Give 'em hell Harry!

[tk2kewl]

Last edited Sat Feb 27, 2016, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

May 17, 1952

"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

-- Harry Truman

on edit:
link to full speech since i've been accused of intentional misrepresentation
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. At this moment, the people appear to prefer a genuine Democrat.

Her name is Hillary Clinton.
Harry Truman would agree.

Sanders may still win.

[tk2kewl]

4. i'll agree to disagree on what how Truman would see it

[WayBeyondBlue]

8. Qualified agreement

If you take Hillary as an example of the new (since 1992) Democrats, those Third-Way Blue Dogs that capitulate to corporate interests when it keeps them in play, then yes. Hillary is a genuine Democrat.

But if you can remember 'way back to folks like Johnson and Carter you might think that there have been no real Democrats for a very long time. You know, the folks that establish little programs like socialized retirement insurance (Social Security) and socialized medical insurance for retirees (Medicare) and folks that fight for Civil Rights at great cost (Johnson knew that the South was lost to Democrats for a generation) or child labor laws or 40 hour workweeks or workmen's comp or (insert anything here that wasn't done for corporations since 1980).

Won't vote for Hillary. Did you know that she was a Goldwater Girl in the same era Bernie was getting hauled off for protesting segregation? I'd rather let Trump win and pick up the pieces after the Federal Government implodes.

[longship]

11. "I'd rather let Trump win and pick up the pieces after the Federal Government implodes."

Oh dear! I cannot believe that any rationally thinking person could take such a stance.

If one wants to change the Democratic Party one has to start at the bottom, not the top.

Run for precinct delegate. Get all your like-minded friends to do the same throughout the district. Then one has control of the party district delegation. If one does that in the majority of districts in the state, one has control of the state delegation. Once one has that, one controls the state's national delegation. Repeat that for a majority of the states and can control the Democratic Party and change its direction.

It never happens from the Oval Office down. Why hasn't anybody learned this? The presidency is not magic. One would think that the past 7+ years would have taught some people here something about how the system really works.

I was very politically active in the 80's and. 90's. I was a delegate to state conventions. I knew governors and all the state party elites. But what we saw that shocked us all was what happened to the GOP during that time. And no, we did not respond appropriately. However, the GOP was reaching out through the fundamentalist churches, first with Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority and then by way of Pat Robertson's rather larger Christian Coalition -- by that time a name that no longer disguised any pretense that it was not entirely religious.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton lost control of Congress to these utter religious kooks who had swallowed the GOP whole. By that time the local county GOP party newsletter wrote more about Jesus than the Republican Party. They also hosted a dial-up message line on their premises called the "Godarchy Line" which openly advocated a US theocracy, replacing the Bill of Rights with the Ten Commandments. The blinders were off and they have been off since then.

But the Democrats ignore it all. They've learned by their mistakes and they can repeat them exactly!

I will vote for Bernie in my primary. But I will have no sympathy for the inevitable crybabies who would weep about a Trump (or horrors! Cruz) presidency. Unlike them, I will fully support and vote for the Democratic nominee. I don't want to be held responsible in any way for this country descending further into perdition than it already is.

I won't have my vote (or lack thereof) help the lunatic GOP into power. At least no more power than they have now.

If folks think Hillary (or Bernie) is bad. Try theocratic Cruz! Or egomaniacal Trump. We all suspect where that ends.

[grossproffit]

14. WTF? Enjoy your stay.

[99th_Monkey]

3. " I don't give 'em hell, I just tell the truth and they think it's hell. " ~HST

[appalachiablue]

5. Update

[tk2kewl]

6. Democracy reboot!

[appalachiablue]

9. Bigtime!

[Rebkeh]

7. My Senator, Claire McCaskill,

loves Truman (he was from MO).

The irony.

Dissonance, anyone?

[tk2kewl]

10. really

Not a fan of her red baiting, but I wish her well

[wyldwolf]

12. An (intentional) misrepresentation of his quote

[tk2kewl]

13. not by a long shot...

here are the 2 proceeding paragraphs:

"The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away*. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election."

*note: this is what the 3rd Way has been busy "throwing away" for 25 years

here are the subsequent 2 paragraphs:

"But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party."

and the entire speech:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296

there are no "no we can't" or "free stuff" references anywhere.

[wyldwolf]

15. by a VERY long shot

"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

-- Harry Truman

That isn't the entire quote - it isn't in it's context. And based on it's usage here, not even true. Let's set it up:

Harry Truman is giving a speech to the Americans for Democratic Action, an organization led by Eleanor Roosevelt at that time (and who endorsed Sanders this election cycle, btw.) Truman and (Eleanor) Roosevelt didn't always get along and sometime they'd butt heads on matters of policy and candidates. Eleanor was an early supporter of Henry Wallace, who ran against Truman in '48.

Truman took some small swipes at the Americans for Democratic Action in this speech. First off was this:

there was a time when it might not have been so pleasant for me to meet with the ADA. I understand that 4 years ago-along about this time--some of the leaders of ADA were engaged in rather wild fancies about the Presidential nomination... You know, the peculiar part about it was that you were a young political organization and you had not studied the history of conventions. A President of the United States, when he desires and when he wants to be nominated, there isn't anybody in the world can keep him from being nominated.

Here, Truman was referencing the third party run of 'progressive' Henry Wallace and he was chiding some of them for supporting him (Wallace) and opposing his run (Truman's). He was actually a little condescending, wasn't he? He essentially says, "It's understandable that you were stupid in '48. Your were inexperienced wannabes. We can all laugh about your 'wild fancies' about politics now." (this actually sounds familiar and is relevant today)

He then sets the audience up for his famous "phony Democrat" quote:

In spite of the various notions about the nomination in 1948... the outcome of the election that year astonished a great many people. We astonished the pollsters and the sabotage press, and the opposition candidates--Republican, crackpot, and Dixiecrat.

Here, Truman calls out the 'progressive' movement by referring to Henry Wallace as a 'crackpot.' He also mentions the Dixiecrat (Strom Thurmond.) Two men who he rightly considered phony Democrats - a 'progressive' and a racist.

Now here comes the money quote:

When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

You have to ask yourself who Truman was specifically referring to. Was it 'Democrats' who didn't believe in the New Deal? That's certainly what he said and it was directed at Strom Thurmond. But it might have just as well been directed at FDR himself who said this in his annual message to Congress in 1935:

A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity... The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.

The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.

Whew! Strong anti-welfare words from FDR himself.

Were Truman's words directed at 'Democrats' who weren't sufficiently 'progressive' overall as is claimed by you? There is NO indication of that whatsoever. Truman himself was accused by 'progressives' of the day for being too conservative (as was FDR, as a matter of fact.)

In '48, Truman made his feelings quite clear on the far left ("crackpots&quot and far right of the party. After his victory, he said: "The greatest achievement was winning without the radicals in the party. I was happy to be elected by a Democratic party that did not depend upon either the left-wing or the southern bloc."

If we were to take Truman's quote and apply it to any time period beyond 1952, it would make just as much sense, perhaps more sense, to apply it to 'progressives.'

But let's say the quote IS about DLC/blue dogs/centrist, whatever. If it is, Truman was wrong. Those types of Dems have defeated Republicans in countless elections. People did not, in fact, choose the Republican over them "every time."