June 3, 2012
Desperately seeking Dewey
By Bill Kraus
I cast my first vote for president in 1948. I voted for Thomas Dewey. He lost. Since he lost to Harry Truman who later became an almost iconic figure in American history I didn’t talk much about my first vote. A little embarrassed.
Then I read a book about the contributions that presidential losers have made to the betterment of the country across the years. Henry Clay was definitely the top of the “should have beens” but was undermined by bad timing.
Stephen Douglas, who knew, devoted most of his energy to stopping the secessionists and saving the Democratic party after losing to Lincoln in 1860.
Even the flamboyant bible thumper William Jennings Bryan gets credit for many of the developments he never got into office to enact but his successors from both parties acceded to.
My biggest surprise, however, was Thomas Dewey.
I don’t know who I credited with the kind of Republicanism I tried to practice, but it sure wasn’t Dewey. It should have been.
He set the pace and was the model for the kind of governing that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Republican governors and legislators everywhere followed, advanced and succeded on.
What Dewey told the Republicans was that they should pursue progressive ends by conservative means.
Dewey had no desire to see the parties sharply divided along ideological lines and thought a large part of the strength of American democracy was the general similarities between the two parties.
This view was and still is highly objectionable to a vociferous few. They rail at both parties, saying they represent nothing but a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Dewey pointed out that this view was usually expressed by people who had no experience in governing and that none of them contributed much to the sober, tough business of it.
Not “me too” at all, Dewey was far ahead of the Democrats in tackling racial discrimination.
He even presaged the Libertarians (those without the anarchist gene) and looked to how to provide for the people’s welfare without sacrificing personal freedom. That was where he believed the Republicans held an advantage.
He even had a self-effacing sense of humor. After his defeat in 1948 he told a audience of young people “Any boy can become president--unless he’s got a mustache.”
He told the Republican Party that Americans are conservative. What they want to conserve is the New Deal. The welfare state is here to stay.
The Tea Party movement to purge the remnants of Republican liberals and moderates and pursue the party realignment of pure conservatism is what Dewey dreaded and predicted would lead to political disaster.
Bring back Dewey? Please. And soon.
post a letter about this blog »
The welfare state is sustainable only as long as suckers can be found to pay for it until it implodes. Sooner or later, taxpayers will do a back of the envelope cost-benefit calculation and discover costs exceeds benefits. The young followers of Ron Paul, though being graduates of public schools like most of us, nevertheless appear to have command of the basic mathematics to do this calculation.
I am with Thomas Dewey in being critical of the representation of the two parties as being nothing but a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. More informative by far is that on the left hand, Democrats are for more government, while on the right hand, Republicans are for more government. In order for both to achieve their goals of growing government and their own power, they practice logrolling–not as done by river pigs in the Wisconsin of yesteryear, but as done by and for political pigs today. A little welfare here will get you a little warfare there. It all goes together like a horse and carriage, or should I say like a jackass and an elephant.
-Ernest Martinson | Hayward Wisconsin | June 4, 2012
"progressive ends by conservative means"
At one and the same time, redundant and contradictory.
Makes my head spin thinking about it.
Of course it all devolves upon how one defines
"progressivism" and "conservatism."
Setting that aside for the moment, however, in the spirit of "you know what I mean," what self-described progressive would say "finances be damned!"? And what self-described conservative would say "fairness be damned!"?
Ain't there no "middle ground"?
Used to be.
Eh?
You know what the alternative is, right? Ain't too pretty. Pitchforks, torches, rails, tar, rope, etc.
It HAS been done. Methinks the current crop of pols are too unfamiliar with the tradition.
-Ralph Novy | Hillsboro, Wisconsin | June 5, 2012
current
--------
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004