FDR's veep was a communist sympathizer

Email Print posted by hazmat 04/13/2008 07:27:41 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
KenTX posted on a recent thread that liberals and communists essentially share a world view. As evidence, FDR's veep allegedly was a "communist sympathizer" (follow his links here). Should we take him seriously? More intelligent conservatives have demonstrated better judgement than to wield this double edged sword.

Do the views of FDR's vice president have anything to do with my liberal view that George Bush has led a wreckless foreign policy, ruined the economy and trampled the constitution? Perhaps I should hold Ken responsible for the George Bush Sr's aiding and abetting the nazi's during WWII? Lucky for Ken, I'm not willing to make that leap.

Ken's conflation of liberalism and communism is reminiscent of Jonah Goldberg's assertion in a recent book that liberals are really fascists at heart. One of the arguments he draws upon is the historical figures that displayed support for recognizeably fascist policy. Let's put aside the ludicrous claim that liberals want to merge the interests of the corporation and the state. The most brilliant rebuttal to this pseudo-intellectualism comes appropriately from a Austin Bramwell over at the American Conservative:

Even if an American species of fascism (i.e., progressivism) did lead to liberalism, as opposed to merely preceding it in time, this still would not mean that liberalism leads to fascism. For one thing, liberals are entitled at least once a century to change their minds. Even if some who we might call liberals once delighted in Woodrow Wilson’s suppression of dissent, fretted over the pollution of America’s genetic stock, or urged Franklin Roosevelt to assume dictatorial powers, today’s liberals may disown these ideas if they like. Associating modern liberals with the dubious judgments of their predecessors is an ad hominem argument, and not even a very beguiling one.

Presumably Ken is here to make a conservative case and try to convince people to open their eyes to a different viewpoint. I find his reasoning to be bankrupt. In every post, just about. I know, I know... why am I bothering with this?

< Obama - Clark '08 | Democrats Want To Prosecute Rush Limbaugh For Operation Chaos! >
 Display:
FDR's veep was a communist sympathizer | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
Ken will conflagrate anything (none / 0)

to save a tax cut, or get one. Nothing more

The FDRs VP was a Communist Myth is yet another in a long line of historical revisionism that our " conservative" friends find useful when attempting to demonize Democratic politicians. Wallace was a bit odd and a far out..and an extreme supporter of "peace" and was at odds with rising tide of the Cold War to be sure but not a communist.

While it is true Wallace was endorsed by the American Communist Part in his unsuccessful 1948 Presidential run in the Progressive Party:

Historians have disputed the degree to which Communists shaped the Progressive party.

"All agree that Wallace himself was not a Communist, but they also agree that he paid very little attention to internal party affairs.

Historians Schapsmeier and Schapsmeier argue (1970 p 181)

Progressive party stood for one thing and Wallace another. Actually the party organization was controlled from the outset by those representing the radical left and not liberalism per se. This made it extremely easy for Communists and fellow travelers to infiltrate into important positions within the party machinery. Once this happened, party stands began to resemble a party line. Campaign literature, speech materials, and campaign slogans sounded strangely like echoes of what Moscow wanted to hear. As if wearing moral blinkers, Wallace increasingly became an imperceptive ideologue. Words were uttered by Wallace that did not sound like him, and his performance took on a strange Jekyll and Hyde quality—one moment he was a peace protagonist and the next a propaganda parrot for the Kremlin."

 

By the way Mr. Wallace actively campaigned for the election  Eisenhower in 1956 and Nixon in 1960.

by MRFred on 04/13/2008 09:04:07 PM EST

A post so nice, (none / 0)
I decided to post it twice!

Interesting fact is that Vice President Henry Wallace was once the Editor and Publisher of The New Republic. In this article, current New Republic Editor, Peter Beinart, is conflating the history of American Liberalism with the history of global communism. In fact, his thesis is that liberalism has been inherently soft on totalitarianism.

As you read the article, notice what Beinart says about liberalism, and in particular, what he says about Henry Wallace.

If you start feeling sorry for hazmat because he's a helpless intellectual lightweight, think of me laughing at him. 

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."

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.

1950s liberals were not necessarily communists themselves. But they refused to make anti-communism their guiding principle. For them, the threat to liberal values came entirely from the right - from militarists, from red-baiters, and from the forces of economic reaction. To attack the communists, reliable allies in the fight for civil rights and economic justice, was a distraction from the struggle for progress.

Michael Moore is a non-totalitarian, but, like Henry Wallace, he is not an anti-totalitarian. And, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Tom Daschle flocked to the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, and when Moore sat in Jimmy Carter's box at the Democratic convention, many Americans wondered whether the Democratic Party was anti-totalitarian either.
carter carter
kerry

by KenTX on 04/13/2008 09:18:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So nobody misses (none / 0)

my reply, here it is again. Think of me laughing at you as I wipe my ass with the svelte pages of TNR:

I still think you're a burnt out hippie, even though you didn't write the david mamet thing. is don rumsfeld a baathist?

 

of course not. he's just another asshole you and dick cheney agree with. a fired asshole. fired by bush, who never fires people.

"I can't argue with that, uh, research" --Bill Hicks 

by hazmat on 04/13/2008 09:29:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I would respond, (none / 1)
but there's nothing here to respond to.

It's an empty argument, and you're a helpless fool.

by KenTX on 04/13/2008 09:42:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I must have hit a nerve (none / 0)
to be complimented by KenTX as an "intellectual lightweight". Thanks!

by hazmat on 04/13/2008 09:40:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me get this straight (none / 0)

Ken is attacking liberalism (whatever the hell that is) for not being anti-totalitarian enough. 

And he is doing this while supporting a group of people who believe in the unitary executive, wipe their ass with the Constitutionally mandated limits on the president, declared the 4th amendment null and void, suspended habeus corpus, instituted torture, used signing statements more than every other president combined, are actively illegally spying on the population, have turned the federal prosecutors into their own gestapo and are openly violating major Election laws to maintain power.

But we Dems are supposed to feel bad and renounce our ways cause some guy says we aren't anti-totalitarian enough.

That is one hell of an argument Ken.

For the record, I don't think I am a liberal but I am definitely anti-totalitarian and would like to see the dems be moreso so we might could stop the totalitarian sons-of-bitches you support.

Viva la tax cut! 

by ProfRich on 04/14/2008 12:24:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You know what's really funny? (none / 0)
"And he is doing this while supporting a group of people who believe in the unitary executive, wipe their ass with the Constitutionally mandated limits on the president, declared the 4th amendment null and void, suspended habeus corpus, instituted torture, used signing statements more than every other president combined, are actively illegally spying on the population, have turned the federal prosecutors into their own gestapo and are openly violating major Election laws to maintain power."

Consider the fact that a Democrat controlled Congress (not to mention the Supreme Court) has supported the President on every single one of these issues.

Either Bush has been right on the law, or Democrats should never be given power again.

by KenTX on 04/14/2008 12:45:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you sound like a progressive liberal (none / 0)
all of a sudden Ken! way to go. You finally understand why the Congress really has a low approval rating, because they (including Hillary and Barack to some extent) have enabled your guy to have his way, despite the overwhelming mandate the American public gave them to spank the republicans and put them in the corner for a time out.

by hazmat on 04/14/2008 12:51:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
my gift to hazmat (none / 0)
This blog thread is an oldy but goody. I hope you enjoy it.

by KenTX on 04/14/2008 01:05:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
progressive (none / 0)
Wow for the 1st time I think I just read something from a progessive.All the rest of you are just more dem's  &pub's, Left's and rights. We need more middle ground to find the way in this messed up place we all call the US OF A. Untill then these blogs will all look the same. LEFT , RIGHT, JUST WE GO NO WHERE.  And pro if you like more tax's, then send them some more. You must be much better off then the rest of us .

by tuna on 04/14/2008 06:23:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wha..? (none / 0)

The Republicans are evil and the Dems weren't strong enough in stopping them so the Dems should never be given power which would mean by default the Republicans should?

What the hell is wrong with you?  That is like saying that the opposition party to Hitler failed to stop him so Naziism should still be in control of Germany.  Its retarded.

How about we just get some less crappy Dems and throw the evil Republicans out of office and into jail.

And, news flash, the Supreme Court. Not Democrat!

And neither was Congress for the first six years of this nightmare.

Is there anything so stupid and obviously false that you won't say it to try to secure your tax cut? 

by ProfRich on 04/14/2008 01:03:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
allow me to reiterate (none / 0)
Democrats rolled over and gave Bush everything he wanted, in spite of the fact that they control both houses of Congress.

Here are the possible conclusions we can draw from the fact that the Dems record is 0-437 against Bush:

1. Dick Cheney is an evil genius, and he beats Democrats every time.
2. Democrats are feckless castrates, and they should never be given the reigns of power.
3. The Bush Administration has been right on everyone of these issues.

Thank you for playing Rich. Give it up on this one. 

by KenTX on 04/14/2008 01:11:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Four (none / 0)

Too many of the dems are feckless cowards and we need to replace them with better dems.

Since the choices are dems and repubs and we can all agree the republicans are both evil and incompetent, the dems are clearly our best choice. 

by ProfRich on 04/14/2008 01:23:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I can't believe it! (none / 0)
This is as close to a concession as I will ever get out of Rich!

I'm going to bed on this one.

Teabagged!

by KenTX on 04/14/2008 01:26:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)

I guess I should not be surprised you don't know what is going on.

I am not a party hack or an ideologue.  I threw Rockefeller under the bus the other day.  I know you can only see the world in Red Team/Blue Team terms but most of the rest of us aren't like that.  I actually think in terms of policy and impact on the country.  I would think people who actually pay attention to my posts would know that. 

by ProfRich on 04/14/2008 01:41:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
yeah now (none / 0)
you're speakin my language ProfRich. Thanks, good night.

by hazmat on 04/14/2008 01:40:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
dude (none / 0)

its not retarded, its true. I don't wanna hold hands with Ken and sing Kumbaya or some shit like that, but on his reply to your post I'm gonna have to go with option #2.

I'm pretty pissed off about democratic cavery and maoist apologies. Aren't you? 

by hazmat on 04/14/2008 01:20:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Focus hazmat (none / 0)
Its a trick.  Yes many democrats suck but the choice isn't democrats or superman.  Its democrats or republicans and a crappy democrat is crappy but its a hell of a lot better than Larry Craig or David Vitter.

by ProfRich on 04/14/2008 01:25:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm just sayin (none / 0)
let's get some more Feingolds in there. There are a lot of Liebermans left over from the nineties. They're not really better than Larry Craig or David Vitter if they vote the same way.

by hazmat on 04/14/2008 01:35:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
FDR's veep was a communist sympathizer | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: