We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Chicago Stadium Chicago, Cook County, Illinois
July 19 to 21, 1944
Nominated: Franklin D Roosevelt of New York for President
Nominated: Harry S. Truman of Missouri for Vice President
With the United fully engaged in World War II there was no question that Roosevelt would seek and receive the nomination once again. The question who would be the Vice President. The current Vice President Henry Wallace had inspired significant opposition and Roosevelt had decided to replace him with Harry Truman. Truman's victory was not easy, In the frist ballot he received only five vote more then Truman. Quickly, however support for Truman grew and secured the nomination.
1944 Democratic Party Platform
The Democratic Party stands on its record in peace and in war.
To speed victory, establish and maintain peace, guarantee full employment and provide prosperity —this is its platform.
We do not here detail scores of planks. We cite action.
Beginning March, 1933, the Democratic Administration took a series of actions which saved our system of free enterprise.
It brought that system out of collapse and thereafter eliminated abuses which had imperiled it.
It used the powers of government to provide employment in industry and to save agriculture.
It wrote a new Magna Carta for labor.
It provided social security, including old age pensions, unemployment insurance, security for crippled and dependent children and the blind. It established employment offices. It provided federal bank deposit insurance, flood prevention, soil conservation, and prevented abuses in the security markets. It saved farms and homes from foreclosure, and secured profitable prices for farm products.
It adopted an effective program of reclamation, hydro-electric power, and mineral development.
It found the road to prosperity through production and employment.
We pledge the continuance and improvement of these programs.
Before war came, the Democratic Administration awakened the Nation, in time, to the dangers that threatened its very existence.
It succeeded in building, in time, the best-trained and equipped army in the world, the most powerful navy in the world, the greatest air force in the world, and the largest merchant marine in the world.
It gained for our country, and it saved for our country, powerful allies.
When war came, it succeeded in working out with those allies an effective grand strategy against the enemy.
It set that strategy in motion, and the tide of battle was turned.
It held the line against wartime inflation.
It ensured a fair share-and-share-alike distribution of food and other essentials.
It is leading our country to certain victory.
The primary and imperative duty of the United States is to wage the war with every resource available to final triumph over our enemies, and we pledge that we will continue to fight side by side with the United Nations until this supreme objective shall have been attained and thereafter to secure a just and lasting peace.
That the world may not again be drenched in blood by international outlaws and criminals, we pledge:
To join with the other United Nations in the establishment of an international organization based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the prevention of aggression and the maintenance of international peace and security.
To make all necessary and effective agreements and arrangements through which the nations would maintain adequate forces to meet the needs of preventing war and of making impossible the preparation for war and which would have such forces available for joint action when necessary.
Such organization must be endowed with power to employ armed forces when necessary to prevent aggression and preserve peace.
We favor the maintenance of an international court of justice of which the United States shall be a member and the employment of diplomacy, conciliation, arbitration and other like methods where appropriate in the settlement of international disputes.
World peace is of transcendent importance. Our gallant sons are dying on land, on sea, and in the air. They do not die as Republicans. They do not die as Democrats. They die as Americans. We pledge that their blood shall not have been shed in vain. America has the opportunity to lead the world in this great service to mankind. The United States must meet the challenge. Under Divine Providence, she must move forward to her high destiny.
We pledge our support to the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms and the application of the principles enunciated therein to the United Nations and other peace-loving nations, large and small.
We shall uphold the good-neighbor policy, and extend the trade policies initiated by the present administration.
We favor the opening of Palestine to unrestricted Jewish immigration and colonization, and such a policy as to result in the establishment there of a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth.
We favor legislation assuring equal pay for equal work, regardless of sex.
We recommend to Congress the submission of a Constitutional amendment on equal rights for women.
We favor Federal aid to education administered by the states without interference by the Federal Government.
We favor Federal legislation to assure stability of products, employment, distribution and prices in the bituminous coal industry, to create a proper balance between consumer, producer and mine worker.
We endorse the President's statement recognizing the importance of the use of water in arid land states for domestic and irrigation purposes.
We favor non-discriminatory transportation charges and declare for the early correction of inequalities in such charges.
We favor enactment of legislation granting the fullest measure of self-government for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and eventual statehood for Alaska and Hawaii.
We favor the extension of the right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia. We offer these postwar programs:
A continuation of our policy of full benefits for ex-servicemen and women with special consideration for the disabled. We make it our first duty to assure employment and economic security to all who have served in the defense of our country.
Price guarantees and crop insurance to farmers with all practical steps:
To keep agriculture on a parity with industry and labor.
To foster the success of the small independent farmer.
To aid the home ownership of family-sized farms.
To extend rural electrification and develop broader domestic and foreign markets for agricultural products.
Adequate compensation for workers during demobilization.
The enactment of such additional humanitarian, labor, social and farm legislation as time and experience may require, including the amendment or repeal of any law enacted in recent years which has failed to accomplish its purpose.
Promotion of the success of small business. Earliest possible release of wartime controls.
Adaptation of tax laws to an expanding peacetime economy, with simplified structure and war- time taxes reduced or repealed as soon as possible.
Encouragement of risk capital, new enterprise, development of natural resources in the West and other parts of the country, and the immediate reopening of the gold and silver mines of the West as soon as manpower is available.
We reassert our faith in competitive private enterprise, free from control by monopolies, cartels, or any arbitrary private or public authority.
We assert that mankind believes in the Four Freedoms.
We believe that the country which has the greatest measure of social justice is capable of the greatest achievements.
We believe that racial and religious minorities have the right to live, develop and vote equally with all citizens and share the rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution. Congress should exert its full constitutional powers to protect those rights.
We believe that without loss of sovereignty, world development and lasting peace are within humanity's grasp. They will come with the greater enjoyment of those freedoms by the peoples of the world, and with the freer flow among them of ideas and goods.
We believe in the world right of all men to write, send and publish news at uniform communication rates and without interference by governmental or private monopoly and that right should be protected by treaty.
To these beliefs the Democratic Party subscribes.
These principles the Democratic Party pledges itself in solemn sincerity to maintain.
Finally, this Convention sends its affectionate greetings to our beloved and matchless leader and President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
He stands before the nation and the world, the champion of human liberty and dignity. He has rescued our people from the ravages of economic disaster. His rare foresight and magnificent courage have saved our nation from the assault of international brigands and dictators. Fulfilling the ardent hope of his life, he has already laid the foundation of enduring peace for a troubled world and the well being of our nation. All mankind is his debtor. His life and services have been a great blessing to humanity.
That God may keep him strong in body and in spirit to carry on his yet unfinished work is our hope and our prayer.
APP Note: The American Presidency Project used the first day of the national nominating convention as the "date" of this platform since the original document is undated.
National political conventions similar to or like 1944 Democratic National Convention
Held in Chicago, Illinois June 27 – July 2, 1932. The convention resulted in the nomination of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York for president and Speaker of the House John N. Garner from Texas for vice president. Wikipedia
Determined at the 1944 Democratic National Convention, on July 21, 1944. Nominated to be President Franklin D. Roosevelt's running-mate in his bid to be re-elected for a fourth term. Wikipedia
Held at the Chicago Coliseum, Chicago, Illinois, from June 18 to June 22, 1912. The party nominated President William H. Taft and Vice President James S. Sherman for re-election for the 1912 United States presidential election. Wikipedia
Held at the International Amphitheatre in Chicago, Illinois from July 21 to July 26, 1952, which was the same arena the Republicans had gathered in a few weeks earlier for their national convention from July 7 to July 11, 1952. Four major candidates sought the presidential nomination: U.S. Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, Governor Adlai Stevenson II of Illinois, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia and Averell Harriman of New York. Wikipedia
Presidential nominating convention, held at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from July 25 to 28, 2016. The convention gathered delegates of the Democratic Party, the majority of them elected through a preceding series of primaries and caucuses, to nominate a candidate for president and vice president in the 2016 United States presidential election. Wikipedia
Presidential nominating convention that was held from August 17 to 20, 2020, at the Wisconsin Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and virtually across the United States. At the convention, delegates of the United States Democratic Party formally chose former vice president Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris of California as the party's nominees for president and vice president, respectively, in the 2020 United States presidential election. Wikipedia
Held at Convention Hall in Kansas City, Missouri, from June 12 to June 15, 1928. Because President Coolidge had announced unexpectedly he would not run for re-election in 1928, Commerce Secretary Herbert Clark Hoover became the natural front-runner for the Republican nomination. Wikipedia
Held at Philadelphia Convention Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from July 12 to July 14, 1948, and resulted in the nominations of President Harry S. Truman for a full term and Senator Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky for vice president in the 1948 presidential election. That the eastern Pennsylvania area was part of the newly developing broadcast television market. Wikipedia
Events from the year 1944 in the United States. <| collapsible collapsed" Wikipedia
The Year the Veepstakes Really Mattered
If you’re seeking the single most consequential VP choice in modern times—one that justifies our “veepstakes” obsession—look to 1944.
Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.
It’s the topic that will dominate the next three weeks of political coverage—and if history is any guide, it may not matter much at all. “It” is the veepstakes, when the presidential nominees announce their running mates.
At noon on January 20, 2017, the winner of November’s presidential election will be sworn in. On that day, Donald Trump would, at age 70, become the oldest president at inauguration in American history Hillary Clinton, who turns 69 just weeks before the election, would be the second oldest, behind only Ronald Reagan. This time, it’s easy to imagine that the choice of presidential running mate could really matter.
But for all the feverish pre-choice speculation and post-choice analysis, there’s a good case to be made that the vice-presidential nominee makes a marginal difference at best. Earlier this year, two academics argued in this space that the running mate almost never delivers his or her home state. The strength other picks may have had—Al Gore underscoring Bill Clinton’s “future vs. past” theme in 1992, Dick Cheney’s “gravitas” for George W. Bush in 2000—is best confined to the “who knows?” realm (it’s difficult to argue a counterfactual).
It’s even hard to argue that the less auspicious choices had any real impact: Spiro Agnew’s foot-in-mouth disease, Dan Quayle’s deer-in-the-headlights vacuity, the sketchy business dealings of Geraldine Ferraro’s husband, and Sarah Palin’s cognitive challenges were footnotes at most—none of them ultimately helped to decide the election. Even the most disastrous VP choice—George McGovern’s pick of Senator Thomas Eagleton, who had to be jettisoned off the ticket after his mental health history was revealed—didn’t mean much in the context of Richard Nixon’s 49-state landslide in 1972.
Why Running Mates Matter Less Than You Think
By KYLE C. KOPKO and CHRISTOPHER J. DEVINE
There is, however, one choice of a running mate that very likely changed the course of history—one where any choice among three strong contenders would have led to three radically different trajectories for the nation.
If you’re looking for the single most consequential vice-presidential choice in modern times—one that perhaps justifies our quadrennial obsessing over the veepstakes—look back to the Democratic convention of 1944.
As the 1944 convention neared, there was no real doubt about who the Democratic presidential nominee would be. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had faced serious opposition in 1940 when he broke the “no third term” tradition that began with George Washington, but in the midst of a global war, there was little appetite for ousting the commander in chief. Besides, the Republicans had nominated 42-year old New York Governor Thomas Dewey, who brought to the campaign his reputation as a liberal reformer and had picked popular Ohio Governor John Bricker as his running mate. The GOP ticket was formidable FDR, the Democratic powers thought, was the only candidate who could stop them.
That much, they agreed on. There was, however, deep division over who Roosevelt should choose as his running mate—and for a reason that far transcended the normal political arguments: FDR was dying.
It was a conviction held by a wide variety of people who had come in contact with Roosevelt—none of which was revealed to the public.
FDR was dying. In choosing his running mate, they were picking the next president. And the public had no idea.
In March 1944, Dr. Howard Bruenn examined the president at the request of FDR’s physician. Bruenn wrote that Roosevelt was “a drawn, gray, and exhausted individual, who became short of breath on the very slightest exertion. The examination of his eyes revealed some changes due to arteriosclerosis and hypertension.” Other medical experts agreed. In early July, a few weeks before the national convention, a team of doctors studied Roosevelt. One of those doctors, Frank Lahey, wrote a memo to FDR’s primary-care physician, stating flatly: “I did not believe that if Mr. Roosevelt were elected president again, he had the physical capacity to complete a term. … It was my opinion that over the four years of another term with its burdens, he would again have heart failure and be unable to complete it.”
Democratic political insiders privately shared that view. When Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert Hannegan and his wife visited the White House in June 1944, they were so appalled by the president’s health that the couple spent anguished hours in conversation about it. As the convention drew closer, the Democratic power brokers knew what the public did not: in selecting Roosevelt’s running mate, they were almost certainly choosing the next president of the United States.
The Vice Presidency No One Should Want
Why, though, was there any choice to be made? Four years earlier, Henry Wallace had been put on the ticket at the insistence of FDR himself indeed, Roosevelt was so adamant about running with his then-secretary of agriculture that when serious opposition arose—he was too committed to civil rights, too liberal for more conservative Democrats, too “enthusiastic” about spiritualism—the only way Roosevelt got him on the ticket was by publicly threatening that he’d otherwise decline the presidential nomination.
By 1944, Vice President Wallace was a hero to both organized labor and the increasingly powerful African-American communities in America’s biggest cities. But among the Democratic elite, opposition to him was even more fervent than it had been in 1940.
Wallace’s full-throated denunciations of segregation inflamed opposition throughout the South, angering a vital bloc of the Democratic coalition. His leftist impulses led him to answer TIME-LIFE publisher Henry Luce’s 1941 essay about “the American century” with a speech in which Wallace proclaimed it “the century of the common man,” arguing that “no nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations. … there must be neither military nor economic imperialism.” For Democratic insiders like Hannegan, DNC Treasurer Ed Pauley, Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly and others, Wallace was simply too undisciplined and unreliable to occupy the Oval Office.
At one point, the clearest alternative to Wallace was James Byrnes, who’d served in the House, Senate, and on the Supreme Court before being plucked by Roosevelt to head the Office of War Stabilization—in effect making him, in Roosevelt’s own words, “assistant president.”
But to put it mildly, there were problems with Byrnes. In his role as “assistant president,” he’d angered labor with edicts about wage increases. He was a Catholic who’d changed his faith when he married an Episcopalian, and party insiders worried that his conversion from Catholicism would offend white ethnics in cities throughout the North. And Byrnes’ views on race were fully reflective of his South Carolina roots: He’d once opposed federal anti-lynching laws on the grounds that lynching was an effective means to “hold in check the Negro in the South.”
FDR’s Nate Silver
It’s a measure of the times that these views did not seem immediately disqualifying to either the Democratic bosses or President Roosevelt—who more than once assured Byrnes that he was his choice for running mate. Of course, FDR being FDR, he’d also assured Henry Wallace that he was the favored candidate, going so far as to write a public note—“If I were a delegate,” I would vote for Wallace—an “endorsement” that fell so far short of enthusiasm that it was labeled the “kiss of death” letter.
Just before the Democratic convention, an assortment of partisan kingmakers met with Roosevelt at the White House to argue that neither Wallace nor Byrnes would be acceptable running mates. What finally persuaded Roosevelt to abandon Byrnes was the implacable opposition of labor leader Sidney Hillman—whose veto power throughout FDR’s tenure gave rise to the Republican gibe that when it came to policy, FDR’s rule was “clear it with Sidney.”
The president seemed to sign off on their compromise choice: Missouri Senator Harry Truman.
Kingmakers met with FDR, and convinced him that neither Wallace nor Byrnes would be acceptable running mates.
He signed off on their compromise choice: Truman.
But Roosevelt’s preference almost didn’t matter. Wallace had the support of a majority of delegates, as well as the overwhelming majority of Democrats around the nation. In 1944, a Gallup poll found that 65 percent of Democrats supported Wallace as FDR’s running mate, while the relatively unknown Truman earned support from just 2 percent.
On Thursday, July 20, the second night of the Democratic National Convention, a huge pro-Wallace demonstration erupted. Senator Claude Pepper of Florida, one of the most liberal members of Congress, tried to fight his way to the podium to put Wallace’s name in nomination—a move that likely would’ve resulted in a stampede of votes. But the chair of the convention, Philadelphia Mayor David Lawrence, suddenly called for a voice vote to adjourn for the day. Despite the clear overwhelming vocal majority of “nays!”, Lawrence gaveled the convention to a close with Senator Pepper just a few feet away from the microphones.
By the next day, the all-night efforts of Hannegan, Chicago Mayor Kelly, Bronx County Democratic boss Ed Flynn and others had paid off: Although Wallace led on the first ballot with 429.5 votes (Truman had 319.5), he was significantly short of a majority. By the second ballot, the rush to Truman was on.
That November, the Roosevelt-Truman ticket won 432 electoral votes. In April 1945, less than three months after he began his fourth term, FDR was dead of a stroke. Truman was now the president.
Byrnes went on to become Truman’s secretary of State and then governor of South Carolina, where he adamantly opposed school integration while trying to tamp down the violent responses of the Ku Klux Klan.
Wallace became Truman’s secretary of Commerce, but after breaking sharply with Truman’s Cold War policies, the president fired him. In 1948, Wallace ran against Truman as the presidential nominee of the Progressive Party, an organization that came under the increasing control of the U.S. Communist Party he received 2.5 percent of the popular vote. Four years later, Wallace wrote an essay, Where I Was Wrong, in which he acknowledged he’d been naive about Joseph Stalin’s crimes, the nature of the Soviet Union, and the USSR’s international intentions.
Just imagine if Claude Pepper had gotten to that convention rostrum in 1944 and put Wallace’s name into nomination: The United States would have likely faced the postwar period with a president who, by his own later admission, was dangerously naive about the Soviets. Revisionist historians, filmmaker Oliver Stone among them, suggest there would have been no Cold War. But given what we know about Soviet intentions and the power of Communist parties in Western Europe, it’s also conceivable the U.S. might have adopted an appeasement policy toward Stalin’s expansionist aims, and, post-Wallace, faced a continent dominated by Moscow all the way to the English Channel.
Imagine President Wallace, a Soviet sympathizer. Or President Byrnes, an all-out segregationist.
Instead, we got President Harry Truman.
Or imagine that Roosevelt had somehow persuaded labor to sign off on Byrnes. What would it have meant for an all-out segregationist to have been in the Oval Office just as the postwar demand for racial justice was beginning to build? Would the 1948 Democratic convention have approved the strong civil rights platform that began to resolve the historic intraparty tension between the liberal North and the segregationist South? Without Truman’s executive order that year, would America’s Armed Forces have desegregated? It’s easy to imagine that under a Byrnes presidency, the Republican Party—then without a Southern presence and with ardent civil-rights proponents in its front ranks—could have emerged as the party of choice for African-Americans for generations.
So let the veepstakes obsession proceed let countless dead trees and pixels be spent in pursuit of the Gingriches and Kaines, the Pences and Castros, the Christies and the Warrens. Maybe this time, the running mate will make a clear, measurable difference, but it’s just hard to imagine that it will come close to the first-rank impact the second-place choice had more than seven decades ago.
Undoing New Deal: The 1944 Coup Against VP Henry Wallace
While you are here, we want to make sure you know how vital the support of people like you is to our work.
As 2021 unfolds, uncompromising and relentlessly critical journalism that gets to the roots of the crises we are facing will be more important than ever. We don’t rely on advertising to fund our work—we rely on our readers and viewers.
If you want to help us keep producing more of the radically independent news and in-depth analysis The Real News provides, please consider making a tax-deductible donation or becoming a monthly sustainer.
PAUL JAY: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay. On the Real News, we’ve been doing a lot of coverage, stories, about the battle within the Democratic party between the Sanders wing and what I would call the oligarchic ring, otherwise sometimes referred to as the Clinton wing or the Clinton/Obama wing, sometimes called the Corporate Democratic wing. Well, we want to go back a bit in history and talk about the origins of this fight. At least, one of the critical turning points. We’re not going to go way back to the beginning of the Democratic party. Kind of go back to Roosevelt and the New Deal and Henry Wallace, who became Roosevelt’s vice president from ’41 to ’45, what happens in 1944 when Wallace gets dumped as Roosevelt’s vice president, and Wallace represents perhaps the most progressive politics that a vice president certainly ever had. Maybe the most progressive politics that someone ever made it to that kind of power ever had in the United States. We’re going to go through over the course of a few segments how this battle unfolded and put the Sanders fight and Sanders wing of the party’s fight with the Corporate Democratic wing in some historical context. Now joining us to discuss all of that is historian Peter Kuznick, who now joins us from his home in Washington. Peter is a professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute in American University. He’s the co-writer with Oliver Stone, The Untold History of the United States. Thanks for joining us again, Peter. PETER KUZNICK: Glad to be here, Paul. PAUL JAY: I guess let’s start to give some context to people that haven’t, certainly younger people that don’t know this history. Number one, let me say we did do a multi-part series with Peter about the whole Oliver Stone series that he did together with Peter. I really urge you to watch this because it goes in a lot of depth covering a lot of the history. We’re going to pick upon this particular angle of how this unfolds in the Democratic party over the next few decades after the war. To set the context, let’s go over some of the basic groundwork. First of all, give us a bit of context. Roosevelt does not get elected as a super liberal, progressive New Dealer but given in the Depression becomes that and Wallace has a role to play in all of that. Maybe you can get us started on this, Peter. PETER KUZNICK: Well Paul, let me frame it a little bit differently to start. If we look at the Democratic party in the 1930s and first half of the 1940s we see it as a progressive party. If we take it back a little further, even to the Wilson administration then you’ve got a liberal internationalist kind of party. It becomes under Wilson’s policies are very, very counter-revolutionary across the globe. Wilsonian progressivism while it had certain high ideals that we see in his post-war program, the reality of Wilson’s policies was much more conservative and counter-revolutionary, as we see manifested in the Versailles Treaty and what would have been the League of Nations had the United States embraced it. It would have been, as critics argued at the time, a defense of European colonialism. Let’s take it to the 1920s instead because in the 1920s the Democratic party was very conservative. In fact, at the 1924 convention it was dominated by the Klu Klux Klan. You’ve always had a split in the Democratic party. There were certain progressive elements. The Bryan Wing was in some ways internationally, globally progressive. Although, culturally, like I say, much more conservative. In the 1920s you’ve got strong right wing in the Democratic party. Even Al Smith, the Democratic nominee in 1928, turns sharply to the right in the 1930s, is an opponent of the New Deal, sides with the DuPonts and the Morgans and the other right wingers in the 1930s in opposing the New Deal and might have been involved in this Smedley Butler coup that we’ve talked about before. The Democratic party has always had a mixed legacy. There were moments, there have been a lot of moments, of real progressive promise but the overall history has not been a consistently progressive one. Things do change in the 1930s as you were getting at. They change, Roosevelt gets elected in 1932, not as a flaming progressive by any means. In fact, he attacks Hoover and the Republicans from the right in many senses during the campaign. He attacks Hoover for unbalancing the budget, for being too big a spender during the 1932 campaign. There were glimpses of the New Deal in some of his speeches and statements but you would not have expected, or could not have foreseen seen Roosevelt turning into the kind of progressive visionary leader that to some extent he comes during the 1930s, especially during his second term and then during the war period. I think we need to understand that largely in the context of the shift overall in American politics in the 1930s. The most important force of course was the Labor movement. You’ve got the AFL moving to the left and you’ve got the rise of the CIO, which was now organizing industrial America. That undergirds, that’s the backbone of the Democratic party in the 1930s. 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.
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.”
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 Answers 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 not 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.