It's a good thing Truman didn't risk political capital in 1948 by desegregating the military

It's a good thing Harry Truman didn't throw away precious political capital in 1948 by taking a potentially divisive stand on a risky social issue that could have derailed his whole agenda.

Since the country was entering a severe postwar economic recession that lasted five quarters.

And the Cold War was beginning with the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia.

And Ghandi was assassinated creating turmoil in India.

And the Soviet Union began to jam Voice of America broadcasts.

And the Arab/Israeli war broke out in the first half of the year.

And the Berlin blockade began.

And Truman's administration had to organize and implement the Marshall Plan.

And Truman himself was up for re election in November.

Damn good thing Truman didn't do something risky and politically stupid in the midst of all of these events in 1948 and issue an Executive Order desegregating the military.

Oh wait.

He did.

You don't feel lucky that it's on the agenda with an open due date?

So Truman served 3 years before his 1948 election....and after Truman dealt with the issues you listed in 1948, which is considered his second term, he became quite unpopular, and in fact, chose not to run again in 1952.

so the circumstances were quite different....in terms of Truman and when he spent his "Political Capital"; it was in his second term.

out FDR's last term, then he got elected to his own first term. He could have played it safe, to protect his chances at a second term, but he didn't play it safe.

As long as a President can still run for election, he has reason to play it safe.

Obama came into office as, for modern times, a very popular President in his own right.

So the circumstances are not all that different in any significant way when it comes to an executive order that does the right thing by the military.

1948 was his "first term". He ran for election in November of 48, so 48 was still considered his first term. Matter of fact, he desegregated the military in July of 48, four months before he faced Thomas Dewey.

Everything I listed in the OP occurred during 1948, most of it in the first half of the year.

Today's "progressives" could learn a lot from President Truman.

Roosevelt died only 4 months into his 4th term. Truman had almost a full term as he became President upon Roosevelt's death. That was a term for him, even if it wasn't "his" initially....
as he still was on the ticket in running for that term.

Even if he enacted major legislation at the end of his first term, it still wasn't at the beginning as he had been President since 1945.

Oh, and...Dewey almost won.

When Truman did manage to make it through, that was really his 2nd term...as he didn't run again in 1952. SO unless you think that Truman as President from 1945 to 1953 is considered as only one term by historian, it just isn't.

He was a two termer, even if elected only as VP for the first, because circumstances dictated that he would end up President, and serve nearly a full term.

This is very different from someone like LBJ who took over Kennedy's term at the very end due to Kennedy's death instead of at the very beginning....and therefore is considered to have only served one term. Guess one rounds out to the nearest 4 years.

so my point stand. Truman did not enact major controversial legislation at the onset of his presidency, regardless to how he became President. You can't compare Truman after serving nearly 3 years in office and pretend that he is in the same position Barack Obama is as of now...which I guess was the point of your OP to begin with; That somehow Truman utilized political capital at the onset of his first term. In context, I'm just saying that the reality and the facts don't support how you have made it sound. :shrug:

than Obama is in now. Obama is enjoying widespread popularity and does not have to face the voters for three more years.

Truman was four months away from an election everyone thought he would lose when he desegregated the military.

He had a huge challenge on his right from the Dixiecrats - who were infuriated by the Dems moving left on civil rights.

He squeaked out a victory largely because Dewey was such a bad, dull, uninspiring candidate.

Obama is sitting in a much better situation today than Truman was in '48.

We don't know how long we will hold Congress for, and we should be getting things we want done through this year and next, while we have strong majorities, not holding back for some mythical better timing.

Truman took more impressive stands DESPITE the possibilty of losing. Hopefuly President Obama will take bolder action soon.

there is something else going on.

I think, until we know for sure what is behind the scenes, we should try a new direction.

Rather than giving him the idea, which he might get if he were to look at DU, that many of us are not covering his back on this, so why should he push further if neither the right or left has his back?

Why not trying a new approach? We have nothing to lose by a massive out pouring of support for his intentions.

I support President Obama on his pledge to end DADT.

statute gives Obama all the authority and all the political cover he needs, especially since he is going to "surge" in Afghanistan before he really cuts back in Iraq--and who knows what will happen in Pakistan (or anywhere else).

If you have not already read it, check it out.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

Both as a DEM rival *and* as a third party candidate.

Wallace , unlike Truman, was explicitly anti-segregaton on principle, and unreservedly pro-New Deal. Truman, was an under-accomplished, boss-picked caretaker Senator from MO., who served as a compromise between the Dixiecrats and northern big-city bosses to block Wallace from the v. presidency in '44, and therefore likely accession after FDR passed. ( Which was widely anticipated.)

Truman's desegregation order was the opposite of risky. It was a calculated political manuever, designed to head off a challenge from the left.

would have no clout against a southerner.

who ended up taking four states in the deep south.

Henry Wallace took none.

Truman could have warded off the Dixiecrat challenge by being less amenable to civil rights.

But, instead, he made the right decision.

(and his party's platform that year adopted a very pro civil rights agenda, largely due to Hubert Humphrey)

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1976/1/1976_1_42.shtml


>>>>>Within two months of the September 12, 1946, attack on administration foreign policy, Wallace had cut deeply into Truman’s strength. Although 48 per cent of registered Democrats supported Truman as their next Presidential candidate, according to the Gallup poll, 24 per cent now backed Wallace. His blueprint for Soviet-American unity drew unprecedented crowds in his speaking tour that spring. Yet Wallace continued to insist that he and all “progressive forces” must work within the Democratic Party.>>>>>>>>>



That was in Sept. 1948. Truman's desegregation order came AFTER that. Truman lost 4 dixiecrat states to Thurmond but coopting Wallace's issues allowed him to hold on to big-electoral vote states in the NE.

Hard to look to HST as a moral paragon... given his racist backround and the above political context. Timing is everything.



>>>and his party's platform that year adopted a very pro civil rights agenda, largely due to Hubert Humphrey)>>>>

Humphrey wrote a letter in '44 supporting Wallace for president in '48.

Truman's executive order came on July 26, 1948. He already had been nominated earlier that month.

I'm sure, as with any President, some political calculation went into the decision. Clark CLifford made the case to Truman that it was the smart thing to do.

But it turned out that the real threat came from the right. Without the Dixiecrats, Truman would have had swept the entire south.

The point remains that Truman had the courage to sign the EO, having originally decided to proceed in January, 1948, in the midst of tremendous national and international upheaval.

Ending DADT is more popular now than ending segregation was then. It should be an easy choice for Obama. Yet he procrastinates and listens to the homophobic military brass, who are about the only people left in the country who still support the ban.

I honestly prefer the hatred of homophobes to the craven cowardice of our so-called "allies" who've been telling us to wait for basic rights for years. At least the former are honest with themselves and us.

Only a strait would say that. NO more of that crap we we either get our rights, or no more votee demo

between Truman and Obama is that Truman had courage and character. Obama is worried about doing anything that might ruin his chances for re-election.

Rec.

Instead of reasons why it's soooo hard to do, as some are so ready to tell us, why not support President Obama in keeping his campaign pledge.

Next time some one from headquarters looks at DU they should support for his proposed policy change:

I support President Obama on his pledge to end DADT.


:evilgrin:

it happened over the course of many, many years, and in some real ways: it still hasn't happened.
having said that, DADT needs to go.

Thank you. :)

Suppose Obama, instead of simply overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" right now, were to order a suspension on enforcement of the policy, "pending review". Is this possible?

state - Truman's vote percentage
Alabama - 0
Louisiana - 32.75
Mississippi - 10.09
South Carolina - 24.14

compare that to Roosevelt in 1944

Alabama - 81.28
Louisiana - 80.59
Mississippi - 93.56
South Carolina - 87.64

But by 1952 the South was back to voting for Democrats again, until 1968 when they went for Wallace and 1972 when they went for Republicans.