History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
LTC Bob Bateman,"Carnage, Culture, and Crapola -- Part 3," Blog Them Out of the Stone Age, 5 November, continues his attack on Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture. I can live with his last line:"Howard Zinn and Victor Davis Hanson ... are two peas in a pod." One more part will conclude this series.
Rob MacDougall doth totally rock! If you enjoyed his"Great Franklin's Ghost" here at Cliopatria yesterday, it's even better at Old is the New New. Also, don't miss the recommendations on his The New New sidebar. Currently, they include Paul Collins,"The Mutual Poisoning Society," about Frederick Accum,"the David Horowitz and Ralph Nader combined of 1820."
Our colleague, Manan Ahmed, is doing yeoman work at Chapati Mystery in keeping us abreast of the on-going crisis in Pakistan. See also: his posts and those of Barnett Rubin at Informed Comment: Global Affairs.
Robert La Follette, Jr., was defeated for renomination to his Senate seat in *1946* by Joseph McCarthy in the *Republican* primary. I discount those on your list (Stimson & Knox) who joined FDR's wartime cabinet because it was his effort to rally Republican support for intervention in WWII. Senator Cohen didn't become a Democrat by serving as Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense. Better examples for you might be Harold Ickes and Henry Wallace, himself.
I've never thought the Green Party worth saving. Were it not for the Green Party and the Supreme Court, GWB would never have been President. The Supreme Court is, I think, worth saving.
Jeremy Young -
11/9/2007
If you're hung up about the Progressives' actual party affiliation, then you're right, I can't. But I can name several examples of Republican Progressives who became staunch New Dealers: Henry Stimson, Robert La Follette Jr. (whose father, by the way, endorsed Wilson in 1912), Norris, Frank Knox, Gifford Pinchot. To what degree did these folks' official party labels impact their actual party affiliations? In my view, if they're working for a Democratic administration, they're to all intents and purposes Democrats, no matter what their official registration says. If it walks like a duck...
But beyond this issue, keep in mind that I'm not actually trying to run Wallace 1948 this year, as I've already said; I'm simply trying to repair the fractured Green Party by taking advantage of what looks to be a blowout win for Sen. Clinton.
However, as I conduct further research on this, I see that the Green Party "adopted a strategy resolution which dumped the "safe states" strategy and commits to running an aggressive campaign wherever possible." (link) Therefore, I won't be voting for them either. So at the moment I don't know who I'll be voting for -- quite possibly no one at all.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/9/2007
Jeremy, I don't think that you can name a single Republican who followed TR in 1912 and who then became a Democrat. That is, the evidence that TR's Progressive Party was a vehicle of transition of progressive Republicans from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party *just isn't there*. The "bouncing around" to which you refer was a personal history of whether to be a Republican or a Progressive, but *never* a Democrat. 25 years later, Norris briefly became a Democrat, just as 50 years later Wayne Morris became a Democrat. But Norris paid the price when he opposed FDR's court-packing plan, was consequently denied D support for re-election to the Senate, which resulted in the election of Kenneth Wherry, one of the most reactionary Republicans of mid-20th century America. You are about to repeat that classic mistake.
Jeremy Young -
11/8/2007
I don't see Republican Progressives as distinct from Democratic Progressives, any more than I see Ben Nelson and Zell Miller as different from John Warner and Lindsey Graham. They were people of a specific, relatively-coherent ideology who spread across both parties. Some, like McAdoo, never left the party of their original choosing; others, like Gifford Pinchot and La Follette, bounced around between parties.
The key for me is that Progressives originally (during T. Roosevelt's presidency) held more power in the Republican Party, and eventually (culminating in F. Roosevelt's election) obtained more power in the Democratic Party. So notwithstanding the political transitions of individual Progressives, such as Hoover, who moved against the grain, the general trend during these years was for there to be fewer Progressives in the Republican Party, and more Progressives in the Democratic Party.
What Progressives there were in the Republican Party in 1912 were led out of that party decisively by T. Roosevelt. Notwithstanding the fact that some of them went back to the GOP after 1912, Roosevelt included, the general trend was for these dislocated Progressives to gravitate either to local third parties or to the Democratic Party, and not to the Republicans.
Nothing was "forced" on Truman in 1948. He made a choice to go with Humphrey and let Thurmond walk out of the convention instead of the other way around, and that choice had a lot to do with how he scoped out his third-party opponents in the general election. There's little question that if Truman had gone segregationist in 1948, a strong showing from Wallace would have propelled Dewey into the White House. Truman chose correctly based on the political winds, and those winds were set in motion by Wallace's third-party candidacy.
Finally, I'm not "forgetting" about progressive Republicans (and indeed, you could even make the case that Nelson Rockefeller was a progressive Republican). I'm simply saying that they did not win a single battle for control of their party after 1908 except in 1928, when Hoover was a consensus candidate. Meanwhile, Democratic progressives won control in 1912, 1920, 1932, 1952, 1960 (sort of), 1968 (sort of), 1972, and 1984. It's not that progressive Republicans didn't matter in political history, but they certainly were not the dominant trend of either progressivism or Republicanism in the twentieth century.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/8/2007
Now you are shifting your own argument. First, TR's Progressive Party was a vehicle by which progressive Republicans shifted allegiance to the Democrats; now, it's the progressive mandate shifted; or, now, it's the "Wilsonian progressives" *remained* in the Democratic Party! The latter would have been the case with or *without* TR's Progressives, so "splitting the Republican Party" has no effect at all. If you think that splitting from the Democrats in 2008 is going to shift the Democrats to the Left, you're whistling Dixie. And that prior point about Truman running to the Left in 1948 is a *real* hoot. He had a strong civil rights plank forced on him by Hubert Humphrey and the Democrats backed off of it in subsequent presidential campaigns. It's all too convenient for you to forget about progressive Republicans from Norris and La Follette to Wayne Morris and beyond and that the civil rights legislation of the 1960s would never have been passed had it not been for strong Republican support. And, btw, there's *at least* as strong an argument that welfare was a trap from which people never escaped as there is that it was a minimum, below which they weren't allowed to fall.
Jeremy Young -
11/8/2007
By what standards is Bill Clinton a "progressive"? I can't think of any, save his environmental policies and his early push for universal healthcare. Clinton was a welfare-cutting, telecom-aiding, gay rights-ambivalent, neoliberal middle-of-the-roader -- the absolute antithesis of progressivism in my book.
As for TR's Progressive Republicans, most of them, like Albert Beveridge, ended up out of politics altogether, or were old or dead by the time the New Deal began. The key is that Progressivism moved to the Democratic Party with Wilson, and with the exception of Hoover most of the Wilsonian Progressives stayed there. TR' 1912 race enabled that by splitting the Republican Party in two.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/8/2007
You still can't name more than a handful of TR's Progressive Republicans who became supporters of the New Deal. Moreover, "limited government" can be a legitimate "progressive" value. We've been taught that both by Bill Clinton's reform of welfare and by GWB's version of big government conservatism that cries out for reform.
Jeremy Young -
11/8/2007
Yes, Progressive McAdoo was supported by the Klan in 1924. And conservative Al Smith was supported by Franklin Roosevelt in 1924, even though Roosevelt was a charter Progressive and Smith eventually became a vociferous opponent of the New Deal. And Hoover was a staunch Progressive in 1928, until he became the apostle of limited government in 1932 and after.
All of which simply shows the incoherence of politics in the 1920's. And none of which disputes my contention that Roosevelt 1912 conveyed Progressives out of the Republican Party, readying them for eventual deposit in the New Deal Democratic Party.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/8/2007
It's telling that your "Progressive" candidate in 1924 was the Klan's candidate, McAdoo, and that you don't recognize Herbert Hoover's strong Progressive credentials. In fact, it's difficult to name more than a handful of TR's Progressives who actually became supporters of the New Deal.
Jeremy Young -
11/8/2007
I'll readily admit that my previous comment was educated opinion and not "fact." However, I don't think your objections are fatal to my educated opinion. TR's Progressive Party certainly conveyed many Progressives out of the Republican Party, though not all of them landed in the Democratic Party until 1932. The Democrats of the 1920's had no coherent direction because they were absolutely paralyzed by the personal feud between William Gibbs McAdoo, a Progressive, and Al Smith, a moderate-conservative with pro-urban leanings. The haphazard results, such as the nomination of ultraconservative Morgan lawyer John W. Davis on the 103rd convention ballot in 1924, should not be taken as representative of the party's general direction. I could argue that La Follette 1924 needed to happen because La Follette needed it to happen, but I'll be charitable to old Fighting Bob and leave that one alone. At any rate, it was more of a response to the twin nominations of Coolidge and Davis than it was a reflection of a general disfranchisement of Progressives. John Davis, like Hillary Clinton, was far to the right of the party he sought to represent, which necessitated a third-party run.
Anyway, I'm not looking to run Wallace 1948 over again, as Nader attempted to do in 2000 (and which would have worked if Nader had been a somewhat bigger name, as Wallace was). I'd simply like to repair the shattered Green Party, which was torn to pieces with the Nader/Cobb split in 2004. I'll only support it, though, if Cynthia McKinney is off the ticket and if the party follows Cobb's safe-states strategy like it did in 2004.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/8/2007
Your interpretations of what the third parties *actually* did in each of the cases you cite is subject to dispute. Do you mean, for example, that TR's Progressive Party "conveyed" progressive Republicans into becoming Dems? Really? Have you thought about what the Democratic Party in the 1920s *actually* looked like? Why was LaFollette's rerun of the Progressives in 1924 necessary? Moreover, I promise you that many Green/Nader supporters in 2000 thought they were doing what you say you hope to do in 2008. All they succeeded in doing was to elect GWB and they bear some responsibility for all that followed from that: the war in Iraq, the current Supreme Court, the fiscal irresponsibility, etc.
Jeremy Young -
11/8/2007
Correction: I meant to say "all throughout American political history." I have limited knowledge of political party systems outside the United States.
Jeremy Young -
11/8/2007
It's true; but does that damn third parties for all time? I'm no Nader supporter and I thought he should have dropped out once it became clear his vote was going to be the margin of victory. Nevertheless, you can't deny that third parties have helped to reify moribund political systems all throughout political history -- either by conveying a constituency from one party to another (T. Roosevelt, 1912), by forcing the Democratic nominee sharply to the left (H. Wallace, 1948), or by mercifully killing off a particularly weak-kneed segment of political culture (J. Bell, 1860).
My goal for this election is very limited: to turn the Green Party back into what it was before Nader destroyed it -- a cohesive potential launching pad for a Henry Wallace-like run that could shift the Democratic Party toward its base by attacking it from the left. Unfortunately, if Cynthia McKinney wins the Green nomination, I might not even be able to do that, as I'll never vote for the racist McKinney.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/8/2007
Do keep in mind that in 2000 the Greens and Ralph Nader gave us President Geo. W. Bush, and with him, the current Supreme Court.
Jeremy Young -
11/8/2007
Ralph, my friend, maybe if I tell you that I was a rabid Howard Dean supporter in '04 it would make more sense to you. Unhappy as I am with this nation's current direction, I'm much more interested in the integrity and courage of my leaders than in their policy positions. I haven't noticed much of that on the Democratic side this cycle -- the candidates seem too interested in winning than in staying true to themselves. I'd throw them over in a second for a liberal version of Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul.
Ralph E. Luker -
11/7/2007
Jeremy, my friend, I don't understand you, at all. Clearly, most Democrats are happier with their choices among candidates than are Republicans. Living in Georgia, this Republican has the option of voting in the Democratic primary and, if I do, it will be for Obama because he offers hope for substantial change of national direction. I think that voting for a third party next November would be a very serious mistake.
Jeremy Young -
11/7/2007
While HNN folks are generally right about most things, I have to say I don't see anybody here representing my views on Obama. You and KC are Obama supporters, while Rick Shenkman opposes him on the grounds of inexperience, which strikes me as an uncommonly silly reason to vote against him. My own take is that he simply hasn't lived up to the promise he showed in 2004 -- though I'm not really supporting anyone, so I don't have a counter-candidate to offer. This has been the most disappointing field since 1996, when my political awareness began. I won't be voting in the primaries, and will likely vote third-party (not Bloomberg, either) in the general.
