Henry Wallace: ‘The Dangers of American Fascism’

fascism boots
Photo Illustration by Slate. Photo via Corbis/Getty Images 

Everywhere you turn, you hear the word fascism. With Donald Trump’s affinity for violence and a superficial toxic masculine world view, the comparisons between him and historical fascist strongmen are not hard to connect. Because of all of this renewed discussion about fascism, I decided to explore the topic and its historical roots in America.

In 1944, at the height of World War II and the rise of the European fascists – Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco – the Vice President of the Unites States, Henry Wallace, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times warning about the influence and threats of fascist ideology taking root in America. While some of the content of his piece is distinct to the situation and time in which he wrote it, wartime 1940’s, it is still shockingly relevant to our modern era.

Before I posted my own piece on fascist ideology in American politics, I wanted to present Henry Wallace’s entire NYT op-ed article to highlight him in his own words. As you read his piece, imagine the world he faced and the circumstances that created that world. Now look around at the world us today. What are its warnings? What are its parallels?

Dale Seufert-Navarro

 

*************************************************************************************

An article from the New York Times, April 9, 1944.

From Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn (New York, 1944), edited by Russell Lord, p. 259

henry wallace
Henry Wallace

On returning from my trip to the West in February, I received a request from The New York Times to write a piece answering the following questions:

  1. What is a fascist?
  2. How many fascists have we?
  3. How dangerous are they?

A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions, or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; may be a culture, religion, or a political party.

The perfect type of fascist throughout recent centuries has been the Prussian Junker, who developed such hatred for other races and such allegiance to a military clique as to make him willing at all times to engage in any degree of deceit and violence necessary to place his culture and race astride the world. In every big nation of the world are at least a few people who have the fascist temperament. Every Jew-baiter, every Catholic hater, is a fascist at heart. The hoodlums who have been desecrating churches, cathedrals, and synagogues in some of our larger cities are ripe material for fascist leadership.

The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.

American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.

The European brand of fascism will probably present its most serious postwar threat to us via Latin America. The effect of the war has been to raise the cost of living in most Latin American countries much faster than wages of labor. The fascists in most Latin American countries tell the people that the reason their wages will not buy as much in the way of goods is because of Yankee imperialism. The fascists in Latin America learn to speak and act like natives. Our chemical and other manufacturing concerns are all too often ready to let the Germans have Latin American markets, provided the American companies can work out an arrangement which will enable them to charge high prices to the consumer inside the United States. Following this war, technology will have reached such a point that it will be possible for Germans, using South America as a base, to cause us much more difficulty in World War III than they did in World War II. The military and landowning cliques in many South American countries will find it attractive financially to work with German fascist concerns as well as expedient from the standpoint of temporary power politics.

Fascism is a worldwide disease. Its greatest threat to the United States will come after the war, either via Latin America or within the United States itself.

Still another danger is represented by those paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after “the present unpleasantness” ceases.

The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination against other religious, racial or economic groups. Likewise, many people whose patriotism is their proudest boast play Hitler’s game by retailing distrust of our Allies and by giving currency to snide suspicions without foundation in fact.

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. They use isolationism as a slogan to conceal their own selfish imperialism. They cultivate hate and distrust of both Britain and Russia. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

Several leaders of industry in this country who have gained a new vision of the meaning of opportunity through cooperation with government have warned the public openly that there are some selfish groups in industry who are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage. We all know the part that the cartels played in bringing Hitler to power, and the rule the giant German trusts have played in Nazi conquests. Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.

It has been claimed at times that our modern age of technology facilities dictatorship. What we must understand is that the industries, processes, and inventions created by modern science can be used either to subjugate or liberate. The choice is up to us. The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. It was Mussolini’s vaunted claim that he “made the trains run on time.” In the end, however, he brought to the Italian people impoverishment and defeat. It was Hitler’s claim that he eliminated all unemployment in Germany. Neither is there unemployment in a prison camp.

Democracy to crush fascism internally must demonstrate its capacity to “make the trains run on time.” It must develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels. As long as scientific research and inventive ingenuity outran our ability to devise social mechanisms to raise the living standards of the people, we may expect the liberal potential of the United States to increase. If this liberal potential is properly channeled, we may expect the area of freedom of the United States to increase. The problem is to spend up our rate of social invention in the service of the welfare of all the people.

The worldwide, agelong struggle between fascism and democracy will not stop when the fighting ends in Germany and Japan. Democracy can win the peace only if it does two things:

  1. Speeds up the rate of political and economic inventions so that both production and, especially, distribution can match in their power and practical effect on the daily life of the common man the immense and growing volume of scientific research, mechanical invention and management technique.
  2. Vivifies with the greatest intensity the spiritual processes which are both the foundation and the very essence of democracy.

The moral and spiritual aspects of both personal and international relationships have a practical bearing which so-called practical men deny. This dullness of vision regarding the importance of the general welfare to the individual is the measure of the failure of our schools and churches to teach the spiritual significance of genuine democracy. Until democracy in effective enthusiastic action fills the vacuum created by the power of modern inventions, we may expect the fascists to increase in power after the war both in the United States and in the world.

Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about the conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.

It should also be evident that exhibitions of the native brand of fascism are not confined to any single section, class, or religion. Happily, it can be said that as yet fascism has not captured a predominate place in the outlook any American section, class, or religion. It may be encountered in Wall Street, Main Street or Tobacco Road. Some even suspect that they can detect incipient traces of it along the Potomac. It is an infectious disease, and we must all be on our guard against intolerance, bigotry, and the pretension of invidious distinction. But if we put our trust in the common sense of common men and “with malice toward none and charity for all” go forward on the great adventure of making political, economic and social democracy a practical reality, we shall not fail.

Henry Wallace

Pelosi, Read the Room

politico - J. Scott Applewhite:AP Photo
Politico – J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo 

There is a saying in politics; The Republican Party is terrified of its base, while the Democratic Party – along with its leadership – despises its base. While perhaps comical, this cuts to the core the differences between the two major parties and decades of history have proven this sentiment true. GOP leadership actively panders to its base with an ever-increasing ferocity, playing to its most far-right and racist tendencies. At the same time, the base of the Democratic party has awakened, becoming more progressive and supportive of bold new ideas. The leadership of the Democratic party has actively tried to water down these ideas or simply rebuff them altogether. Much of the Democratic party’s leadership legislates and campaigns in a weak and antiquated fashion. Perhaps, someone should inform them that it is 2019, not 1999.

We live in a very different world now, one inhabited by an imbecilic president that knows nothing about the inner workings of government and has zero respect for our collective democratic ideals. Our planet and our very lives are threatened by the growing existential threat of climate change. We have always had a world divided on the lines of class and privilege, but the segregation of power increasing the amount of economic inequality in this country is shockingly immoral and dangerously unsustainable. Racial and gendered hierarchies are nothing new, serving as the very brick and mortar of the founding of this country. While it is certainly not unique to have a racist occupant of the White House, its present incarnation lays bare the deplorable under-rot of hatred and bigotry that inhabits the psyche of this nation.

In steps Nancy Pelosi, self-proclaimed master legislator, leader of the Democrats, and Speaker of the House. Pelosi has been a member of congress since 1987 and was first elected Speaker in 2007. She is inarguably one of the most powerful Democrats in the country. After Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in 2018, she successfully fended off a disorganized insurgency from centrist (and mostly white male) members and once again reclaimed the Speakers gavel.

Now, more than ever, Democrats, and the country, need a strong and strategical leader. Speaker Pelosi is proving to be neither of those things. Every day, it is more and more apparent that she is failing abysmally at resisting a racist and authoritarian president and is ever more out of touch with the base of the Democratic party. Now she is certainly not the only member of Democratic leadership that this can be said about. In the Senate, Chuck Schumer is even more spineless. What is different in Pelosi’s case is that given her majority in the House, she has power; power that she is wielding ineffectively. The 2018 midterms were seen as a rebuke on the Trump administration, with Democrats flipping forty seats. This blue wave provided a glimmer of hope for a frustrated left. Then and now, Speaker Pelosi has claimed that “no one is above the law”, and “we will hold the president accountable.” But, what does that accountability look like?

The most obvious way to hold this authoritarian petulant man-child of a president accountable is the process of impeachment. It is the only real tool given to Congress in the Constitution for checking the powers of the presidency. With all of Pelosi’s repeated claims about Trumps abuses of power and criminality, she consistently rules out the possibility of impeachment. Due to her memories of the Clinton impeachment hearings backfiring on Republicans in the 90’s, she has decided that the risks to her majority in the House are too high.

While the proceedings that the Republican held Congress brought forth against Bill Clinton had nominal negative effects on the party, the two cases are worlds apart, politically and constitutionally. Firstly, at the height of the Clinton hearings the president held the highest approval ratings of his entire presidency, as high as 73%. In stark contrast, President Trump is highly divisive and unpopular, currently sitting at an approval rating of 42%. In fact, the president’s approval rating has never gotten above 46%.

Setting unpopularity aside, there is a strong legal and constitutional justification for immediately beginning impeachment hearings. Article II, Section 4 of the constitution lays out the grounds for impeachment, “…treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” While treason and bribery are fairly straightforward, the high crimes and misdemeanors provision is a bit more ambiguous, at least on its face. Some argue that an actual criminal crime must be committed, but this is not consistent with the founder’s intent or with historical precedent. It is apparent from the Federalist papers and other documents from the debating of the Constitution that the act of impeachment was political in nature and was intended for more than just criminal offenses. Hamilton spoke of the “violation of public trust” and “injuries done to society itself”, much of this noncriminal in nature. The historical application of this process proves this point as well. Most of the cases brought forth against public officials did not actually involve criminal offenses – biased or inappropriate decision making, excessive drunkenness, misusing an office for personal profit, and inducing parties to enter into financial contracts.

As the Trump administration clumsily careens towards authoritarianism and self-destruction, the growing list of moral, political, and criminal indictments grows. The president payed hush money to adult film star, Stormy Daniels, covering up his extramarital affair. This effectively broke campaign finance law. Through the use of his hotel’s and properties around the world, Trump has used the office of the presidency as a yet another way to enrich himself and his family. This president has created the most nepotistic and mob-like administration that most of us have ever seen. There is also plenty of evidence to prove that this president is an out and proud racist with an affection for fascism, even if he is too ignorant to understand the term or its implications. But, perhaps the most alarming reason for his immediate impeachment is his obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation. While the report did not claim that the president worked with the Russian government during the 2016 election, a clear case of obstruction was put on the table. Ultimately, Mueller left the decision of impeachment in the hands of Congress. Just like the specific findings of this investigation, every action by this president during his time in office has been for his own personal enrichment and surreal narcissistic reality show.

It is true that if impeachment in the House were successful, it is unlikely that a Republican controlled Senate would convict the president on any charges. Pelosi is most likely correct in this assessment. But this does not mean that she should abdicate her responsibility to the Constitution or to the American people. She should force the Republican party to choose the side of accountability and integrity or the side of naked power and deceit. By not holding this president accountable, she and the entire Congress is setting a dangerous precedent, for this president and all future office holders. This only serves to embolden Donald Trump, validating his claims that he is above the law.

When it comes to her own party and its base, Nancy Pelosi is out of touch and dismissive. Four female congresswomen, known as the Squad, have captured the attention of the Democratic party and the entire nation. Each woman – Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – has found a way to speak truth to power and question a corrupt status quo in such a simplified way that brings an enormous amount of energy to a base that is yearning for soul and passion. Instead of embracing them, Pelosi has repeatedly dismissed them and their ideas. The Speaker is more than happy to stand beside these women of color on the cover of the Rolling Stone but is not willing to symbolically stand with them when it matters the most. How perfect a representation of the modern Democratic Party that takes for granted the loyalties of communities of color, especially women, instead of truly elevating their work that is of immeasurable importance? Perhaps Pelosi’s qualm with her caucuses left flank, and most specifically the four superwomen of the Squad, is that they represent everything that she is not. Indeed, she was once a young idealistic woman that was criticized for being too far to the left. Now she aids in the propping up of an oppressive and corrupt system, standing in the way of renewed energy for change.

the squad
From left to right: Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tliab, Ayanna Pressely – Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty 

In a Democratic caucus meeting Pelosi told her members not to use Twitter to air their grievances but has used several public interviews to single out and bash many of these women. In one such interview she was quoted as saying, “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world… They’re four people and that’s how many votes they get.” How incredibly dismissive and willfully dense at understanding that these four women represent something far more important. They bring with them the power of the various social movements that catapulted them into office, not to mention that they represent thousands of actual constituents. This is most evident with the singling out of Representative Ilhan Omar. Omar has been an outspoken critic of the racist and borderline fascist far-right government of Israel and for that has received relentless criticism from the right and even many Democrats, most notably from the Speaker herself. This on slot of vilification resulted in the spine-chilling ‘Send her back’ chant at a Trump rally in North Carolina, for which Democratic leadership is partly culpable. It seems the Speaker is more willing to belittle four freshman congresswomen then she is at holding a dangerous president accountable.

This is all the more enraging when taken into the context of Pelosi’s last bid for the Speakers gavel. At a time when many Democratic members called for new leadership and with all eyes on the newest progressive members of Congress, they all stood up and proudly cast their votes for the only woman to ever hold the honor. The ‘moderate’ and conservative Democrats – which happen to mostly be white men – that fought to derail her bid for Speaker get a free pass from criticism. Instead, all of her attention is hyper focused on these women that had her back. This protection of the so-called moderates in the party highlights the fallacious idea that the party is moving too far to the left, costing the party elections. Instead, the party should focus on invigorating its base and expanding the electorate to disaffected non-voters.

Nancy Pelosi’s contempt doesn’t seem to just lie with progressive members of Congress, but with important progressive legislation. She has publicly trivialized the Green New Deal, referring to it as the “…green dream, or whatever they call it…” and her office has actively worked against perhaps the most important legislative and ideological issue for the base of the party, Medicare for All. Weeks after Democrats retook the House of Representatives, a top aide for Pelosi urged health policy groups to raise public concerns about Medicare for All. Questioned about this and her disparaging comments about the policy, she touted her support for a single payer system of healthcare early in her career, even claiming she has single payer support signs in her basement from decades ago. This is yet another fitting symbol of entrenched establishment politicians and the modern Democratic party, one that has long forgotten its ideals and traded in its core values for big money and a superficial veneer of empathy for the working class.

Is this insistence on swerving on progressive policies a disagreement on tactic, ideology or simply a lack of courage? Over the years Democratic leadership has shown a real reluctance to fight, instead cowering under the threats and pressures of their Republican counterparts. Democrats are always willing to compromise and meet on GOP terms in the hopes that they will eventually be met halfway, when of course this never occurs. Republicans always tow the party line. The latest example of this is Nancy Pelosi, and originally Chuck Schumer’s, capitulation on a recent border funding bill. She allowed the passage of a Senate bill without any reconciliation or changes, in what she said was an effort to “reluctantly get resources to the children [at the border] fastest.” This was absolutely the wrong move, effectively giving the Trump administration everything and securing nothing in return. Progressive members were correct to oppose the measure and publicly call out their colleagues. There were no protections in the bill that would have guaranteed the humane treatment of the migrants at the border, especially children. After progressive members began to speak out, Pelosi released a letter to Trump urging him to improve the conditions of children and migrants at the border. Her feckless and inept response, “I would deeply appreciate your soonest consideration of the proposals contained in the House legislation…”, shows her lack of courage and frankly a lack of understanding of the critical times we now inhabit. This is not the work of a master legislator.

This is also not the time for ‘civility’ in the traditional Washington beltway sense of the word. The call for civility is often used to undermine dissent and protect a corrupt status quo, as if language and tone are more important or offensive than the policies called into question. What is civility when children are dying at the borders and fellow human beings are treated like animals? What is civility when our democracy is hollowed out to the core by the rich and powerful? What is civility when the only home that we have is literally being killed due to the greed of multi-national corporations that worship at the altar of greed and profits? What is civility when the rhetoric of a white supremacist president directs violence upon sitting members of Congress and already marginalized communities? When the opposition leans into its fascist tendencies and stokes racial and economic violence, we need leadership that is willing to fight in new and audacious ways.

The strange and dangerous times that we find ourselves in call for direct and resolute action, not the current sedated approach that occupies much of the Democratic leadership. With 2020 on the horizon, turnout and energy are going to be crucial. The party is going to need an excited base that believes in its leaders will to fight and knows that its leaders are fighting for them. The 2016 presidential election was a complicated web of understanding, but a large reason for its outcome was a deeply flawed Democratic candidate resulting in a lower turnout of key demographics.

The world, and nature of politics, has drastically changed. The Republican party is an entirely different beast, one that has shown no desire to honestly compromise and work towards real solutions. Indeed, one of the gravest sins of the Obama Era was the president’s belief that the GOP would meet him halfway and work together. This never happened and we should learn from that mistake. When someone shows you who they are, believe them. When the history of this tenable time is written, the enablers of this fascist authoritarian administration and the detractors of humane progressive legislation will be indistinguishable from the very monsters that they superficially and fecklessly ‘resist’. There is no neutrality on a moving bus and Democratic leadership should learn to fight. No one escapes judgment from history, especially when one is in a position of power. Pelosi, it’s time to read the room or get out of the way.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” – Desmond Tutu

Dale Seufert-Navarro