Dewey’s Style versus FDR’s Substance

[Here my father critiques Thomas E. Dewey, then the governor of New York and the Republican presidential candidate, and charges that he is not a man of firm principal or real substance. Franklin D. Roosevelt, by contrast, is a “real man” with real principals, my father argues, even while acknowledging that FDR sometimes deviates from those principals when politics requires.

I think my father’s take on what helped make FDR a great American president is largely on target, as his assessment of the compromises even great presidents must sometimes make. Barack Obama has made more compromises and, probably, more deviations from his core principals than I wish he had, but I don’t doubt that Obama holds genuine democratic and moral principals that I and many others share. Unfortunately for him and his measured, professorial demeanor, style counts far more than substance in today’s 24-hour, entertainment-driven media.]

September 24, 1944 (Camp Shelly, Miss.)

… Willy-nilly, we’re breeding a society of specialists, and losing the faculty of being men in the old moral sense. Some hack writes Dewey’s speeches, after being told by experts just what the public wants to hear. Dewey raises his aggressive mustache above rostrums and reads the speeches to the people. Oh, sure, he must agree with them “in principle.” But where and what is the meaning of principle in this mechanic process. A principle is born of passionate conviction in one human mind, and that mind alone, which has felt its creation, can give it meaningful expression.

Yes, this is politics, not ethics or aesthetics. But even in politics there should be men of genuine principle, and no efficient pleaser of the public taste can be such a man. Dewey is a man who has learned how to put a nice taste in people’s mouths. That, he’s been assured, is the way to win votes and elections. And it’s also the way to eat out the moral foundation of the nation. He’s just the latest of the bright young men to further the art of making unscrupulous statements in a decorous manner. Who can imagine Dewey writing a Declaration of Independence? or even an Atlantic Charter. And even if he did produce such a document, it would need behind it such a moral force of character as he doesn’t have.

Franklin Roosevelt is a smart politician who has at times sacrificed principle to political expediency. But the great difference from Dewey is that he is accepted as a man of principle, in spite of his often serious deviations from that principle. Obviously these deviations are dictated by the necessity which faces every president of maintaining the support of more or less unprincipled political groups to further the progress of laudable legislation and statesmanship. It’s the old question of whether the ends justify the means, and a man who wishes to remain an effective president can’t keep the question in academic suspension. He must constantly do something, and hence must constantly outrage the sensibilities of some. If he keeps the outraged people in an impotent minority, however, he is politically successful, and has as free a hand as any democratic leader can ever gain to act according to his principles. This, I believe, is the theory that FDR has accepted for himself. It makes him considerably less than a saint, but it also makes him a great President. His speech to the AFL teamsters yesterday was the speech of a real man, sarcastic, humorous, hearty, frank, boastful, humble, and hopeful, – altogether, the words of a much “younger” man than any which have passed the lips of the Dewey organism.

Read Full Post »

Business-Government Imbalance Poses Potentially Fatal Risks

[This entry begins with an analysis of the interplay between government and business in communist and fascist countries, and contrasts that interplay with America’s historically more-balanced model. From that foundation, my father revisits one of his favorite themes — the importance of individual self-expression and creativity — and discusses how America has done better than most in cultivating and nourishing the individual. Near the entry’s end, however, he cautions that “A society is thrown fatally out of balance when one group within it accumulates the power to deny expression to all conflicting interests.”

Sadly, in our current electoral season, corporations have been given carte blanche by the U.S. Supreme Court to spend endlessly and anonymously to promote their preferred candidates and causes. While Tea Partiers and other right-wing zealots worry endlessly about Big Government, they seem completely oblivious to the threat that Big Business poses to our democratic institutions (to say nothing of the threat to their own self interests…). Perhaps we’ve already reached the tipping point where American democracy is beginning to spin “fatally out of balance.”

September 10, 1944 (Camp Shelly, Miss.)

Call government the chicken and business the egg. Then ask which came first, the chicken or the egg. In the Communist state it was the chicken, nor was this simply a matter of chance. In Russia at the time of the Revolution there was only a comparatively small industrial plant, and its owners were on the losing side. So, entirely aside from the Marxist theories, it was quite natural that the political organization should come first, and that it should assume complete control of the development of the nation’s industry, making it a state enterprise. Nor is it strange that the Communist leaders should believe that their way was the best way. They made it work.

In Germany after the World War, the ruling class, mostly in the person of the Kaiser, was eliminated, but German industry, already highly developed, and not greatly damaged by war, remained in the hands of its pre-war owners. Thus they, by default, became the top-dogs in Germany, and controlled the government as they saw fit. This was the prime condition of Fascism. These businessmen picked Hitler as the best front-man available, and have perhaps lived to regret their choice. But that’s debatable, since it isn’t quite clear that Hitler has ever got completely out of hand, or crossed them up badly.

In the United states, the question of the chicken and the egg remains a riddle. Business and government, through the historical accident by which our state was established at the beginnings of the industrial revolution, have grown up together and though the preponderance of power has sifted back and forth during the years, they’ve never been completely out of balance with each other. It’s this system of constantly-maintained balance between business and government which we’ve come to call democracy. It’s an extension of the system of checks and balances which was written into the original Constitution, and which is probably one of the most fruitful social theories ever formulated. Though we may have acquired it partly through accident, it’s very important today that we understand its value and function, so that we’ll be the stronger to dismiss all temptations to destroy it.

The Communist and Fascist states are both built to ignore the most pressing need of modern society, which is the need for individual self-expression. The leaders of these states have become fascinated with the idea of the mass, and have forgotten that the strength of the mass is in its individual members. And though, for a limited time, and under special conditions, it may be possible to inspire mass movements of considerable force, there is nothing more permanent in such a movement than in the display of the pent-up force in a released rocket. Both are brilliant, and soon spent.

Democratic society has few moments of this type of hysterical mass movement and in these moments it’s the least democratic. The crude techniques of mass appeal have no place in a democratic system, and should be avoided except as a last expedient at times when the state is threatened by outside force. Even then such appeals should be strongly salted with emphasis on the individual.

For the end of democratic society has never been conceived as the power of the state, but as the opportunity and happiness of the individual citizen. In a civilization which seems peculiarly suited to the creation of great Force-States, this democratic theory may appear almost archaic, and certainly very fragile. But the facts don’t bear out this fear. The United States is today the most powerful state in the world, and at the same time, among the large nations, the most democratic. We have demonstrated that mass effort can be demanded of millions of individuals without destroying their individuality. The danger among us now is that fascination with the material power we’ve built for ourselves will make us forget that the main source of this power is in the individual who is free to think for himself, and, to a large degree, free to direct his own creative activities.

In any society it’s always been hard to find a way of guaranteeing a practical degree of freedom to every adult individual, and most societies haven’t even attempted to find such a way. Industrial society, perhaps, makes it at the same time more possible and more difficult than ever before. The material and mechanical means exist which can free men from slavery to the labor of maintaining a bare subsistence. But these same means can also be used to subject men to the most terrible slavery in history. This is the slavery which makes them not slaves of themselves, or of other men, but of the machine. All human quality is sapped out of this relationship, and men can be brutalized to a point where they are themselves nothing more than machines. Something of this sort has happened to the leaders of the Nazi state.

The safest state of affairs exists in a society where no element or interest is completely satisfied, and no one is completely denied satisfaction, where everyone has an opportunity to voice his own desires and have their merits submitted to a forum of the whole. A society is thrown fatally out of balance when one group within it accumulates the power to deny expression to all conflicting interests. In such a society, sufficiency is sacrificed to efficiency. The machine-quality displaces the human-quality. Such a society cannot last…

Read Full Post »

Japan as our Enemy, China as our Friend

[This entry provides a glimpse into a time when Americans were sympathetic to the Chinese, and united in their disgust of the Japanese. My father recounts viewing an Army film about Japan’s war against China, a film of “honest propaganda,” in his estimation. He also employs the now-pejorative “Jap” label in his writing, which was true to the times and circumstances, but jarring to today’s ears. At the entry’s end, he remarks on the astonishing willpower and self-sacrifice of the Chinese people, traits still in evidence today as China assumes an ever-more imposing role in economics and world affairs.]

July, 8 1944 (Camp Shelly, Miss.)

Yesterday I read in TIME a brief summary of China’s seven years of declared war with Japan. Then this morning I saw the Army Orientation Film, “Battle of China.” This was the best of the series, surpassing even the “Battle of Britain.”

When I saw the title of the film, I was a little disappointed, and I knew why. It was because I was afraid that the subject wouldn’t afford the terrific action shots which have come out of the European war. I was wrong, but the remarkable thing is that desire to watch destruction and death on the screen, – bombs tearing out the vitals of cities, cannon and rifles spitting fire at men, airplanes zooming into combat. It’s the same in any disaster. Fires, floods, tornadoes all have something in them which fascinates us, much as we intellectually shudder at the destruction and suffering they cause. Is it that in these moments we see clearly rampant those forces which pay no attention to our human will, and we are struck with awe at the knowledge of our helplessness?

Another thing I noted was a disgust bordering on physical nausea at the sight of Chinese people being bombed, and tortured, and killed. But when Jap soldiers were being killed, I felt only that delight with which we used to see the approach of the posse in the nick of time in the Western movies. My subconscious mind made the elementary distinction between good men and bad men, and I was cheering for the good. In part, this was a result of the picture’s skill in presenting just that argument. Some of the fellows recognized this fact, and resented the picture, so great is their unsophisticated protest against anything which smacks of propaganda.

But the important question is whether or not that propaganda is honest. My feeling is that in this picture it was honest enough. China’s ancient civilization and the peaceful habits of her people were stressed, as was her long struggle for national unity in this century. Unmentioned was the feud between the Central Government and the Communists, and the fact that the Kuomintang has not escaped some of the pitfalls of one-party government. [Note: At the time, the Kuomintang, the Chinese Nationalist Party, held power in China under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek. In a marriage of necessity, the Kuomintang in 1937 had marginally united with its long-time enemy, the Chinese Communist Party, in mutual opposition against the Japanese invaders.] But these are faults on the surface of the national character, so that their omission doesn’t result in a serious distortion of that character.

On the other hand, the rapacity and brutality of the Japs were stressed, in pictures of smirking conquerors, grand strategists of world conquest, bombers of open cities, and rapists of whole civilian populations, as at Nanking. I believe that the impression generated in us was justified. For the Japs are desperately sick with the disease of nationalism, and are not fit members of a civilized community of nations. Perhaps it’s unjust to judge a nation by the actions of its armies in war, but to those who have felt the scourge of these armies, there’s no other choice. And it’s been tragically long demonstrated that these armies understand no argument except that of opposing force. We may fancy, in the abstract, that war offends our highest moral sense. But this reflection is a luxury reserved only for those who haven’t been attacked.

A most startling revelation, in this machine age, was the tremendous power of a people who are willing to work with little more than their bare hands. Our gigantic and efficient machines destroy our faith in our own unaided powers. The Chinese, who built the great Wall hundreds of years ago, have not forgotten what men can do for themselves, if they have the will. These Chinese carved the Burma road through the world’s most formidable mountains in less than a year; they tunneled shelters in the sandstone cliffs for the whole population of Chunking; they moved their entire industry, literally on their backs, two thousand miles into the interior of their country. The most powerful scene in the picture shows long lines of straining coolies, their backs bent horizontal to the ground, pulling a fleet of river boats up through a mountain gorge, against the rapids of the river. Not many of us can really understand such extremes of self-sacrifice. I know I can’t. But it must be these that are the secrets of China’s continued resistance.

Read Full Post »

The Presidential Race Outlook in mid-1944

[This entry provides an interesting snapshot of the Presidential-race landscape following the 1944 Republican National Convention. My father correctly predicts a loss for Republican nominee Thomas E. Dewey in the upcoming election, in which Franklin D. Roosevelt won his unprecedented fourth term. My father’s prediction that Earl Warren would become the Republican’s successful Presidential candidate in 1948 proved incorrect, however. In 1948, Warren was the Vice-Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket, which was again led by Dewey. Although conventional wisdom in 1948 mirrored my father’s 1944 prediction of a 1948 Republican landslide, Dewey surprisingly — and famously — lost to incumbent President Harry S. Truman (VP Truman succeeded Roosevelt when FDR died in office on April 12, 1945). Warren, of course, was appointed Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme court in 1953 by Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Warren court went on to enrage conservatives and to delight liberals with its progressive and “activist” rulings on racial segregation, separation of church and state and other issues, many of which remain contentious to this day.]

June 28, 1944 (Camp Shelly, Miss.)

It appears that the real winner in the Republican National Convention is governor Earl Warren of California. Dewey quite surely did not want the nomination, but was in no position to refuse it when it was forced upon him. I think that he personally has a poor opinion of his chances of beating Roosevelt this year, and would much preferred to have waited until 1948, which from this distance would appear to be the year for a Republican landslide. But the Old Guard, who assassinated Willkie, the one man who is big enough this year to stand a chance of beating Roosevelt, is now driven to draft Dewey, who is apparently “safe,” and obviously their most popular man.

Earl Warren thereby accedes to the favored spot Dewey hoped for. His unequivocal refusal of the second-place nomination proves that he understands the strategic value of waiting until 1948 for his big chance. He made an excellent impression with his keynote address, and now has four years more to improve an already good reputation. [John] Bricker [who became the VP nominee on the 1944 Republican ticket], of course, played it for all-or-nothing this year, and lost out. And it’s extremely unlikely that [Wendell] Willkie will ever win a Republican nomination. A far-fetched possibility, even, sees him running on the Democratic ticket in 1948 against Warren. But the political tides would be against him again.

That Roosevelt will run and win this year, especially if the war continues, is practically a foregone conclusion. It’s accepted rather cynically by many Americans, but it’s accepted. For in the situation, and against Dewey, he’s the realistic choice. But this will surely be his last term. There’s no danger of dictatorship. The Republicans will win by a landslide in 1948, and from here, it looks like Warren is the man.

Read Full Post »