Seventy five years ago today, the nightmare of World War II in Europe came to an end with the surrender of Nazi Germany, although the war against Japan continued for four more months until VJ Day on September 2, 1945.
President Harry Truman was in office only 26 days, and VE Day happened to be his 61st Birthday, so today we celebrate a humble man, who met the challenge of ending the war against Japan, and coping with the Cold War threat of the Soviet Union.
The only President since 1900 not to have attended or graduated college, still Harry Truman was a learned man, as he was a reader and interested in gaining knowledge. Unlike Donald Trump, who hates to read and has displayed evidence that he has no knowledge to speak of on any topic imaginable, including as a few: History, Science, Medicine, Math, Spelling, Economics, Foreign Policy, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and common decency, empathy, compassion, and humanity!
Truman came in at a difficult time, with the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, and was a bit overwhelmed, but met the challenge, and demonstrated courage, guts, decisiveness, and principle.
One can be sure that if Harry Truman were alive, he would have choice curse words for the only other President who shares the first four letters of his last name.
Truman ranks as 5th or 6th in rankings of Presidents, while Trump is assured last place for the eternity, below James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson!
First of all: Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the totally non-military targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki marks him as one of the worst War Criminals of World War II.
Second of all: Truman “coped with the Cold War threat of the Soviet Union” first by starting the 30-year Viet Nam War by equipping and bankrolling the French effort to retain their colonial empire in Indochina; thus breaking the deal the US had made with Ho Chi Minh in return for his support against the Japanese.
Third of all: Truman also ~ in the name of coping with the Russian threat ~ started the grand American tradition of American Presidents waging war without Congressional approval when he initiated his “police action” in, on, and against Korea. And that tradition has been upheld ever since, regardless of which party is sitting in the White House, and which party is in charge of The Hill at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Fourth of all: It was on Truman’s watch when the National Security State/Military-Industrial-Government Complex [the DoD, NSC, NSA, CIA, and so forth] came into existence, and began driving American foreign and domestic policy.
And finally: It was on Truman’s watch that the “Great Red Scare” overwhelmed America at home, giving us, eventually and ultimately, Senator Joe McCarthy and all the collateral damage he and his obscenities produced.
Sorry, Professor. But based on all that and some other things [including, particularly, his attempted nationalization of the US steel industry which was overturned by SCOTUS in “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer”], i have a hard time putting him in even the Top 20 of US Presidents.
Altho i will admit that he ranks higher than Trump ever will. But, that isn’t saying very much, is it?
Jeffrey, here we part company after agreeing yesterday for once, oh well! 🙁
It sounds like you would have wanted Henry A. Wallace to be our President, at a time when we could have lost hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fighting for two more years to defeat Japan!
It sounds like you would have wanted Henry A. Wallace to promote Soviet expansion into Western Europe in the late 1940s, and remember his Progressive Party disaster of 1948 was supported by the American Communist Party! He acted as if Joseph Stalin was a typical politician, rather than a mass murderer worse than Adolf Hitler, in total loss of life!
It sounds like you would have had no problem of Communist expansion into South Korea, and made that prosperous nation which has evolved into a democracy, to be part of that horrific North Korean dictatorship!
You also fail to realize that Truman could have bombed Tokyo instead, but chose lesser targets, although the loss of life was horrific, but in wartime, one does what one has to do to end a war!
McCarthyism was an attack by Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats on the Democratic Party, purely political, as much as the attack on Hillary Clinton over four deaths at Benghazi, while the Republicans have no issue with mass deaths in the CoronaVirus Pandemic!
For a person who served his nation in the military, I must say I am very surprised at your attack on Truman, and apparent love affair with Henry A. Wallace, who was certainly, at the least, a weirdo and naive in many ways!
If he had been President, the nation would have been far worse off!
RF: “Jeffrey, here we part company after agreeing yesterday for once, oh well! ”
And here You go again, Ronald, with Your absurd argumentation logical fallacies. Oh, well; it was nice while it lasted, eh?
RF: “It sounds like you would have wanted Henry A. Wallace to be our President, at a time when we could have lost hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fighting for two more years to defeat Japan!”
First of all: On what possible, conceivable basis do You hear that i would have wanted Wallace for anything, let alone President? Where does Wallace fit into my argument, at all? That is beyond absurd, Professor; it is complete and total bollocks.
And on whose word are You basing Your declaration that it would have taken “two years and hundreds of thousands” of American fatalities to defeat Japan? Truman’s? Macarthur’s? Curtis LeMay’s? Any noted, non-National Security State flunkee historians and talking heads?
By summer of 1945, Japan had no industrial war production capability; it had no fossil fuels; it had only the food it could grow on the Islands; it had zero capability to wage any kind of a defense against an American invasion.
We could have put a complete and total naval and air blockade around Japan to cut off anything from getting in, and let the Japanese sort out what they wanted to do themselves, or starve themselves to death.
But, but, but….. We had to have Total Victory, and complete, unconditional, Total Surrender by the Japanese; including, what really pissed them off, the dethroning of their God-Emperor.
RF: “It sounds like you would have wanted Henry A. Wallace to promote Soviet expansion into Western Europe in the late 1940s, and remember his Progressive Party disaster of 1948 was supported by the American Communist Party! He acted as if Joseph Stalin was a typical politician, rather than a mass murderer worse than Adolf Hitler, in total loss of life!”
Gee…. if that’s the case, then that makes FDR and Churchill accomplices to whatever crimes Stalin committed, doesn’t it? How did Franky and Winston treat Uncle Joe except as a cohort, colleague, compeer, and, ultimately, as a co-conspirator? They gave Eastern Europe to Stalin and condemned the people in those nations to 45 years of tyranny and slavery; all part of the deals those very “typical politicians” all made together at Potsdam, Yalta, etc.
The Soviet Union had no capability of military “expansion into Western Europe in the late 40s.” Especially given the fact that they did not have nuclear weapons, and the US did. That was more bollocks from Truman’s National Security State so as to keep the military-industrial complex in business after peace broke out at the end of WW II. And they thus bequeathed unto the world ~ da-dummmm ~ “The Cold War.” It is also highly questionable whether that the USSR had that capability in the 50s, 60s, 70s, or 80s, either; but that’s a separate issue altogether.
RF: “It sounds like you would have had no problem of Communist expansion into South Korea, and made that prosperous nation which has evolved into a democracy, to be part of that horrific North Korean dictatorship!”
If that’s what it sounds like to You, Doc, You either need to get Your hearing checked or undergo a cognitive function test. The issue was not ~ and is not ~ “Communist expansion into South Korea.”
The issue was and still VERY much is a President’s waging war without Congressional approval. Apparently You approve of that; at least when it’s a Democrat who does it. Truman was the first to do that, and it hasn’t stopped happening in 75 years. Nor, given this Congress and the political landscape, is it going to stop anytime soon.
And i suppose You justify Truman’s starting the 30 Year Viet Nam War by supporting the French as his visionary, prescient implementation of JFK’s “domino effect,” eh? And that was even before Mao had seized China and brought Communism to Asia. Wow…; what vision he had.
And, by the way: What was Truman’s response to “losing China”? The start of a long-line of American support for fascist, military dictatorships in Taiwan, Korea, and Viet Nam, along with Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. All in the name of “winning” that “Cold War,” and making the world safe for the American National Security State’s aspiring global hegemony.
So NO, Doc: it’s not that i don’t have a problem with Communist expansion into Korea. My problem is with Truman’s starting the now 75-year old tradition of Presidents waging wars that are not declared by Congress. A very big difference that i assume You can see, once it’s pointed out to You.
So what IS Your justification for Truman putting the French back into Indochina and paying for their War to preserve what was left of their Empire? Because the Russians were threatening to take over Southeast Asia like they were Western Europe?
RF: “You also fail to realize that Truman could have bombed Tokyo instead, but chose lesser targets, although the loss of life was horrific, but in wartime, one does what one has to do to end a war!
Professor, based on my knowledge of military history ~ which i will compare with Yours any time You would like ~ please don’t presume to tell me what i “fail to realize” about that decision to bomb non-military, civilian, non-combatant targets.
The reason Truman didn’t bomb Tokyo was because there was nothing left to bomb in Tokyo after all the fire-bombing raids. More Japanese were killed in those initial uses of napalm than at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki; and more than 1,000,000 civilians were rendered homeless. And more War Crimes were committed by Americans against civilian non-combatants.
Truman could have also arranged for the a-bombs to be dropped at sea with Japanese military observers as eyewitnesses, and i am sure that that would have convinced the Japanese High Command and The Emperor that their war was over.
The primary reason for the atomic bombings was to show the world ~ and the USSR in particular ~ that Uncle Sam had The Ultimate Weapon and was prepared to use it on civilian non-combatants if push came to shove. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were PR stunts for the New American Empire to show off and strut its stuff. And Truman was the Master of ceremonies.
RF: “McCarthyism was an attack by Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats on the Democratic Party, purely political, as much as the attack on Hillary Clinton over four deaths at Benghazi, while the Republicans have no issue with mass deaths in the CoronaVirus Pandemic!”
Got to hand it to You, Doc. Only You could tie McCarthyism, Benghazi, and the C-19 Pandemic together into one sentence and think that it makes any kind of meaningful statement or relevant argument. Let alone sense.
Just answer one simple question, if You dare: McCarthyism started when Truman was President. What did “The Buck Stops Here” Harry do about it? Anything at all? For starters: what did Truman do about JE Hoover and the outrages perpetrated by his FBI during that period? Again; anything at all? If McCarthyism was started by Republicans and conservative southern Democrats, Truman did absolutely nothing to stop it.
RF: “For a person who served his nation in the military, I must say I am very surprised at your attack on Truman, and apparent love affair with Henry A. Wallace, who was certainly, at the least, a weirdo and naive in many ways! If he had been President, the nation would have been far worse off!”
You are really embarrassing Yourself when You actually use the words “apparent love affair with Wallace,” Doc.
i attack Truman BECAUSE i have studied history and, particularly, because i spent 28 years in the military, and have seen up close and personal the results of his policies, programs, and actions: two years in Viet Nam in the 60s, and two years in the pre-Desert Storm Middle East in the 80s. [Truman was President when Israel was created, remember?].
i attack Truman because he was, is, and ever will be a War Criminal for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fire bombings of Tokyo. i attack Truman because he started what the Vietnamese People call first “The French War” that then became “The American War.” i attack Truman because he was the first to assume that a President can wage a war using conscripted Blood and Treasure [draftees and taxes] without Congressional approval. And i attack Truman because he did absolutely nothing effective against McCarthyism.
The more i think about it, Truman probably ranks down there near Lincoln. Altho both of them still rank higher than Trump, if that makes You feel any better.
Wow, Jeffrey, you have serious mental issues, based on what you wrote in response!
The US only started to give aid to France in 1950, AFTER China went Communist!
Without immediate aid to South Korea in 1950, the nation would have been totally taken over by North Korea, backed by the Soviet Union and Communist China, and as it was, it was almost lost in those first few months of the war!
Wallace would have been President if not dropped by FDR in 1944, and he had already shown too much admiration for Stalin, and to compare FDR and Churchill’s dealings with Stalin as admiration shows how ignorant you are of reality!
Every reputable historian agrees the war would have gone on with Japanese fighting down to the last man, woman and child, and that it would have cost hundreds of thousands of additional American lives for up to two years!
There was no military way to stop the Soviet Union from taking over Eastern Europe, since it was on their borders. But there were crazy military people who wanted us to invade eastern Europe and later Communist China, and Truman prevented both, including dismissal of wacko General Douglas MacArthur, which led to threats of impeachment by right wing Republicans and southern Democrats!
I do agree that the two atomic bombs could have been dropped on islands off Japan, but no certainty, and great doubt, that the Emperor would have called for surrender!
As far as going to war without a declaration, I generally agree,but in the Korean situation, immediate action was essential, and it was a UN war, not just the US!
And Truman did attack McCarthy and McCarthyism, as he attacked Congressman Richard Nixon, but it became a political football, so what else is new?
J Edgar Hoover did have control of the FBI much too long, no debate, but he also had great political backing from the Republicans and southern Democrats, so not easy to remove him!
I am not claiming Truman was perfect, far from it, but the alternative at the time would have been Henry A. Wallace!
And you seem to imply that Truman and Lincoln? belong in the bottom with Trump?
So you are one of those nutty people who attack Lincoln and say he was a horrible President?
Shaking my head, as you are “off the wall” in saying that,and it is you who are using absurd argumentation logical fallacies, not myself, so look in the mirror, Jeffrey! 🙁
i respond shortly, but first:
So, if, as You seem to imply, Wallace was ~ in the parlance of the time ~ what could be termed a “fellow traveler of Communism,” what does that make FDR, who made him first his Secretary of Agriculture, and then Vice President: a fellow-fellow traveler?
And You seem outraged that Wallace ran on the “Progressive Party” ticket in 1948. Was that because he took votes away from Truman? And why are You indignant that he was “supported by the American Communist Party!” [sic]
You call Yourself “The Progressive Professor,” right? So what’s the difference between Your [and the current] “progressivism,” and the “progressivism” that Wallace ran on in 1948?
And why wouldn’t the ACP support a “progressive” candidate? After all, isn’t that one of the things progressivism has been called: “Communism with a friendly face”?
Jeffrey, you are becoming crazier by the moment! 🙁
FDR was not a Communist, and only the wackos on the right, aka the John Birch Society, and other right wing extremists, says that!
Wallace was not a Communist, but very gullible, and the Progressive Party was a misnomer, as nothing like the Progressive Party of 1912 (TR) or 1924 (LaFollette Sr.)!
And if you knew your history, you would know Wallace was a big flop in 1948, getting only a bit more than one million votes, having zero effect on Truman. Truman won an upset victory over Thomas E. Dewey and even racist Strom Thurmond running as the States Rights Party candidate in a four way race, and winning four states in the Electoral College, but gutsy, courageous Truman still being elected, thank goodness!
And progressivism is not “Communism with a friendly face”, and I have always been anti Communist, as the vast majority of progressives and liberals are, in the history of American politics!
RF: “And progressivism is not ‘Communism with a friendly face’, and I have always been anti Communist, as the vast majority of progressives and liberals are, in the history of American politics!”
Well then, how about “Socialism with a friendly face?”
In any event: So what is “progressivism”?
If You had to do it in one sentence or a short paragraph: How exactly would You describe the difference between modern, 21st century American “progressivism,” and “socialism”? And to whose “socialism” do You refer: Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s, Castro’s? Che’s? Ho Chi Minh’s? Pol Pot’s? Or somebody else’s [Marx’s, perhaps]?
What i’m actually working at trying to clarify here is the difference between progressivism and fascism. or national socialism.
And one last question: by Your definition, are Obama, Clinton, and Biden progressives? Or “liberals”? Corporatist, crony capitalist, neo-conservative “liberals,” to be sure; but still liberals, nonetheless?
And what about Sanders, AOC, and them: Are they progressives? Or social democrats? Or democratic socialists? Or what?
RF: “Wow, Jeffrey, you have serious mental issues, based on what you wrote in response! The US only started to give aid to France in 1950, AFTER China went Communist!” `
i do have serious mental issues, Professor; but it has nothing to do with what i wrote.
Where did France get all the money, arms, and equipment to wage its attempt to re-impose colonial rule over Indochina before 1950? How much war-fighting industry was there in France on V-E Day; or hard currency with which to buy it? How much money from the Marshall Plan actually went into re-building France, as opposed to bankrolling its colonial re-conquest of Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos?
And how did the French Amy get back to Indochina after V-E Day, in the first place? Via the French Navy?
The US “officially” entered into a formal agreement to bankroll and provide on-the-ground military support for France’s re-colonization of Indochina in 1950, it’s true. But ask Yourself the questions i just asked, and come up with an answer. And then tell me when the US started to give aid to France. And if it wasn’t the United States, then who was it? Britain? The USSR?
In actual fact, US involvement in Viet Nam began at Versailles in 1919, when Progressive New World Orderer Wilson didn’t bother to respond to Ho Chi Minh’s letter asking if his world made “safe for democracy” by his “war to end all wars” included the colonized peoples of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Obviously, it did not.
Truman similarly ignored several letters from Ho in 1945-46 imploring him in the name of Human dignity, liberty, and security to support Vietnamese efforts to prevent the resumption of French colonial rule. And the rest, as You historians like to put it, is history.
RF: “Without immediate aid to South Korea in 1950, the nation would have been totally taken over by North Korea, backed by the Soviet Union and Communist China, and as it was, it was almost lost in those first few months of the war!”
i could ask “‘Lost’ to whom?”, but i won’t bother.
What mental issue prevents You from acknowledging that the issue under discussion here is Truman’s waging a war without Congressional approval, in violation of the Constitution? It has nothing to do with the ostensible reason for which he waged that war.
It has to do with the fact that he violated the Constitution in waging that war, and that Congress [was it controlled by Democrats?] went right along with him. Thereby setting the stage for all the subsequent wars, police actions, regime changes, coups, interventions, “liberations,” and so forth without Congressional approval this nation has perpetrated over these past 75 years all over the Planet, right up to today and its Forever Wars.
That is The Main Issue here. You mention it below in passing, but just barely.
RF: “Wallace would have been President if not dropped by FDR in 1944, and he had already shown too much admiration for Stalin, and to compare FDR and Churchill’s dealings with Stalin as admiration shows how ignorant you are of reality!”
Why do You keep wanting to bring Wallace into the discussion?
And i said nothing at all about FDR and Churchill “admiring” Stalin. i said they worked very closely with him to ensure that after WW II ended, that there would be a “Cold War” to take its place. And the three of them worked together like Brothers to make exactly that happen.
RF: “Every reputable historian agrees the war would have gone on with Japanese fighting down to the last man, woman and child, and that it would have cost hundreds of thousands of additional American lives for up to two years!”
“Reputable,” eh? And “Every,” eh? Name three, with referenced writings.
RF: “There was no military way to stop the Soviet Union from taking over Eastern Europe, since it was on their borders. But there were crazy military people who wanted us to invade eastern Europe and later Communist China, and Truman prevented both, including dismissal of wacko General Douglas MacArthur, which led to threats of impeachment by right wing Republicans and southern Democrats!”
That Eastern Europe was on the USSR’s borders has less to do with it than the fact that all those nations were occupied by Russian troops. And there were also crazy military people who wanted to March On Moscow thru that Red Army, quite confident that they would be just as greeted as liberators by the Russian people [and probably by at least parts of the Red Army], as they were greeted as liberators by the people of France.
And if the only reason North Korea could invade South Korea was because of support from Communist China, why was invading China and overthrowing the Communist regime there “crazy” and “wacko”? Especially if we had the nukes? We used them to end the war in Japan; why not use them to end the war in Korea, as well?
So bottom line: What was actually, really accomplished by Truman’s War On Korea? The borders of the governments of the two Koreas didn’t change a single millimeter. But the People, Land, Country, and Nation of Korea suffered a full-scale, collateral damage-be-damned, free fire zone War. And this following the brutal occupation by the Japanese. So, in the end, NOTHING was accomplished for Korea and Koreans.
But what was accomplished was that the “resolution” of the Korean War resulted in another “hot spot” for the American military-industrial complex to be able to point to as undeniable proof as to just how necessary, vital, and critical it was in a world not quite ready for a global, unipolar Pax America.`And while they were at it, those folks made a lot of money enabling America to fight that war.
And that is exactly what it was intended to do.
RF: “I do agree that the two atomic bombs could have been dropped on islands off Japan, but no certainty, and great doubt, that the Emperor would have called for surrender!”
And what is the rational basis for that doubt? If the Japanese High Command declared that it was time to surrender, what choice would the Emperor have had?
RF: “As far as going to war without a declaration, I generally agree,but in the Korean situation, immediate action was essential, and it was a UN war, not just the US!”
You just “generally agree”? So where do You disagree?
And “Immediate Action” is ALWAYS essential when it comes to a President taking this nation into a war. The last 75 years of America-At-War has demonstrated that, time and time and time again. There is never enough time for Congress to do its Constitutional duty and determine whether or not a Declaration of War is justified. Or for the President to to do his duty to justify his request and recommendation for that Declaration.
That’s why Trump could get away with vetoing the Iran War Powers Resolution, and Congress did, does, and will do absolutely nothing about it. Until there’s a Democrat in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress tries to pull the same stunt on him [or her, as the case probably will never be].
And You say it was a “UN war, not just the US!” [sic…. Do You use as many exclamation marks in Your formal history writing? Heh.] Tell me, Professor: How did the Soviet Union, one of the five permanent members to the UN Security Council, vote on that issue? Do You know?
Given the fact that, in 1950, the US bought, owned, and operated the UN as an extension of its State Department [who else had any money to get the UN into operation in the first place?], to declare Korea as a “UN war” [even tho the vote to go to war was not unanimous at the UN Security Council] is disingenuous, at best, and frankly delusional, at worst.
But one thing puzzles me. Apparently, You believe that America’s Korean War was a “good war,” in that it was a response to Communist aggression. But a couple of weeks ago, You proclaimed that You “strongly opposed the Viet Nam War from the very beginning” [or something to that effect].
So why was opposing Communist aggression in Korea a “good war,” but opposing Communist aggression in Viet Nam was a “bad war”? Seems like a little bit of cognitive dissonance at work there, eh?
RF: “And Truman did attack McCarthy and McCarthyism, as he attacked Congressman Richard Nixon, but it became a political football, so what else is new?”
Of Course he attacked them! They were all Republicans, weren’t they [except for them racist, sexist, xenophobic, nationalist, states rightsist proto-Trumpatista conservative southern Democrats, i guess]?
He may have “attacked” McCarthy and McMarthyism and so forth; but what did he actually, really DO to stop him and it? He lost China, which was bad enough; then he lost A-Bomb exclusivity, which was even worse. Was there any wonder people were calling him “soft on Communism”?
That whole goatrope started in 1947 when Truman signed Executive Order 9835, also known as the “Loyalty Order,” requiring Loyalty Oaths by any American deemed “suspect of holding party membership in organizations that advocated violent and anti-democratic programs.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath#Executive_Order_9835_%22Loyalty_Order%22_(1947)]
Whatever McCarthy was guilty of, Truman is, to this day, an unindicted co-conspirator; or at least an enabler and abettor.
RF: ” Edgar Hoover did have control of the FBI much too long, no debate, but he also had great political backing from the Republicans and southern Democrats, so not easy to remove him!”
That’s rubbish. The FBI works for the President, and not the Congress. If Truman had really been upset about Hoover and the FBI, and had the intention ~ and the balls ~ to do something about it, it could have been done just as easily as he was able to take this nation into an undeclared, illegal, and immoral war. But he didn’t. i’m sure Truman availed himself of JE and Da Boyz when it suited his personal or political purposes. i know JFK and LBJ did.
RF: “I am not claiming Truman was perfect, far from it, but the alternative at the time would have been Henry A. Wallace!”
i’m not sure why You keep bringing Wallace into this discussion [tho i guess it’s probably for the same reason You brought Clinton and Trump into it].
RF: “And you seem to imply that Truman and Lincoln belong in the bottom with Trump?”
i didn’t imply that “Truman and Lincoln belong in the bottom with Trump.” i didn’t imply anything. What i stated was that Truman and Lincoln belong nowhere near the top of the List of The Best Presidents.
RF: “So you are one of those nutty people who attack Lincoln and say he was a horrible President?”
So anybody who attacks Lincoln is “nutty,” eh? Boy; i can see that this is going to be a fruitful exchange of ideas. And where did i say that Lincoln was “a horrible President”? You sure seem to like to put words in my mouth, Doc.
i will tell You exactly what i think about Lincoln if You will answer the following simple question: “Was Lincoln’s purpose in fighting the First American Civil War to end Slavery?” Yes or No? Or, did he have some other reason?
RF: “Shaking my head, as you are “off the wall†in saying that,and it is you who are using absurd argumentation logical fallacies, not myself, so look in the mirror, Jeffrey!”
i am “off the wall” for saying exactly what, Professor? That Lincoln was “a horrible President”? That he “belongs on the bottom with Trump”? But, but, but… i didn’t say that, Doc; You said that that’s what i said, or at least that’s what You think i actually, really meant.
Given Your propensity to employ them, and Your use of the term to describe my argument, at this point, Ronald, i’m not really even sure that You know what an argumentation logical fallacy actually really is.
21st Century Progressivism is a belief in Social Justice, government regulation of capitalism, and political reform. It is not “Socialism” as in the totalitarian nations you mention!
It is not Fascism either, although right wingers love to say that, as they promote their own version of Fascism!
Socialism is of the Norman Thomas concept, which brought about Social Security and labor reforms during the New Deal of FDR!
Obama, Clinton and Biden are centrist progressives, but in differing amounts, and the term “liberal” can be seen as interchangeable!
Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, and so is AOC, and simply more to the left, than Obama, Clinton, and Biden!
There is no perfect “progressive”, “liberal”, or “Democratic Socialist”, but they are all far more within the mainstream than are right wing conservatives and libertarians!
I am not going to argue with you on every point in your last commentary, but Truman did what needed to be done when he was in office, including resisting Communist expansion and fighting McCarthyism by insuring that government employees, some found to be involved in questionable activities, needed to be investigated and in a small number of cases, removed from the federal government employment!
And it still comes down to this: You ignore Henry A. Wallace, but he would have been the alternative, or if Thomas E. Dewey had not messed up his so called “guaranteed victory” in 1948, I am sure he would have done much the same as Truman did in his full term!
Thank You, Professor, for that taxonomic overview. It was exactly what i was looking for. i’d like to ask a few follow-up questions.
RF: “21st Century Progressivism is a belief in Social Justice, government regulation of capitalism, and political reform. It is not “Socialism†as in the totalitarian nations you mention!”
Have there ever been [or are there today] any nations that are “socialist” that did [or do] not have totalitarian governments? Also, how do You characterize the governments of Russia and China?
What are the differences between what You term “21st Century Progressivism” and 21st, 20th, and 19th century “Socialism”?
And finally, what is the difference between “21st Century Progressivism” and the “Progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette Sr., Charles Evans Hughes, Herbert Hoover, William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson [listed on Wiki as the “most important leaders of The Progressive Era”]?
RF: “It is not Fascism either, although right wingers love to say that, as they promote their own version of Fascism!”
How do You distinguish between “socialism” and “fascism”? What are the core, fundamental differences between the two ideologies, particularly regarding government control of the economy and civil society, and the protection of human rights?
RF: “Obama, Clinton and Biden are centrist progressives, but in differing amounts, and the term “liberal†can be seen as interchangeable! Sanders is a Democratic Socialist, and so is AOC, and simply more to the left, than Obama, Clinton, and Biden!”
What are the most significant differences between the “centrist progressivism” of OCB and the “Democratic Socialism” of S and AOC?
RF: “There is no perfect “progressiveâ€, “liberalâ€, or “Democratic Socialistâ€, but they are all far more within the mainstream than are right wing conservatives and libertarians!”
How do You distinguish between right wing conservativism and libertarianism? And how do You distinguish those ideologies from fascism? Or do You not distinguish them?
RF: “I am not going to argue with you on every point in your last commentary, but Truman did what needed to be done when he was in office, including resisting Communist expansion and fighting McCarthyism by insuring that government employees, some found to be involved in questionable activities, needed to be investigated and in a small number of cases, removed from the federal government employment!”
Well, Doc; at least we agree on one thing. Truman did exactly what needed to be done IF the Churchill/Stalin/FDR plan for a “Cold War” to follow WW II was to actually happen.
If, on the other hand, that was not his purpose [and why he was put in the White House in the first place], then:
He did NOT have to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
He did NOT have to launch an unConstitutional, illegal and immoral war without Congressional approval in Korea.
He did NOT have to support the French effort to re-colonize Indochina.
He did NOT have to allow the Executive Branch to get wrapped up in and thus help perpetrate and perpetuate “The Red Scare.”
RF: “And it still comes down to this: You ignore Henry A. Wallace, but he would have been the alternative, or if Thomas E. Dewey had not messed up his so called “guaranteed victory†in 1948, I am sure he would have done much the same as Truman did in his full term!”
It comes down to no such thing. This has not been a discussion about what Wallace [or Dewey, or anybody else] might have done; it has been a discussion about what Truman did. What Wallace, etc woulda-coulda-shoulda done is not even irrelevant; it has no place even being in the discussion in the first place.
i am not in the least bit interested in discussing what might have happened had Wallace ascended to the throne; any more than i am interested in discussion about what might have happened if LBJ had not. There is enough to learn and understand about real history without bringing fantasy, alt-history into the conversation.
And, i’m really curious: Was Lincoln’s purpose in fighting the First American Civil War to end Slavery? Yes or No? Or, did he have some other reason?
Jeffrey, there have been many “socialist” government that were not totalitarian–the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark are a few.
Russia and China are Communist, although Russia now is more Fascist under Putin.
Progressivism has elements of all of the people you mention, a continuation with updating of issues, but none are Socialism, which would mean government ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.
Socialism protects human rights, while Fascism exploits hatred and division, as in Fascist Italy and Fascist Argentina, and Nazi Germany.
Sanders and AOC are simply more to the left of the others in the Democratic Party, but not a danger to basic civil liberties.
Right wing conservatism is connected to extremist religious doctrine, so not the mainstream conservatism, which is an alternate philosophy to progressivism and liberalism.
Libertarianism leads to anarchy and chaos, but will never succeed as they fail to understand human nature, and the need for government regulation.
You show unwillingness to accept or understand Henry A Wallace or Thomas E Dewey, when they were the alternative, indicating your ignorance on both.
Lincoln was out to preserve the union, primary goal, and wished to end slavery, as a secondary goal.
I am not going to go back and forth with you constantly, Jeffrey, as nothing I say will ever satisfy you, so from now on, no comments will be made any further.
I have gone way beyond what I should have answered, so this is the end!
RF: “I am not going to go back and forth with you constantly, Jeffrey, as nothing I say will ever satisfy you, so from now on, no comments will be made any further. I have gone way beyond what I should have answered, so this is the end!”
Well, Professor, since You have closed off all further discussion, i will leave You with these final thoughts.
RF: “You show unwillingness to accept or understand Henry A Wallace or Thomas E Dewey, when they were the alternative, indicating your ignorance on both.”
And You show unwillingness to accept the fact that this conversation is about what Truman did, and not what Wallace or Dewey might have done. It provides You with a way to avoid confronting the facts that i presented in my argument. And You do that very well.
RF: “Libertarianism leads to anarchy and chaos, but will never succeed as they fail to understand human nature, and the need for government regulation.”
You are absolutely correct when You say that Libertarians indeed do NOT understand “the need for government regulation.” And nobody on the Left ~ antiFa, communist, socialist, progressive, corporatist crony capitalist liberal ~ has ever been able to come up with a logical, rational, reasoned explanation as to Why government regulation of the economy and of civil society is needed.
But with this remark, You also demonstrate Your abysmal ignorance of what Libertarianism is [the very opposite of “anarchy and chaos”], and what it is based on [a very clear and complete understanding of human nature].
You have absolutely no historical, empirical, or fact-based grounds whatever for declaring that “Libertarianism leads to anarchy and chaos.” And the reason that this is a totally ignorant statement is because Libertarianism have never been tried anyplace on this Planet. Ever.
At least not yet.
i’ve enjoyed our exchanges, Professor. They give me a very good idea as to why the American Left is in shambles as it tries to figure out how to survive The Age of Trump.
You have a great summer. ~ jeff