Norman D. Markowitz
In the Preface, he says Henry A, Wallaces importance on the world stage should be confined to his “agrarian years”, Markowitz says on his website he teaches from a Marxism perspective, but he pretty much believes that Wallace had no right to challenge the beginning of the Cold War foreign policy under Truman.
More of Markowitzs nonMarxist and centrist leanings come out when he says, “Truman, OF COURSE, was the ideal running mate” and not Wallace as FDRs VP running mate in.
No explanation of why “Truman of course” is given by Markowitz, who knows Trumans future bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaski would be war crimes, in fact, executable offenses under the Principles of Nuremberg.
Truman also creates the decades of waste and fear called the Cold War, Markowitz is ok with that, just as long as Wallace gets permanently marginalized by readers in this book for his foreign policy ideas daring to advocate Détenteyears before Nixon and role as social conscience of the Left.
Studs Terkel says Henry A, Wallace is one of the three greatest figures of theth Century, Markowitz wants you to think hes only a marginal sad figure, Wallace was thend most popular person inaccording to a Gallup Poll, Markowitz wants you to ignore that.
Katherine Hepburn gets blacklisted for six years after giving a single speech for Wallace infrom Ava Gardners memoirs.
Markowitz doesnt want you to know that, Mark L. Kleinmans book on Wallace called A World of Hope, A World of Fear, blows Markowitzs book apart.
It shows clearly how CenterLeft Reinhold Niebuhr attacks Wallace on the Peoples Left so that no one from the Left can again advocate sympathy for the nation that lostmillion people in WWII so Americans could say they were free.
When Wallace was VP, most Americans believed Russia should/would stay our Ally after the War, So why is Wallace crazy for wanting not to fight Russia when the war ends Why not enjoy peace After all, US planners knew well at the time that Russia neededyears to rebuild what was destroyed before it was any threat.
I give this book two though, because it does have some good info, Markowitz allows a compliment through: “As the press noted after the creation of SPAB, Wallace now had greater responsibilities than any other Vice President in history.
” And occasionally Markowitz includes an interesting commentary, He astutely mentions what killed Wallace inwas part of his speech at the convention, “In a political, educational and economic sense there must be no inferior races.
” Oops, Henry forgot that southern racists in the audience still vote and Henry accidentally said what any man of conscience injust might say.
Henry says, “Force without justice would make us sooner or later into the image of that which we have hated in the Nazis.
” “Roosevelt noted wryly that in some circles the Sermon on the Mount would be considered a political statement.
” The Missouri Compromise is when Wallace is ousted considered a threat to the nonleft center of the party and nobodies favorite except apparently Markowitzs choice Truman becomes the candidate.
But Markowitz cant stop insulting Wallace with editorial comments such as: “The subsequent career of Henry Wallace postwould be a kind of lingering monument to the FAILURES of Franklin Roosevelt.
” This book was written to keep any American from discovering that, afterwas actually Henry A, Wallaces most important years of all to future Left historians as Oliver Stones Untold History of the United States shows.
After, one out of three eggs eaten in the world comes from a Wallace chicken Wallace HiLine.
After,of US Corn, Alfalfa, Wheat, comes from Henry Wallace Pioneer, Do you like Gladiolas Most of them were bred by Henry Wallace Imperial, All these massive accomplishments Markowitz ignores because they happen after, But Henry alone challenged the coming Cold War and that to Markowitz is his real crime, Markowitz knows if you see ALL Henry afteronly as a failure, then you wont try to learn his lessons of trying to resist empire and structural racism even before its time, as Henry clearly tried to do after.
Markowitz shows some sympathy by including this comment of Wallace, “Under friendly competition the Russian world and the American world will grow more alike.
The Russians will be forced to grant more and more personal freedom and we shall become more absorbed with the problems of socialeconomic justice”.
And this, “We must give the world something better than Communism” But Markowitz soon is back on the attack and reports that Wallace needs to be slapped down by the President” for attacking a foreign policy that unquestioningly turns the US into the biggest bully.
Markowitz rightfully says, “the resolution of the debate about the Cold War would determine the future of social liberalism in the postwar period.
” Yes, it would! Thats why people should read Mark L, Kleinmans great book which is only about this critical left wing Cold War debate,
Markowitz discusses the critical Clark Clifford Memorandum against Wallace which destroyed him but apparently Markowitz believes the
Clifford propaganda line which makes this books author a Cold War liberal subtly disempowering the message of postHenry Wallace.
Cliffords strategy was to use liberals to destroy Wallace by defamation of character, Markowitz also tries to say that Henry Wallace did nothing for either labor or blacks while conveniently nowhere in this book is any mention of Henryslong campaign trip through the South with Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger all three getting spat on and Henry getting called “Nword lover”.
Ill trust the famous Paul Robesons opinion of whether Henry was good for blacks any day, over Markowitz.
Henry said inthat “The old parties are run basically by Wall Street and the Pentagon who are backing the killing of thousands of people abroad.
” Markowitz prints this comment but then gets one more stab in on Wallace, why Listen to this last nasty editorial comment as proof that Markowitz is to the right politically of Katherine Hepburn, Charlie Chaplin, Pete Seeger, Helen Keller and Studs Terkel: Norman says, “James Wechsler was CORRECT when he pictured Wallace at campaigns end as “an inarticulate, awkwardyearold man.
” Contrast that with Oliver Stones monumental and positive reexamination of Henry Wallace in his “Untold History” series Henry Wallace would have become president of the United States upon the death of Franklin D.
Roosevelt if he had not been dropped from the Democratic ticket inin favor of Harry S.
Truman. Markowitz reevaluates Wallace's career in thes, and challenges those who saw him as either a Communist dupe, a tragic figure, or a visionary crackpot.
Markowitz describes in depth Wallace's wartime liberal program for a world New Deal and his idea for the creation of an American social service state the Century of the Common Man.
He contrasts that program with the antiCommunist liberalism of postwar America, .
from an orthodox Marxist perspective, . . claims Wallace's political career represents the apex of liberal "false consciousness" an ideological muddle of Veblenian technocratism, populist social gospelism, market expansion.
As the war went on, Wallace found himself increasingly a prisoner of the old social liberal paradox of using capitalist means to obtain noncapitalist ends, of arguing that American free enterprise which, as the Vice Presidents own oratory shows, again reigned supreme as a political slogan would be invigorated through its connection with a world social revolution.Markowitz, a Cold War Liberal, writes a book about someone he has little sympathy for, Henry Wallace.
Wallace carried this paradox out further by speaking out publicly for international Rural Electrification Administrations, World EverNormal Granaries, and world decentralization of population as mechanisms to attain a lasting peace.
A new type of American businessman, the Vice President argued, would spring forth to work with the new international authorities.
Indeed, the new businessman, combining the desire for profits with a commitment to social service a la Herbert Hoover and the popular business rhetoric of thes was to play a crucial role in the creation of the peoples century, providing through United Nations agencies a good deal of the capital and skill for developmental projects that in principle were to aid the areas in which they were to be undertaken rather than any private or imperial interest.
The agencies themselves, reinforced by the vigilance of the people in the regions of development, would guard against predatory capitalists.
The difficulties of this position were expressed unconsciously by Wallace when the Vice President pointed with pride to the activities of the United Fruit Company in Central America as an example of the new social responsibility that American business would have to accept in response to the militant antiimperialist climate growing in the underdeveloped countries.
In the Preface, he says Henry A, Wallaces importance on the world stage should be confined to his “agrarian years”, Markowitz says on his website he teaches from a Marxism perspective, but he pretty much believes that Wallace had no right to challenge the beginning of the Cold War foreign policy under Truman.
More of Markowitzs nonMarxist and centrist leanings come out when he says, “Truman, OF COURSE, was the ideal running mate” and not Wallace as FDRs VP running mate in.
No explanation of why “Truman of course” is given by Markowitz, who knows Trumans future bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaski would be war crimes, in fact, executable offenses under the Principles of Nuremberg.
Truman also creates the decades of waste and fear called the Cold War, Markowitz is ok with that, just as long as Wallace gets permanently marginalized by readers in this book for his foreign policy ideas daring to advocate Détenteyears before Nixon and role as social conscience of the Left.
Studs Terkel says Henry A, Wallace is one of the three greatest figures of theth Century, Markowitz wants you to think hes only a marginal sad figure, Wallace was thend most popular person inaccording to a Gallup Poll, Markowitz wants you to ignore that.
Katherine Hepburn gets blacklisted for six years after giving a single speech for Wallace infrom Ava Gardners memoirs.
Markowitz doesnt want you to know that, Mark L. Kleinmans book on Wallace called A World of Hope, A World of Fear, blows Markowitzs book apart.
It shows clearly how CenterLeft Reinhold Niebuhr attacks Wallace on the Peoples Left so that no one from the Left can again advocate sympathy for the nation that lostmillion people in WWII so Americans could say they were free.
When Wallace was VP, most Americans believed Russia should/would stay our Ally after the War, So why is Wallace crazy for wanting not to fight Russia when the war ends Why not enjoy peace After all, US planners knew well at the time that Russia neededyears to rebuild what was destroyed before it was any threat.
I give this book two though, because it does have some good info, Markowitz allows a compliment through: “As the press noted after the creation of SPAB, Wallace now had greater responsibilities than any other Vice President in history.
” And occasionally Markowitz includes an interesting commentary, He astutely mentions what killed Wallace inwas part of his speech at the convention, “In a political, educational and economic sense there must be no inferior races.
” Oops, Henry forgot that southern racists in the audience still vote and Henry accidentally said what any man of conscience injust might say.
Henry says, “Force without justice would make us sooner or later into the image of that which we have hated in the Nazis.
” “Roosevelt noted wryly that in some circles the Sermon on the Mount would be considered a political statement.
” The Missouri Compromise is when Wallace is ousted considered a threat to the nonleft center of the party and nobodies favorite except apparently Markowitzs choice Truman becomes the candidate.
But Markowitz cant stop insulting Wallace with editorial comments such as: “The subsequent career of Henry Wallace postwould be a kind of lingering monument to the FAILURES of Franklin Roosevelt.
” This book was written to keep any American from discovering that, afterwas actually Henry A, Wallaces most important years of all to future Left historians as Oliver Stones Untold History of the United States shows.
After, one out of three eggs eaten in the world comes from a Wallace chicken Wallace HiLine.
After,of US Corn, Alfalfa, Wheat, comes from Henry Wallace Pioneer, Do you like Gladiolas Most of them were bred by Henry Wallace Imperial, All these massive accomplishments Markowitz ignores because they happen after, But Henry alone challenged the coming Cold War and that to Markowitz is his real crime, Markowitz knows if you see ALL Henry afteronly as a failure, then you wont try to learn his lessons of trying to resist empire and structural racism even before its time, as Henry clearly tried to do after.
Markowitz shows some sympathy by including this comment of Wallace, “Under friendly competition the Russian world and the American world will grow more alike.
The Russians will be forced to grant more and more personal freedom and we shall become more absorbed with the problems of socialeconomic justice”.
And this, “We must give the world something better than Communism” But Markowitz soon is back on the attack and reports that Wallace needs to be slapped down by the President” for attacking a foreign policy that unquestioningly turns the US into the biggest bully.
Markowitz rightfully says, “the resolution of the debate about the Cold War would determine the future of social liberalism in the postwar period.
” Yes, it would! Thats why people should read Mark L, Kleinmans great book which is only about this critical left wing Cold War debate,
Markowitz discusses the critical Clark Clifford Memorandum against Wallace which destroyed him but apparently Markowitz believes the
Clifford propaganda line which makes this books author a Cold War liberal subtly disempowering the message of postHenry Wallace.
Cliffords strategy was to use liberals to destroy Wallace by defamation of character, Markowitz also tries to say that Henry Wallace did nothing for either labor or blacks while conveniently nowhere in this book is any mention of Henryslong campaign trip through the South with Paul Robeson and Pete Seeger all three getting spat on and Henry getting called “Nword lover”.
Ill trust the famous Paul Robesons opinion of whether Henry was good for blacks any day, over Markowitz.
Henry said inthat “The old parties are run basically by Wall Street and the Pentagon who are backing the killing of thousands of people abroad.
” Markowitz prints this comment but then gets one more stab in on Wallace, why Listen to this last nasty editorial comment as proof that Markowitz is to the right politically of Katherine Hepburn, Charlie Chaplin, Pete Seeger, Helen Keller and Studs Terkel: Norman says, “James Wechsler was CORRECT when he pictured Wallace at campaigns end as “an inarticulate, awkwardyearold man.
” Contrast that with Oliver Stones monumental and positive reexamination of Henry Wallace in his “Untold History” series Henry Wallace would have become president of the United States upon the death of Franklin D.
Roosevelt if he had not been dropped from the Democratic ticket inin favor of Harry S.
Truman. Markowitz reevaluates Wallace's career in thes, and challenges those who saw him as either a Communist dupe, a tragic figure, or a visionary crackpot.
Markowitz describes in depth Wallace's wartime liberal program for a world New Deal and his idea for the creation of an American social service state the Century of the Common Man.
He contrasts that program with the antiCommunist liberalism of postwar America, .