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 »

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 »

Wendell Willkie, Liberal Republican, Backs the Liberal Arts

[Throughout his adult life, my father was a card-carrying Democrat and an unapologetic political liberal. Not surprisingly, as a college student in the 1940s, he was taken with the promise of “democratic socialism,” a subject that his journals of this period address several times. Nonetheless, he also found much to like in the ideas and speeches of a prominent Republican of the times — Wendell Willkie. Willkie, the Republican nominee for the 1940 Presidential election, lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was elected to an historic third term. FDR later brought the philosophically compatible Willkie into his administration as a special ambassador-at-large, promoting “One World” internationalism and an end to imperialism and colonialism.

The following journal excerpt, which quotes Willkie extensively from a speech he delivered at Duke University (presumably reported in The New York Times), is an interesting window into the mind of a “liberal” Republican of the era. Not only are such Republicans an extinct breed today, also all-but extinct are politicians of any party who can articulate moral and philosophic ideas — rather than slogans and sound bites — with the sophistication and intelligence Willkie demonstrated. Even then, however, being a liberal Republican carried significant liability; Willkie dropped out of the 1944 Presidential race because his liberalism lost him the support of the GOP establishment.

As reported by my father, much of the content of Willkie’s speech involved the benefits of a liberal arts education, a conviction shared by my father throughout his life. Willkie’s proposal to defer some men from Army service so they could remain in college and meet future American needs, not surprisingly, finds a sympathetic ear in my father. Despite the ambivalence  about military service that he states in this entry, however, my father would go on to enlist in the Army several months later. One note about the end of this entry, where my father’s personal commentary is interspersed among various Willkie quotes. All of Willkie’s quotes, even if not so identified, are bracketed by quotation marks. ]

January 15, 1943 (Middlebury College)

… Last night Wendell Willkie spoke at Duke in defence[sic] of the liberal arts education. It was a most encouraging talk, and added considerable cement to my conviction that Willkie is the man who must be elected next president of the United States. He himself, of course, reiterated his previous statement that there must be no indispensable man in a democracy. And certainly I won’t go around calling him indispensable. When lined up against all other known aspirants to the presidential office, however, I will gladly call him invaluable.

His ideas were so well phrased that I shall quote some of them here, perhaps as handy material for the Emerson paper, certainly as invaluable material for any man who believes in democracy. “I am speaking of education for its own sake: to know for the sheer joy of understanding; to speculate; to analyze; to compare and to imagine.” He lists the conventional frivolous objections to the liberal arts: “When such arguments gain acceptance, that is the end of us as a civilized nation.”

“… there should be some provision in the manpower program for leaving a nucleus in the colleges of men when aptitudes qualify them as definitely for our long-range needs as, let us say, other men are obviously qualified for medicine.” This statement drew a light blast from the Times editorial, which was otherwise commendatory. The Times maintained that these specially qualified youths still ought to stand the test of fire, to be able to understand and speak the language of the returning veterans. I stick with Willkie. It’s not a matter of courage. Probably it would take more courage to stay in college. It’s a matter of waste. Why throw tomorrow’s leaders into the gamble of physical combat? God knows they are preparing themselves to enter an arena of conflict as demanding on the man as any Libyan battlefield. I feel it myself; certainly I could go into battle of arms, but I am not happy at the risk of losing my chance to fight in the realm that I am much better fitted for, the realm of ideas.

I’m looking for a lifetime battle. Today I can say that I believe. Democracy and Christianity are more than words. They are ideas planted deep in my mind, and now coming to first flower. I am happy in the thought of living for them, not of dying for them. My death on the point of a bayonet would contribute very little to the life of these ideas in the world, and I have the confidence to hope that in a lifetime of study, writing, and teaching, I can make a much greater contribution to these ideas that I love, one that might rank with Emerson’s.

There must be many like me, – eager boys who feel the electric shock of this new age zipping through their nerves, and long to be among its prophets, as I do. Is it timidity that holds us back from asserting what we want to do for our fellow men? Will we accept meekly the grasp of the hand that is drawing us into the Army? With me there is a balance of opinion in this problem that keeps me from declaring openly on Willkie’s side. I imagine that valuable experience will derive from service as a soldier in a great Army, though the few reports I’ve heard don’t lead me to expect too much here. Probably it means entrance into some technical training, which probably wouldn’t hurt any, but would it help? Meanwhile, as the deadline approaches, I have these last three months of college to push as far ahead as possible.

Willkie went on to a discussion of freedom: “It is true that a man cannot be free unless he has a job and a decent income. But this job and this income are not the source of his freedom. They only implement it. Freedom is of the mind.”

…Willkie speaks of the damaging influences of the German universities. “It has encouraged the sacrifice of methods that make for wide intelligence to those who are concerned only with highly specified knowledge; it has held that the subject is more important than the student; that knowledge is more important than understanding; that science, in itself, can satisfy the soul of man; and that intelligent men should not be allowed to concern themselves with politics and the administration of state. Such matters should be left to trained politicians.”

That’s a damning indictment… But on one thing I insist. That science is nothing new in the world, and that it is no more adequate by itself for man today than it has been in the past. Science is generally description and analysis of the workings of natural laws in the material and human worlds. The continued expansion of scientific knowledge can be tremendously valuable for our society, but only when applied to the problems of society by morally sound men. Such men are more than scientists; they are religious men.

“If the humanities, or the humanistic temper which they promote, are permitted to lapse now, we shall have lost the peace before we have gained it, and the real victory after the war will be to the way of life, inhuman, tyrannical, mechanical, of those whom we shall outwardly have conquered.”

Speaking of our trend towards leadership, “hero-worship,” “indispensable men,” he says: “Had we more faith in liberal institutions, we would have, I believe, more faith in ourselves – more faith in the great leavening processes of democracy, which forever pushes new men to the top.” The new men! Emerson yesterday. Willkie today. Tomorrow? I’m trying. “Education is the mother of leadership.”

“More and more the doctrine of telling us what we should know is being adopted… And what has won out In the long battle. Always the truth.” The greatest prize for which man may strive. Each discovery leads one to higher truth, and there is never an end for him who dares to pursue. Melville was one of these, until the climb became too steep even for him.

“We have seen the devolution of human aspiration. It is a tragedy as great as men have ever witnessed.” But men are aspiring even at the darkest hour. Aspiration? It’s becoming the keynote of my life.

“Too many of the planners, I feel, are trying to look ahead by looking backward. Too many are seeking the future in the past.” It is neither in the past nor in the future, but it is now! and not in other men, but in you! Let a man first discover those moral laws that are completely independent of time, and then he will know what his society demands of him.

“Open the books, if you wish to be free.” Better to say, open the books, that they may open your mind. 

Read Full Post »