values. Wallace had the popular support, he had the union support, he had every Black delegate at the Democratic convention in 1944. He was the choice of the people. Roosevelt knew that in ’40 and he wanted a leading outspoken, anti-fascist on the ticket given what he knew we were up against in the 1940s. PAUL JAY: The party dumps him anyway in ’44, which is a little bit similar, as you said, to what’s happening now with Sanders clearly being the most popular Democratic party politician and the party machine bosses and corporate Democrats doing whatever they can behind the scenes to try to prevent him from getting the nomination. Tell us about what happened in ’44. PETER KUZNICK: In ’44 the support was for Wallace but Edwin Pauley, the party treasurer, ran what Pauley called Pauley’s Coup, he proudly referred to it as, in conjunction with Bob Hannegan, the Democratic party chair. They run an operation. Roosevelt by ’44 is very, very weak. It’s clear to everybody that he’s not going to last another term. He was the only one who was in denial really about that. They went around saying, for the nomination for vice president they were saying, “We’re not just nominating a vice president. We’re nominating the next President of the United States.” They made all the deals. They tried to keep the progressives, the Wallace supporters from ever getting access to Roosevelt. They cooked the convention basically. They stacked the convention with anti-Wallace delegates. The problem was that Wallace was so popular. The night the convention starts, July 20th, Wallace makes the seconding speech for Roosevelt. Even though the party bosses had the convention already stacked and fixed in 1944, like they did in 2016. After Wallace’s speech there’s a spontaneous demonstration on the floor. It lasts for about an hour. Among the leaders are people like Hubert Humphrey and Adlai Stevenson. In the midst of that, Senator Claude Pepper from Florida, nicknamed Red Pepper because of his progressive views, realized that if he could get to the microphone and get Wallace’s name and nomination that night, Wallace will sweep the convention, get the nomination for vice president, defy the bosses, and be back on the ticket. Pepper fights his way to the microphone. The party bosses see what’s going on. You’ve got Mayor Kelly of Chicago, it was in Chicago, screaming, “It’s my convention. This is a fire hazard. Adjourn immediately.” Sam Jackson is chairing it. He said he had orders to not let Wallace get the nomination and he says, “I’ve got a motion to adjourn. All in favor, aye.” Maybe 5% say aye. “All opposed, nay.” The rest of the convention booms out nay. Jackson says, “Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.” Pepper was literally five feet from the microphone when that happened. Oliver Stone and I argue in the Untold History is that had Pepper gotten five more feet to the microphone and got Wallace’s name in nomination, Wallace would be back on the ticket of vice president. He would become president on April 12th, 1945 when Roosevelt died, instead of Truman. History would have been different. There definitely would have been no atomic bombings in World War Two. Wallace becomes the leading opponent of the atomic bomb. There almost certainly would have been no Cold War or if there was some contention it would never have taken the virulent form that it took between the United States and the Soviets starting in 1945, ’46, ’47. That’s how close we came to a dramatically different history. Five feet. Five feet and a few seconds. PAUL JAY: Okay. In the next segment of our interview we’re going to pick up the story with the Truman presidency and as Peter said, the purging of the New Dealers and such from the Democratic party. Please join us with Peter Kuznick on The Real News Network for part two.


Lost History

In light of recent events and actions of the current administration and Congress, I would like to share with you a chapter from my book, The Road To Air America. This is a chapter about what was going on before and during World War II in this country. Much of this is not known nor taught in history classes,

Even as Anita and I moved forward towards our vision, my thoughts returned to the past back to the lessons of my father, Charles Drobny.

As we thought about forming a new media company, it was impossible to forget what had happened to liberals in the past. Over the years—again through reading, research, and the experiences passed on to me by my father—I had formed an opinion of the collaboration between industry and the press, and what happens to the people who try to resist it. I thought back to the story of Henry Wallace, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Vice President.

I’ve already said that the American firms who profited by arms sales to Germany were worried that their activities would be exposed after the war. This Wall Street crowd hated FDR from the start. Their hatred was so vicious that they actually accused FDR of being a Bolshevik. Roosevelt did not like them any better than they liked him.
Roosevelt was very much concerned about the appeasement of Hitler during the 1930s he was one of the few world leaders who wanted to stop Hitler before he became too powerful. But FDR had many domestic problems caused by the Depression, and furthermore, the American public was isolationist in its attitude towards the rest of the world. He was unable to act on his concern.

Many U.S. newspapers, early on, had praised Hitler for his success in rebuilding Germany in the 1930s and kept a comfortable distance from activities in Hitler’s Nazi Germany. But that obviously changed as the war unfolded and Hitler’s atrocities were revealed. By the time American’s entered the war, the American supporters of the Nazi war machine knew there would be postwar consequences of the public knowing of their activities, once Hitler was defeated. The November 1944 election was instrumental in preventing that scandal from ever seeing the light of day.

The 1944 Democratic convention was held in Chicago in July, 1944. There was no doubt that FDR would be re-nominated. Vice President Wallace was expected to also be re-nominated as his running mate. Wallace was a progressive, and a supporter of labor and civil rights. In addition, like Roosevelt, he was a strong supporter of a postwar friendship with the USSR. Wallace believed that the only reasonable strategy at that point in time was to come to a peaceful postwar agreement with the USSR. Russia had lost nearly 25 million people including 10 million civilians and their country needed to be rebuilt. A friendship with such a devastated nation seemed like the best possible scenario for all parties.

Henry Wallace was firmly in the liberal tradition. Although a single word cannot define or characterize a political philosophy, the word liberal in America today generally refers to one who is receptive to change and new ideas in social terms, and approves of the positive role of government in our lives. Liberalism has its roots in nineteenth century Europe, when freedom from the dominance of church, aristocracy, and absolute state authority became an ascending value. Liberals tend to be concerned with social justice, individual civil liberties, freedom of the press, and the common good, and they expect government to uphold these values.
Wallace was a liberal in the tradition of FDR because he supported an unproven yet reasonable idea that good relations with the post war Soviet Union was a good idea, something that conservatives abhorred. The Soviet system was perceived as a threat to capitalism in the minds of the conservatives. However, the reality was that the Russians had sacrificed dearly during the war and were entitled to a chance for a cooperative relationship.
America was at a critical juncture at the end of the war, in terms of its relation to the Soviet Union. According to Alderman Edwin M. Burke, co-author of a 1996 book with R. Craig Sautter and Richard M. Daley called, Inside the Wigwam, the 1944 Chicago Democratic Convention was the stage on which the very political future of America itself was played.

Burke’s book is a history of Chicago Presidential Conventions from 1860-1996. At the Democratic convention of 1944, the party bosses around the country knew FDR was seriously ill and was likely not finish his fourth term. The idea of Wallace being the next President was a terrifying thought to those in the conservative and Southern wing of the Democratic Party. They were strongly anti-Soviet and new Wallace was disposed towards normalizing relations with the USSR.

Unlike Roosevelt, who was a shrewd politician, Wallace was a true idealist. Although Roosevelt was very progressive in his policies, he knew that the coalition of Southern and conservative Democrats was necessary for the Democrats to win a national election. The party bosses in Chicago, including Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly, intervened just as Wallace was about to be re-nominated. Kelly instructed the Chicago Fire Commissioner at the time to close down the convention hall. The party bosses wanted Harry Truman to be nominated because Truman was part of Missouri machine politics and could easily be manipulated in the postwar policy toward the Soviet Union.

The party bosses succeeded in getting Truman to be FDR’s running mate in a dramatic and brilliant series of political maneuvers. As Wallace was being nominated, Mayor Kelly had the fire commissioner evacuate the Chicago Stadium. He did it by engineering and artificially created fire hazard. The Chicago Stadium doors were opened to the skid row bums in the neighborhood. People poured into the convention in droves causing the overcrowding of the building, which then had to be evacuated because of fire hazard limits. That nomination was postponed for a day. Party bosses quickly took over the process by “influencing” the delegates to switch their allegiance to Truman. [what does “influencing” mean – pressure or bribery?

The nomination of Harry Truman as Vice President and the death of FDR in April, 1945 made it much less likely that Wall Street would be exposed to a the scandal that would have exposed their support of Hitler. It’s not that the machine politicians at the Democratic Convention had any have any particular sympathy for the Wall Street collaborators with Nazi Germany, or lacked ideals. But many of these Democrats were pragmatists. From their business dealings, they knew that Wallace was perceived by the business establishment as even worse than Roosevelt. The Wall Street industrialists also wanted him out as well—which is not to say conservative Democrats conspired with the Wall Street Nazi collaborators. Their interests, however, happened to align, and created a common intention to undermine Wallace’s re-nomination. Machine politicians do not want honest idealists as party heads, and their corrupt practices would not be tolerated by a man like Wallace.

It also set in motion events that would dramatically change the postwar relations with the Soviet Union and the Military Industrial Complex. Unlike Roosevelt, Truman was not able to control the conservative Democrats who were composed mainly of Southern segregationists and right wing militarists. FDR had known the danger of this group, but as a master politician, he also knew he needed them to get elected. Roosevelt recognized Stalin was a ruthless dictator domestically, but again, he had needed his cooperation during the war, and so treated “Uncle Joe” like any other corrupt-but-necessary political boss. In other words, Roosevelt was a pragmatist he knew that without the cooperation of Stalin, there could not be a lasting peace in the postwar.

But Roosevelt’s peace with the USSR was never to be. He died in April, 1945. The postwar Truman doctrine of confrontation with the Soviet Union became the linchpin of American postwar policy. This eventually led to the ascendance of the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower would warn us about so articulately.
Truman’s policy of containment satisfied the Wall Street industrialists for three reasons. First, by making Russia the enemy, these industrialists were able to demonize the socialist worker’s movement which at one time had been a powerful force for change in the United States. Second, it allowed the arms industry to continue the business they had so effectively begun with Nazi Germany. Finally, they were able to distract attention from their activities, in that they were beneficiaries of the American Government’s covert use of former Nazi in the Cold War fight. If the American government was making secret use of once-powerful Nazi officers, these individuals’ deeds would never be exposed to the public—nor would the deeds of their collaborators.

One can never know what would have happened had FDR lived, or if Henry Wallace eventually gone on to replace him. One only knows that today the symbiotic relationship between the military and the armament industrialist has grown out of control. The growth of the defense industry has sapped U.S. resources, increased the “demand” for war, and put an increasingly larger concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.
Back at the 1944 Democratic Convention in Chicago the coup by the “Right wing of the Democratic Party” that put Truman in charge was never reported in the popular media. It is not part of American history. Ostensibly, according to the press, Wallace was simply not nominated because he was considered too controversial. The newspapers only reported that the Chicago Stadium was closed because of a mysterious fire hazard. But in fact, Wallace had actually been popular with the delegates, and only “controversial” after the fact. When the convention reconvened, it took not one but two ballots to get Truman nominated. Anything else to say about the scandal?

This suppression of liberal values and ideas is nothing short of a danger to democracy. That’s what true believers in democracy are fighting against—the forces that are will go to any lengths to stop the will of the people from being enacted. With our vision of a progressive radio network we wanted to make it more difficult for deceit, manipulation and back room pressure to win the day. Anita and I believe that in politics, like in nature, there is a necessary balance of discourse between forces. Dialogue between conservatives and liberals is what informs the process democratic, and produces the enactment of reasonable legislation and governance. The domination of either side is not in the best interests of the United States, let alone the world.
Our vision for Air America Radio was not liberal domination. It was a place where liberals could contribute to the debate and discourse between opposing and sincere points of view, in a time when that debate is almost entirely dominated by the conservative media. We believe balance must be restored . Otherwise government cannot serve the best interests of the people. In politics, as well as in science it, is the stability caused be opposite and equal forces that make for sustainable and enduring systems.


Public Programs News and Events

The FDR Presidential Library and Museum and the Roosevelt Institute are pleased to announce “FDR’s 4 CAMPAIGNS,” a free public forum on October 21, 2012. The forum will consist of two afternoon panel discussions beginning at 1:30 p.m. in the Henry A. Wallace Center at the FDR Presidential Library and Home. Both panels will feature leading scholars and authors discussing Franklin Roosevelt’s historic four presidential campaigns.

In addition to house seating, these programs will be webcast live (linked from the Library’s website) with online viewer participation. Registration is required. Call (845) 486-7745 for information. For a printable agenda visit the Roosevelt Library website’s events page at: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/publicprograms/calendar.html.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to the presidency four times in the midst of the two greatest crises of the 20th century. Each campaign was unique, reflecting Roosevelt’s evolving vision for the Nation and its place in the world.

The first panel discussion, beginning at 1:30 p.m., will focus on FDR’s first two elections. His First and Second campaigns took place during the Great Depression. In 1932, he campaigned to bring a New Deal to the American people. The 1936 election was a referendum on Roosevelt’s vision of a progressive government playing an active and positive role in the American economy. This first panel will be moderated by Mary E. Stuckey, Professor of Communication, Georgia State University and author of “Defining Americans: The Presidency and National Identity.” Panelists will include Donald A. Ritchie, Historian of the United States Senate and author of “Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932” and Gregory E. Geddes, Professor of History, State University of New York – Orange and specialist in the history and literature of labor and the American left.

The second panel, beginning at 3:15 p.m. will discuss FDR’s last two elections. During FDR’s Third and Fourth campaigns, the world was at war. In 1940, the major issues were Roosevelt’s run for a Third Term and whether America would remain isolationist. The 1944 campaign was the first wartime election since the Civil War, and a weary FDR ran for a Fourth Term in order to win the war and ensure the peace. This panel will be moderated by Richard Aldous, Eugene Meyer Professor of British History and Literature, Bard College and author and editor of nine books, including “Reagan and Thatcher.” Panelists will include Charles Peters, founder and former Editor-in-Chief, “The Washington Monthly” and author of “Five Days in Philadelphia: The Amazing ‘We Want Willkie!’ Convention of 1940 and How It Freed FDR to Save the Western World” and Stanley Weintraub, Professor Emeritus of Arts and Humanities, Pennsylvania State University and author of Final Victory: “FDR’s Extraordinary World War II Presidential Campaign.”


British Pressure

Towards the end of WW2, Britain looked to negotiate a peace that preserved a semblance of their colonial power while establishing themselves and America as clear Western leaders. Henry Wallace was basically against that entire sentiment.

He despised colonialism and wanted an inclusive international coalition. As Vice President, he argued that in addition to economic development aid for Asia, each current colonial area was entitled to self-determination. Britain’s Chief Intelligence Officer’s response was simple and direct. Wallace had to go. “I came to regard Wallace as a menace, he said. “I took action to ensure that the White House was aware that the British government would view with concern Wallace’s appearance on the ticket at the 1944 presidential election.”


2 respostas 2

There is an extensive Wikipedia article on the details of the selection process. Truman had become a national figure through his chairmanship of the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program which had saved $10-15 billion of the cost of WWII, by preventing inefficiency, waste and profiteering, at a cost of $360,000. It was clear that Truman could get things done, and with Roosevelt ailing, that was a valuable quality in a Vice-President.

Truman balanced Roosevelt's ticket in several important ways. First, he was a Senator (Roosevelt had been Governor of New York). He came from a poor background Roosevelt was a rich man trying to convince poor people that he was acting in their interests, against fellow members of his "class." Truman was someone who had "worked with his hands," at a time when most voters did so, and had não been to college. Even so, Truman was "right" of (less radical than) FDR in his own party, not to mention Henry Wallace.

The geographical factor was not unimportant. Missouri, besides being a decent-sized state, was close to the geographical and cultural center of the country. It was a good answer to Will it play in Peoria? Basically, it was on the edge of both the Midwest and the South having been the "border state" nearest to Kansas before the Civil War. Roosevelt was rightfully confident about his ability to hold the key northeastern states of New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but needed help in the Midwest Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Missouri were close states (Dewey barely won the first one).


The 1944 Democratic National Convention erupted in cheers as Henry A. Wallace was renominated as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vice president. With all the delegate’s votes tallied Wallace had won with 429 votes to the runner-up and then U.S Senator from Missouri Harry S. Truman’s 319 votes. The other 426 voters were split between seven other candidates. Jubilee filled the air as the Chicago Stadium’s PA system was commandeered in celebration to play the native Iowan’s campaign song “Iowa! That’s where the tall corn grows.”

The celebration was squashed by southern Democratic Party bosses who despised Wallace for his progressive platform calling for desegregation.

During a radio address, Wallace deplored segregation in the south when he declared, “I say our failure to live by the Constitution, our failure to abolish segregation strikes at the roots of America.”

Wanting to prevent Wallace the nomination for his strong desegregation stances the party seized the stage of the convention hall and halted the election. This gave party bosses enough time to make backroom deals and by the next day of the convention, they had coalesced around Harry S. Truman. An entire political machine transformed Wallace’s victory into a defeat resulting in 105 votes cast for Wallace and 1,031 votes for Truman. Party bosses stole the election and secured the vice presidency, which allowed Truman to become president after Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death from a lifetime battle with polio.

Wallace initially served on FDR’s cabinet as secretary of agriculture where he worked tirelessly to combat the ecological catastrophe of the Dust Bowl. An original new dealer who often was declared an enemy by segregationists and corrupt members of his own party because of his boldly progressive platform calling for the desegregation of public schools, strengthening unions, and the creation of a national health insurance program. All of which was forward-thinking especially for a man born in Iowa during 1888.

What got Wallace in the most trouble with wealthy elites was his prophetic warning and staunch hatred for fascism. Wallace characterized American fascists as “…one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends.”

Strong declarations against fascism during a time when the United States was fighting Nazism abroad skyrocketed Wallace’s popularity and broadened his base to workers of all creeds, which would inspire him to run third-party in the 1948 presidential election. Wallace ran as the candidate for the newly formed Progressive Party and hoped to redeem himself by beating Truman. Wallace won 2.3 percent of the nationwide popular vote and his record as vice president remains overshadowed by his failed presidential bid.

The significance of Wallace’s story reflects on how the establishment of the Democratic Party has historically worked to keep progressives out of office. This can be shown during the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries on March 2, 2020, the day before Super Tuesday. Former candidates Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg all endorsed Joe Biden on the same day, at a time when Bernie Sanders had a 28.5 percent lead over Biden’s 20 percent. Super Tuesday swung in Biden’s favor and the entire primary followed.

It has been reported that President Barack Obama had called O’Rourke, Klobuchar and Buttigieg to personally request that they endorse Biden. Just like the party bosses that denied Wallace the nomination in 1944, the Democratic Party, unlike the Republican Party’s problems rallying around a candidate other than Trump in 2016, consolidated around one candidate to thwart off the risk of a progressive from winning the nomination. The parallel continues as Wallace famously delivered a message of unification in favor of a Roosevelt-Truman ticket similar to Sanders when he suspended his campaign and endorsed Biden.

Sanders concluded that Trump was such a dangerous threat to democracy that he had to endorse Biden. Sanders’ concerns surrounding the rise of authoritarianism echoes Wallace’s warning against fascism during his time and reflects the growing fears of Americans who observe as the current president engages in the actions of a despot.

When Fox News asked if Trump lost his reelection would he accept the results which he answered, “I’m not going to just say yes? I’m not going to say no.”

When a president refuses to accept the results of a free election and caters to nationalistic fevers, then that president is flirting with fascism. This blatantly open despotism has galvanized anti-fascist groups against Trump.

The name “Antifa” is borrowed from the 1930s group Antifaschistische Aktion which was formed with the objective of halting Nazism’s spread in Germany. Antifaschistische Aktion was forced to dissolve by Hitler when he rose to power and declared the group a danger to the state. The original Antifa’s termination and the Trump administration’s attempt to classify the modern Antifa movement as a threat to law and order are eerily similar to one another.

During the same time as Antifaschistische Aktion’s fight against Hitler, Wallace strongly cautioned against fascism at home. “If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States.”

The 33rd Vice President’s words serve as a prophetic warning against the current rise of fascism in the United States and his clash with the Democratic Party’s establishment remains incredibly relevant sixty years later. Wallace’s legacy of bold progressivism, anti-racist and anti-fascist politics endures on.


Assista o vídeo: Is Fascism Right Or Left? (Outubro 2021).