Author Sam Seder on Wallace Being "Written Out of History"
"Why Henry Wallace Was Written Out Of History- Pt 2," YouTube video, 7:05, posted by "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder," May 24, 2020.
|
Sam Seder stated that Wallace "flew too close to the sun," when he "tried to bring American politics from the 19th century to the 21st." Not only did he have and relentlessly share his opposing views on Cold War policy, he believed that racism was "Americanized fascism," and women were essential in the workforce and an equal rights amendment was necessary to protect them. Wallace made it clear that he fought for the working men and women of the world as opposed to the "masters of capital." Seder suggested that it was "inconvenient to have that in the history books," because looking back, it would seem that society condemned a man with important ideas believed to be true today. [1]
Things to Consider
Was the Cold War inevitable?
"They [Wallace and Progressive supporters] were convinced, as Wallace expressed it during the campaign, 'that there are no differences between the Soviet Union and the United States which cannot be reconciled without sacrificing a single American principle or a single American life.' Wallace and his supporters were reviled for this conviction. Yet what they were advocating in 1948 became the very policy of détente practiced by Richard M. Nixon a quarter of a century later, a policy that he believed, justly, was the crowning achievement of his years in office." [2]
- Richard Walton, 1976
Wallace's view on Cold War policy was essentially the basis of détente, a policy that encouraged the rekindling of the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and was a major accomplishment of President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the late 1960s- early 70s. While Nixon and Kissinger were not able to bring an end to the Cold War, their work paved the way for the eventual achievement of that goal. If Wallace was arguing for détente in the early 1940s, what is considered to be the very beginning of the prolonged conflict, is it possible that if people had listened to him the Cold War could have been avoided altogether?
"They [Wallace and Progressive supporters] were convinced, as Wallace expressed it during the campaign, 'that there are no differences between the Soviet Union and the United States which cannot be reconciled without sacrificing a single American principle or a single American life.' Wallace and his supporters were reviled for this conviction. Yet what they were advocating in 1948 became the very policy of détente practiced by Richard M. Nixon a quarter of a century later, a policy that he believed, justly, was the crowning achievement of his years in office." [2]
- Richard Walton, 1976
Wallace's view on Cold War policy was essentially the basis of détente, a policy that encouraged the rekindling of the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and was a major accomplishment of President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the late 1960s- early 70s. While Nixon and Kissinger were not able to bring an end to the Cold War, their work paved the way for the eventual achievement of that goal. If Wallace was arguing for détente in the early 1940s, what is considered to be the very beginning of the prolonged conflict, is it possible that if people had listened to him the Cold War could have been avoided altogether?
Could the Korean and Vietnam wars have been avoided?
"One of the sad features of this story is that among Wallace's most severe critics were some of those who became early or, more often, late opponents of the Vietnam war. It is hardly fanciful to suggest that if Wallace had been heeded, or simply if free debate on foreign policy had not been silenced, the Korean war might have remained solely a civil war and perhaps the American involvement in Indochina would have ceased rather than grown. But so vehement was the response to Wallace's criticism of our foreign policy that no basic foreign-policy debate occurred again for a decade and a half." [3]
- Richard Walton, 1976
Author Thomas G. Paterson compared the dynamics of American government in the Cold War era to “Groupthink,” describing how, “large bureaucracies tend by nature to become lethargic and unimaginative.” [4] He suggested that the Truman administration suffered from Groupthink, as Truman surrounded himself and only listened to those who were like-minded. Paterson spoke of the enduring government tradition during Truman’s administration in which officials who wished to remain in office “must not speak out,” and “must not air his differences or grievances publicly.” [5] Paterson went on to say that Henry Wallace was a “conspicuous exception,” as he continually voiced his disapproval with the current U.S. foreign policy approach in office and after he was fired. [6] Walton suggested that Wallace's public condemnation as a result of his contrarianism discouraged future discourse on important foreign policy matters, like the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Could it be the case that if free debate were not restricted as a result of Wallace's dissenting ideas, there might have been more discussion about the conflicts in Asia? If so, could such discussion have prevented the escalation of the Korean and Vietnam wars (and the U.S. involvement in both)?
"One of the sad features of this story is that among Wallace's most severe critics were some of those who became early or, more often, late opponents of the Vietnam war. It is hardly fanciful to suggest that if Wallace had been heeded, or simply if free debate on foreign policy had not been silenced, the Korean war might have remained solely a civil war and perhaps the American involvement in Indochina would have ceased rather than grown. But so vehement was the response to Wallace's criticism of our foreign policy that no basic foreign-policy debate occurred again for a decade and a half." [3]
- Richard Walton, 1976
Author Thomas G. Paterson compared the dynamics of American government in the Cold War era to “Groupthink,” describing how, “large bureaucracies tend by nature to become lethargic and unimaginative.” [4] He suggested that the Truman administration suffered from Groupthink, as Truman surrounded himself and only listened to those who were like-minded. Paterson spoke of the enduring government tradition during Truman’s administration in which officials who wished to remain in office “must not speak out,” and “must not air his differences or grievances publicly.” [5] Paterson went on to say that Henry Wallace was a “conspicuous exception,” as he continually voiced his disapproval with the current U.S. foreign policy approach in office and after he was fired. [6] Walton suggested that Wallace's public condemnation as a result of his contrarianism discouraged future discourse on important foreign policy matters, like the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Could it be the case that if free debate were not restricted as a result of Wallace's dissenting ideas, there might have been more discussion about the conflicts in Asia? If so, could such discussion have prevented the escalation of the Korean and Vietnam wars (and the U.S. involvement in both)?
Footnotes
[1] "Why Henry Wallace was Written Out of History- Pt 2," YouTube video, 7:05, posted by "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder," May 24, 2020.
[2] Richard Walton, Henry Wallace, Harry Truman, and the Cold War (New York: The Viking Press, 1976), 2.
[3] Walton, 2-3.
[4] Thomas G. Paterson, On Every Front: The Making and Unmaking of the Cold War (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979), 136.
[5] Paterson, 136.
[6] Paterson, 136.
[1] "Why Henry Wallace was Written Out of History- Pt 2," YouTube video, 7:05, posted by "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder," May 24, 2020.
[2] Richard Walton, Henry Wallace, Harry Truman, and the Cold War (New York: The Viking Press, 1976), 2.
[3] Walton, 2-3.
[4] Thomas G. Paterson, On Every Front: The Making and Unmaking of the Cold War (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979), 136.
[5] Paterson, 136.
[6] Paterson, 136.