Showing posts with label World War II. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World War II. Show all posts

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Woodrow Wilson's Leftist Lawyer, Part I

It has been one of the more idiosyncratic aspects of Glenn Beck’s version of reality that Woodrow Wilson has become one of its central villains, with our 28th president also serving as the father of the "cancer" that is modern progressivism. Suffice it to say, no, Woodrow Wilson did not invent progressivism. Wilson fits in no easy box (one of the reasons historians keep writing about him), but certainly he embodied both progressive and conservative (even reactionary) views. Wilson certainly has many detractors on the left, who, while perhaps not as vitriolic as Beck, have found much to criticize him for, ranging from Wilson's often hypocritical foreign policy in which rhetoric (and some action) seeming to challenge imperialism cohabitated quite nicely with often imperial policies, his deep racism which saw expression in the segregating of the federal government, and his unforgivable suppression of civil liberties during World War I. Perhaps because of this, Wilson’s legacy as a sometimes quite progressive president have been sidelined, but are worth looking at. To tie these to my previous post about Beck's obsession with Obama's "radical" advisers, I want to look specifically at how major pieces of Wilson's legacy are due, in part, to the work of a "radical" adviser, who helped make the U.S. a fairer nation for the wage-earning masses.

And with that, let us now turn to one of the great unsung heroes of the Progressive Era: Frank P. Walsh. A brilliant labor lawyer from Kansas City, Walsh served as a steady ally of Wilson in the 1912 campaign. This work caught Wilson's attention and led him to push for Walsh to chair the U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations (USCIR), a congressionally appointed body tasked with investigating the problems of labor in the new industrial economy (a commission, it is worth pointing out, created because of organized citizen pressure). Walsh devoted himself completely into the USCIR's work, often stirring up great controversy as its investigations proceeded. Among its most impressive features was the the set of witnesses the USCIR heard from, which consisted of a range of views one rarely sees invited into mainstream dialogue. Coming before the commission was everyone from Industrial Workers of the World founder "Wild Bill" Haywood to the grand industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. In a rather surprising turn of events, the members of the USCIR, representing a variety of interests, disagreed with each other on the final report so vigorously that they issued three separate reports! The most important of these however was Walsh's, which also advanced the most radical analysis and recommendations. With exhaustive documentation, Walsh's USCIR report gave a greater legitimacy to the struggles of workers in a time when unions were in many ways still a rogue institution. Walsh minced no words in the report, stating that "the basic cause of industrial dissatisfaction . . . .[is] the fact that the workers of the nation, through compulsory and oppressive methods, legal and illegal, are denied the full product of their toil." He called for unions to be given the right to organize and for the society to embrace the idea that "political freedom can only exist where there is industrial freedom [and he wasn't talking about deregulation], political democracy only where there is industrial democracy."

Before discussing Walsh's further work with the Wilson administration, it is worth taking a moment to comment on where Walsh stood ideologically. While his politics are somewhat hard to describe, he certainly stood on the left end of progressivism and showed at least a comfort with, if not outright support of, socialist ideals. In a letter to Eugene V. Debs, the perennial Socialist Party candidate and hero of American radicalsim, Walsh approvingly quoted one of his staffers' summary of the USCIR report, that, “[a]ccording to this report, Eugene Debs was right, and his only mistake was in being twenty years in advance of the times.” Walsh also maintained a friendship with the renown anarchist Emma Goldman, including providing legal assistance to her. Goldman felt sufficiently ideologically compatible with Walsh to call him in her memoirs a "radically minded man." Yet, Goldman also recognized the limits of Walsh's radicalism, particularly in his close relationship not just with Wilson, but with the Democratic Party, and in the next sentence after noting his radicalism she goes on to accuse him of "political blindness and social muddle-headedness." Walsh's desire to remain connected to the Democrats and the mainstream led him away from some of his more progressive stances, as in his support U.S. entry into World War I, despite having identified himself as a pacifist. Perhaps Walsh himself best expressed the seemingly contradictory relationships and positions he found himself in when he commented to feminist activist Doris Stevens that, "I hate like hell to be so respectable."

In part 2 I will discuss Walsh's involvement in helping set the first real federal labor policy through his service on the National War Labor Board.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Godwin's Law

It's annoying, but also highly appropriate, that my first real post regards our president making a facile comparison between today's Middle East problems and World War II. There's an amusing social science idea, "Godwin's Law" which states that as any "discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." I would propose a corollary to that, the "Munich Metaphor Law" which states that as any conservative continues to speak or write about U.S. foreign policy, the probability of them referencing Munich approaches one.

Historical analogies to World War II are among the most commonly and least accurately employed by pundits and politicians, so it's no surprise that Bush resorted to one in his speech to the Israeli Knesset today:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
The main question here is how the historical context of World War II helps us understand today's conditions. A significant segment of Americans and politicians (especially conservatives, btw) did call for the U.S. to stay out of European and Asian affairs. Who are their equivalents today? As far as dealing with al Qaeda, last I checked most everyone in "mainstream" political dialogue is saying the U.S. needs to defeat al Qaeda, not negotiate with them, differing mainly on the best strategy for carrying this out.

How about Iran, surely Achmedinejad is like the new Hitler! Well, no, most likely not. Let's review: Hitler wanted to militarily conquer the world. Does Achmedinejad want to do that? I haven't really heard anyone suggest that. How about just invading a few of Iran's neighbors? No one's really saying that either and the main nation he might target already is tilting more pro-Iranian everyday, thanks to, well, us. How about a pre-meditated nuclear strike on Israel? For that to be a worry, someone needs to convince me that Achmedinejad is far crazier than Hitler and does not care one bit about turning his nation into a nuclear waste heap. 'Cause that is exactly what will happen; Israel has the capacity to attack Iran with nuclear weapons delivered by land, sea, and air , leaving a 0% chance of Iran escaping undestroyed.

So, there's not much "there" there. To sum up my thoughts on such analogies here are some apropos words from the great Stephen Colbert: "That's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it."

UPDATE: People smarter than me weigh in. And guess what Joe Lieberman thinks of Bush's speech?

UPDATE 2:
If we're doing World War II analogies, this Chris Matthews interview is kind of like the Marianas Turkey Shoot. I'm not always a fan of Matthews but the way he rips this right-wing radio host to shreds is worth watching.