December 2, 2004
ANTI-COMMUNIST/ANTI-McCARTHYISM WORKED SO WELL:
A Fighting Faith: AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LIBERALISM. (Peter Beinart, 12.02.04, New Republic)
On January 4, 1947, 130 men and women met at Washington's Willard Hotel to save American liberalism. A few months earlier, in articles in The New Republic and elsewhere, the columnists Joseph and Stewart Alsop had warned that "the liberal movement is now engaged in sowing the seeds of its own destruction." Liberals, they argued, "consistently avoided the great political reality of the present: the Soviet challenge to the West." Unless that changed, "In the spasm of terror which will seize this country ... it is the right--the very extreme right--which is most likely to gain victory."During World War II, only one major liberal organization, the Union for Democratic Action (UDA), had banned communists from its ranks. At the Willard, members of the UDA met to expand and rename their organization. The attendees, who included Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Reuther, and Eleanor Roosevelt, issued a press release that enumerated the new organization's principles. Announcing the formation of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the statement declared, "[B]ecause the interests of the United States are the interests of free men everywhere," America should support "democratic and freedom-loving peoples the world over." That meant unceasing opposition to communism, an ideology "hostile to the principles of freedom and democracy on which the Republic has grown great."
At the time, the ADA's was still a minority view among American liberals. Two of the most influential journals of liberal opinion, The New Republic and The Nation, both rejected militant anti-communism. Former Vice President Henry Wallace, a hero to many liberals, saw communists as allies in the fight for domestic and international progress. As Steven M. Gillon notes in Politics and Vision, his excellent history of the ADA, it was virtually the only liberal organization to back President Harry S Truman's March 1947 decision to aid Greece and Turkey in their battle against Soviet subversion.
But, over the next two years, in bitter political combat across the institutions of American liberalism, anti-communism gained strength. With the ADA's help, Truman crushed Wallace's third-party challenge en route to reelection. The formerly leftist Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) expelled its communist affiliates and The New Republic broke with Wallace, its former editor. The American Civil Liberties Union (aclu) denounced communism, as did the naacp. By 1949, three years after Winston Churchill warned that an "iron curtain" had descended across Europe, Schlesinger could write in The Vital Center: "Mid-twentieth century liberalism, I believe, has thus been fundamentally reshaped ... by the exposure of the Soviet Union, and by the deepening of our knowledge of man. The consequence of this historical re-education has been an unconditional rejection of totalitarianism."
Today, three years after September 11 brought the United States face-to-face with a new totalitarian threat, liberalism has still not "been fundamentally reshaped" by the experience. On the right, a "historical re-education" has indeed occurred--replacing the isolationism of the Gingrich Congress with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's near-theological faith in the transformative capacity of U.S. military might. But American liberalism, as defined by its activist organizations, remains largely what it was in the 1990s--a collection of domestic interests and concerns. On health care, gay rights, and the environment, there is a positive vision, articulated with passion. But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.
When liberals talk about America's new era, the discussion is largely negative--against the Iraq war, against restrictions on civil liberties, against America's worsening reputation in the world. In sharp contrast to the first years of the cold war, post-September 11 liberalism has produced leaders and institutions--most notably Michael Moore and MoveOn--that do not put the struggle against America's new totalitarian foe at the center of their hopes for a better world. As a result, the Democratic Party boasts a fairly hawkish foreign policy establishment and a cadre of politicians and strategists eager to look tough. But, below this small elite sits a Wallacite grassroots that views America's new struggle as a distraction, if not a mirage. Two elections, and two defeats, into the September 11 era, American liberalism still has not had its meeting at the Willard Hotel. And the hour is getting late.
Not to pop his balloon or anything--and ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party had a pretty ugly '50-but the GOP took over Congress when Democrats started passionately pushing gay rights, health care and the rest. Their accommodationist stance towards Islamicism is mere icing on the cake of culture. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 2, 2004 1:16 PM
At the Willard, members of the UDA met to expand and rename their organization. The attendees, who included Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith [...]
I've heard that Arthur Schlesinger convinced JFK not to knock down the Berlin Wall. As for Galbraith, consider this 1984 quote:
"That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene....One sees it in the appearance of well-being of the people on the streets...Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower."
And liberals wonder why so many people never took their professed opposition to Communism at face value?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 2, 2004 1:26 PMHad Dewey been president in the late 1940s, odds are even the ADA would have been far less willing to voice its opposition to the Communists, because it would have been seen as playing into the Republicans' hands, the same way so many balk today at backing the war on terror for fear it would help out George W. Bush.
Posted by: Johnq at December 2, 2004 3:13 PMPeter Beinart conveniently ignores the role of the ADA in the Vietnam, and post-Vietnam era where it slavishly followed a pro-Soviet line. The ACLU has been a purely anti-American, evil organization since the 60s, when it also decided to oppose our war against Communism.
The simple fact is that during wartime, no serious person trusts a party, where George McGovern is considered honorable, to run the country. With economic issues off the table, because they capitulated to their paymasters on them under Tony Coelho and Jim Wright, and their opposition to government-enforced puritanism, you would think they would have an advantage in elections. But their stubborn refusal to throw the McGovernites over the side dooms them to the fate of the Whigs.
Posted by: Bart at December 2, 2004 4:15 PMI wonder if Democrats today like being compared to Henry Wallace, Ramsey Clark, and George McGovern. Maybe they feel flattered. Maybe they don't know who these men were (are). They certainly didn't know who Kerry was.
There is an interesting reply to Beinart on Sullivan's site along this line. For the life of me, I can't imagine being compared to a William Jenner or a James Eastland (granted, a Dem).
The parties are going to change with time, but history has its verdicts. Being decent doesn't obviate how wrong the left was about the Soviets and socialism/marxism in general. Now, the left doesn't even care about decent.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 2, 2004 8:42 PM