"Gerald Sorin’s biography of the Jewish-leftist writer Howard Fast (1914-2003) examines Fast’s life through the lens of his political identity. ... [S]uch a critical view is bound to stimulate new debate over the role of the artist in Cold War America." —Jewish Book Council
"This book is of incredible value for anyone interested in Vietnam—its history, politics, and culture—and in the American involvement with Vietnam. It is also a meditation of a Vietnamese patriot on the substance of patriotism during a time of civil war in a context of international alliances. Amid the terrors and harsh imperatives of war, the author’s is a rare voice of human decency." —H-War
Now that the 2012 presidential election is over, how will history remember it? Author David M. Jordan shows that historical memories of elections can change over time. Specifically, he looks at the 1944 presidential race in his book FDR, Dewey, and the Election of 1944 (now available in paperback). Jordan discusses the fascinating campaign between FDR and Dewey in an interview orignally posted on our blog last year:
Many assume that FDR’s 1944 re-election was a given, but the presidential race was much closer than many recall. Why has the historical memory of this election changed?
I believe that the historical memory of FDR as a candidate who never lost is part of it—“how could FDR even have a close election?”—and the fact that it was very much a part of the war and the war effort. Also perhaps the fact that Dewey lost again four years later tends to lower him in the historical memory.
What were the reasons that the election was so close?
The country seemed to be trending toward more conservatism and the liberalism of the New Deal was fading as the economy improved. A lot of folks were also unhappy with the government-imposed restrictions of the war effort, and the rumors about Roosevelt’s health had some effect, as did all the Communism talk by the Republicans. And, while it didn’t affect the electoral college vote, FDR’s popular vote in the South went down, as the Democratic strength in the South started on its way down.
What is one of the most interesting aspects of the election?
The most interesting aspect of the election in my eyes was the struggle for the selection of the Democratic vice-presidential nominee: the down-grading of Wallace, the push for Byrnes and others, the reluctance of Truman, and, most of all, the “hands-off” and sometimes duplicitous attitude of Roosevelt.
In the preface, you write about some of your childhood recollections of this presidential election. What is your most vivid memory from that time?
What I remember most is my mother’s constant talk about how bad FDR was. I also have a vivid memory of going to my local barber shop and, while waiting, picking up and reading LIFE magazine and a feature on Senate races across the country; I particularly recall reading about Leverett Saltonstall of Massachusetts and Wayne Morse of Oregon.
FDR’s personal physician made misleading statements about the president’s health to keep the public in the dark about the seriousness of his condition. Do you think it’s possible to keep this kind of information a secret today?
No, I think today’s media would never stand for something like what Dr. McIntire did. Even then, the reporters could see that Roosevelt looked a lot different from before and they felt that there was something they weren’t being told, but they had nowhere else to turn. Today, even if the mainstream media were to go along with some kind of a cover-up, all those magazines that turn up next to the supermarket check-out lines would have a field day with the president’s health secrets.
How did Dewey, who has been described as “cold,” “humorless,” and having “little natural political endowment,” end up securing the 1944 Republican nomination?
The main reason he got it was the fact that Republican politicians across the country felt that Dewey was the only one who could carry New York State against Roosevelt. They looked at what he had done in the 1938 and 1942 statewide elections and they figured he had a good chance of carrying NY (as well as the other eastern states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc.). Most of them liked Bricker much better than Dewey, but they didn’t think Bricker had any real chance to crack the eastern-states bloc. And, of course, Dewey had very persuasive agents like Brownell and Jaeckle going around the country pushing his (invisible) candidacy and getting delegates lined up.
What were some new or surprising facts you learned while doing research for your book?
I never knew about Willkie and the Wisconsin primary until I started on the book or the Warren VP-boom that he scuttled or the struggle to permit some sort of military voting.
How long did it take you to complete the research for the book?
Looking back, I would say it was some six or seven years, with my first research trip to Notre Dame to go through the Frank Walker papers.
"Surviving the Bosnian Genocide provides a clear, concise analysis of conditions in Srebrenica and the genocidal massacre in Potočari. As an author, Leydesdorff manages to organize excerpts from dozens of interviewees in a manner that allows their words to carry the weight of the experience, while interjecting herself only to provide the necessary historical perspective to maintain its readability. Ultimately, this collection of experiences succeeds at placing the human toll of mass atrocities in the forefront of the historical discussion in a way that preserves the emotional scars such events leave in their wake." —Oral History Review
"[The book] is a first-rate contribution to correcting the record. Readers who approach Luan with their hackles well down will find a new and refreshing view of what happened in Vietnam from the end of World War II through 1975. ... [A]n essential read for those who seek to understand the complex tragedy of the wars of Vietnam." —ARMY Magazine
"This volume is an important contribution to the study of Jewish-Russian relations from the end of the nineteenth and into the first half of the twentieth century. ... [T]he articles complement each other and create an interesting and complex narrative of inter-ethnic relations in Eastern Europe and the USSR, drawing on new archival research from across the post-Soviet space."—Slavonic & East European Review (SEER)
The VRA remains a topic of impassioned debate: For while reauthorization of certain impermanent provisions of the Act passed "by a wide margin in the House, and unanimous in the Senate" in 2007, the "lopsided tally hid a deep and growing conflict." Next month, IU Press will publish the newest addition to the debate:The Most Fundamental Right: Contrasting Perspectives on the Voting Rights Act, edited by Daniel McCool.
The Most Fundamental Right is "an effort to understand the debate over the Act and its role in contemporary American democracy," and asks whether the VRA is "the cornerstone of civil rights law that prevents unfair voting practices, or ... an anachronism that no longer serves American democracy?" Thus the "conversation" continues.
Visit the IU Press website to find out more information about The Most Fundamental Right, as well as pre-order copies.