I started Norman Thomas: The Last Idealist, by W.A. Swanberg. Norman Thomas was the Socialist Party's candidate for President of the United States between 1928-1948.
Why
am I reading this book? For a variety of reasons. I became somewhat
interested in leftist politics as I did some reading about Richard Nixon
for my Year (or More) of Nixon. As I read some books for that,
I tended to admire leftist figures who had concern for the poor----not
just in word, but also in deed----and who stood up to the special
interests for what they believed was the good of the country. I thought
about the Red Scares, which sometimes conflated Communists with
Socialists, when there were actually plenty of Socialists who opposed
Communism and the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union. I
wanted to learn more about this. I also was curious about the critiques
that Socialists made of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, since I usually
read right-wing critiques of Roosevelt's policies. Moreover, because
Norman Thomas at one time was a Presbyterian minister, I wondered what
role religion played in his commitment to socialism.
I'd like to use as my starting-point something that Swanberg says on pages 45-46:
"Among
those who knew Thomas and were aware of his many talents, there was no
doubt as to the gift that drove him to exertions beyond most men's
stamina. It was capacity for indignation over injustice. The
injustices done the ignorant and defenseless masses could be traced to
the compact minority of the rich, the educated, the well-connected, the
shrewd, the aggressive and expedient. They were often admirable
people----consider the Stewarts [who were Norman Thomas' in-laws]----but
they lived in a world apart from the masses, did not understand them
and were either the believers or the exploiters of that easy
rationalization. 'The poor are always with us.' For years Thomas's
indignation had made him a crusader for measures against poverty. Now
he had a new and allied cause in the threat of American entry into
[World War I]----a threat which came from that same influential and
affluent minority. An enormous advantage, possessed by no other
proletarian leader to the extent that he possessed it, was his
connection with that affluent minority. Being almost as much at home on
Fifth Avenue as he was in Harlem, feeling in his heart that Fifth
Avenue was basically good even if at fault, he was saved from the rancor
and animosity that spoiled the efforts of many friends of the masses.
He saw himself as an educator of both classes, and his lectures were
animated with an understanding and a humor that made his barbs
tolerable."
Here are some points:
----As the above passage
states, Thomas had connections with the elites. Thomas himself was born
to a fairly well-off minister, and Thomas married into a family of
privilege. Thomas went to Princeton University, when Woodrow Wilson was
the President of Princeton. Both were acquainted with one another, and
Wilson as President of the United States even went to bat (somewhat)
for Thomas when Thomas was getting into trouble for his vocal opposition
to American intervention in World War I.
----Around 1905-1906,
Thomas stayed with a minister friend whose parish was close to slums.
There, Thomas saw things that impacted the rest of his life. Thomas
would return to slums after that, and he witnessed poverty, drunkenness,
businesses taking advantage of ethnic divisions between immigrant
workers to prevent them from joining together to form a union, low
wages, unemployment, and crime.
----The above passage talks about
Thomas' optimism about people. Thomas long had positive feelings about
people. As a child, Thomas was non-athletic, skinny, and bookish, the
sort of person you'd expect for others to pick on. But Thomas enjoyed
being around people, and they gravitated towards him, so he wasn't
bullied. (This is not to suggest, however, that people who are bullied
are somehow at fault, for there are plenty of people who get bullied
even after they try to be friendly.) And Thomas was a leader, as when
he organized students to challenge an authoritarian head of his school
to bring in an outside speaker for their graduation ceremonies.
----The
above passage says that Thomas felt that the well-off Fifth Avenue
people were basically good at heart, yet he did not care for how some of
them used the Bible passage about the poor always being with us as an
excuse to turn a blind eye to the status quo. As a minister, Thomas was
an advocate of the Social Gospel, which stressed the importance of
creating a just society. He tended to think that such issues as
the historicity of Jesus' miracles and the virgin birth were
unimportant in light of the harsh realities that the poor experienced.
Thomas also was critical of how Christian leaders appealed to the good
afterlife as a way to encourage the oppressed to endure their conditions
rather than organizing to improve them, and Thomas had issues with the
Christian doctrine of hell. At one point, Thomas gave a sermon in which
he said that God rewards people in this life if they help the poor.
Moreover, Thomas attributed much of the crime in the slums to poverty.
----Thomas
opposed U.S. intervention in World War I. My impression is that he
joined the Socialist Party because that was one of the few
organizations, even on the Left, that was against the U.S. entering the
war. Thomas' brother Evan got in trouble as a conscientious
objector and had to spend time in a harsh work-camp, and a friend wrote:
"I feel ashamed of myself to be having a good time in Paris and classed
as a young tin hero because through no fault of mine a Boche shell
dropped beside me. Much as I may disagree with him, I must say that
Evan has what in college we call guts" (page 69).
In
my opinion, what's ironic is that Thomas recognized the depravity that
human beings did----that the better-off exploited those not as well-off
economically, that there may be not-so-pure motives behind the
idealistic platitudes that politicians use in support of war,
etc.----and yet Thomas pushed for a political program that critics could
label as utopian and idealistic, in that it had an overly optimistic
view of human nature. The dilemma in which I find myself is
that I know that there are problems in the country that need to be
fixed. Yet, when the government seeks to fix them, that creates another
set of problems. Many would say that the government should therefore
do nothing. But that approach doesn't fix anything, either, for it just
leaves the problems as they are.
Another consideration: While I
agree with Thomas that a belief in an afterlife can be used to
perpetuate oppression, I also believe that the opposite can be true,
since, in Matthew 25, entrance into the good afterlife is based on
helping the least of these. Moreover, it's not always the case that
helping people will bring one rewards in the here-and-now, and so some
people may need to believe in an afterlife to be motivated to do the
right thing.