I finished W.A. Swanberg's Norman Thomas: The Last Idealist, which is about six-time Socialist Presidential candidate Norman Thomas.
Swanberg
closes the book with Thomas' death in 1968. Swanberg says that Thomas
appealed to people's better angels and got some results, as Thomas
persuaded more and more Americans to oppose the Vietnam War. This
highlights what I like about this book: that it's about how a person who
is concerned about social justice can make a difference. Thomas wrote
letters to prominent people and debated them in public. He wrote a
column and gave speeches. He was not the ablest politician, but he
spoke up for what he felt was right. He praised and criticized
Republicans and Democrats, for his commitment was to what he thought was
right.
Many of us, including myself, don't have some of the
assets that Norman Thomas had. Thomas was born into a family of
relative privilege and attended Princeton, so he had connections with
the Establishment. He was able to get an audience with Presidents and
foreign leaders. In his later years, he was regarded as a national
institution. But many of us, even without such connections, can still
make our voices heard. We can write to our public officials, who in
many cases respond to their mail. (I've often gotten responses, and
sometimes I have not.) We can write letters to the editor, which,
believe it or not, are often read by more people than are actual
syndicated columns. (I've read this in a couple of sources, plus I've
gotten feedback in the past about letters to editors that I have
written.) We can blog.
And, like Thomas, we don't have to hitch
ourselves to the entire agenda of a political party or a candidate, for
we can simply stand for what we believe is right. And we can praise or
criticize our public officials according to whether or not they act
according to our understanding of what is right. I feel that President
Barack Obama and the Democrats are better for the country than the
Republicans are, but I don't have to be shy when there are elements of
Obama's health care plan that I do not care for. Sometimes,
highlighting problems can be a path to encouraging a solution. At the
very least, it can be an educational experience.
In terms of what I
didn't like about the book, I'll admit that I found Swanberg's
discussions of the disputes within the political Left to be tedious and
boring. Yet, it was essential that Swanberg include that topic, for
that was a key element of Thomas' life. I also felt that Swanberg
should have been clearer on what Thomas' stances were regarding private
property and religion. My impression was that Thomas in the 1930's was
for some private ownership of property, while only certain industries
would be nationalized under his program, but later Swanberg says that
Thomas moderated his position to support some private ownership. So was
Thomas for private ownership in the 1930's or not? On religion, I was
unclear about whether or not Thomas believed in God. Swanberg says a
couple of times that Thomas lost his faith, yet Swanberg also quotes
Thomas' denial that he (Thomas) was an atheist.
Overall, however, I
found this to be an interesting book. Swanberg's affection for his
subject is evident from the stories that Swanberg tells. Swanberg
himself, like Thomas, was a person with Socialist ideas who later
moderated his positions. Yet, Swanberg presents a three-dimensional
look at Thomas, respecting the man while not writing a hagiography.