In my latest reading of W.A. Swanberg's Norman Thomas: The Last Idealist,
which is about six-time Socialist candidate for President Norman
Thomas, I saw example after example of Thomas alienating people whenever
he took a stand.
Thomas was opposed to U.S. intervention into
World War II, for he thought that it promoted British and American
imperialism abroad and the repression of civil liberties at home (as
occurred during World War I). Thomas himself was not a member of the
largely right-wing isolationist America First Committee, but he did
speak before it, and Thomas supported America First-er Charles Lindbergh
in the hope that Lindbergh's fame would attract more people to the
non-interventionist stance; then, Thomas wrote a piece that criticized
Lindbergh's controversial remarks about Jews. After the Japanese
attacked Pearl Harbor, Thomas reluctantly endorsed U.S. intervention
into World War II. And yet, Thomas was still critical: he opposed the
internment of Japanese-Americans in prison-camps, he said that
devastating Germany through bombings would set the stage for Stalin to
take over Europe (which, at this stage, he considered to be a bad
thing), and he thought that the post-war conferences were enabling the
major powers to dominate the world, when Thomas favored a more
democratic set-up. After World War II, Thomas met with right-wingers to
find some way to fight international Communism. Yet, even though
Thomas was told that the anti-Communist Chiang Kaishek of China had
surrounded himself with Socialists, Thomas, unlike a number of
right-wingers, was skeptical that aid to Chiang did much good.
Through
all of this, Thomas alienated people. His non-interventionist stance
alienated a number of Leftists, who thought that the U.S. needed to
fight the Fascist threat abroad. Thomas was criticized for associating
with the America Firsters, as if Thomas had Fascistic sympathies, but
then a number of America Firsters objected to Thomas' criticism of
Charles Lindbergh's comments about the Jews. When Thomas reluctantly
endorsed U.S. intervention into World War II, he alienated the leftists
who were non-interventionists. Thomas differed from the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) because he was opposed to the internment of
Japanese-Americans into camps, whereas the ACLU chose not to object to
the internment policy. When Thomas after World War II met with
right-wingers because of his common-ground with them in opposing
Communism, leftists were critical of that move on Thomas' part. And
yet, Thomas did not see eye-to-eye with the right-wingers, on certain
issues.
That's Thomas on foreign policy! On domestic policy,
Thomas was managing to alienate labor unions, a key element of political
liberalism! On page 264, we read that Thomas "criticized union
featherbedding, union racism, union demands for excessively high wages
while soldiers fought for a pittance, union opposition to labor-saving
devices, exorbitant initiation fees and high union dues, and the union
habit of favoring friends and punishing enemies in the awarding of jobs"
(page 264). Thomas lamented that the labor adviser to the War
Production Board had "an almost dictatorial power" (Thomas, as quoted on
page 264). On page 278, we read that Thomas was "disturbed...about
union leaders who laughed off the corrupt practices of employers as long
as union employe[e]s got fat wartime checks and double time for
overtime."
Thomas was not an effective politician, for he could not form coalitions that well. Reinhold Niebuhr,
long a friend of Thomas and a participant in the leftist movement,
split from Thomas because he felt that many Socialists made the perfect
the enemy of the good, when sometimes one needed to go with an imperfect
option because it was better than the alternatives. But Thomas did get
to air his opinions through his column and (if I recall correctly) his
radio commentary. Thomas also did not hesitate to contact government
officials with his concerns, and sometimes they were receptive to his
ideas, whereas other times they were not.
One area in which I can
identify with Thomas' experience concerns the loneliness that comes with
being an individual. Thomas thought for himself. In the process, he
had a hard time seeing completely eye-to-eye with others, even people
who were in his own ideological camp. I'm not sure how this affected
his friendships----he was an affable and a giving person. But it
inhibited his political success. In my case, one reason that I have
difficulty forming friendships with people is that I like to talk about
politics and religion, and it's hard for me to form bonds with people
with whom I disagree. Moreover, I, like Thomas, tend to be an
individual, and so it is rare that I would say "I think that, too" when
someone makes a comment, or that someone would say that about my
comment. But perhaps I can be affable and giving, as well as find
common-ground with people on other things, such as movies or TV shows.
Another
issue that comes to my mind is political perfectionism. Thomas appears
to have had a hard time latching on to any political figure or program
because they did not meet his standards. And I don't think that Thomas
wanted to see absolute perfection before he could commit to a figure or
program, but he had a hard time supporting what he considered to be
injustices. Thomas was not being a contrarian for the sake of being a
contrarian, for he opposed things that he considered to be dangerous,
even if they overlapped with his ideology in areas. It's hard to pick
the lesser of two evils, when both options have their weaknesses. Yet,
what other choice is there? Third-parties don't get enough votes to be
effective, so one has to pick either the Republicans or the Democrats if
one wants his or her vote to count. In my case, I side with the
Democrats because I fear that things could be much worse under the
Republicans, but I'm not satisfied with elements of Democratic policy.
But what can I do? One thing that I can do, perhaps, is to write my
opinions on my blog, regardless of whether they agree with or differ
from the two political parties. Maybe that's one way to influence
people.