[Marxism] How fear of Wallace (Nader) helps Truman (Kerry) win in 1948 (2004)
lshan at bcn.net
lshan at bcn.net
Sun Mar 21 20:39:42 MST 2004
*ANDREW BIEMILLER: Sam said, "Oh, my God, the fat's in the fire." And we
proceeded to have the issue out. Now, while we were waiting for the issue to
be joined, our old friend Ed Flynn, the leader of the Bronx, and really the
leader of New York State at that time, National Committeeman, grabbed Hubert
and me. He said, "You kids are right, you know what you're doing. This is
the only way we can win this election. Stir up the minorities." Now he said,
"You stay right here with me, I'm going to send a runner down."
. . .
Well, in those days at Democratic conventions nobody really polled
delegations, the leader voted them, and they voted a unit rule. So we got
the solid vote of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and New Jersey, and we
had California already buttoned up, and that added to Wisconsin and a few
other states that we were putting together, is what carried it; and I have
always been of the opinion that Ed Flynn knew what he was talking about,
that it was that plank that helped carry that campaign, because it did stir
people up among the minority groups in this country.
DAVIDSON: . . . I felt that the Humphrey-Biemiller plank was obviously the
one that should be adopted; and also, to revert to the question you asked a
little while ago, I thought it was the best politics. I thought that it was
best to take a firm stand even though it might mean that the South walked
out, because we had indications that some of the states would. We didn't
know it would be that many.
HESS: Why did you think it was the best thing to do if the South was going
DAVIDSON: Because what you lose in the South you make it up in the North.
You would make it up in the heavily populated states.
*This is the Andrew Biemiller of whom Cannon said at the age of 30 had all
the senility of the European social-democracy. Not so senile after all.
from Brian Shannon
More information about the Marxism