NEWS AND VIEWS

FDR's legacy, liberalism and 'bit players': a response to column by Myron Kuropas

by Alexander B. Kuzma

In his column "Time Misses Again," Dr. Myron Kuropas makes a compelling case for the triumph of capitalism as the pivotal drama of the 20th century. Now that capitalism has triumphed, Dr. Kuropas suggests that "tired and outdated liberalism" can be relegated to the "dustbin of history." Some of us believe that capitalism would never have triumphed had it not been significantly tempered by the democratic values and the humanizing influence of Christian reformers, labor unions, environmentalists, consumer advocates and secular social critics who have helped to form the bedrock of American liberal thought.

Right-wing ideologues are quick to forget that in its original, primitive form, capitalism was a brutish and inhumane system that bore little resemblance to the flourishing economy we enjoy today. In the early part of the 20th century, the captains of industry felt it was their inalienable right to create sweat shops, to send children into coal mines and to extract the last ounce of productivity from employees for negligible rewards. Government, police and business worked together to crush all attempts by laborers to organize themselves, to demand decent wages and healthy working conditions. With the support of the federal courts and draconian economic doctrines, America's industrial elite showed little tolerance for the aspirations of ordinary working people, immigrants, blacks, or women. It was only following the collapse of the stock market and during the Depression of the 1930s that America was forced to come to terms with the desperate plight of ordinary citizens.

It is easy to underestimate the importance of social reforms that today we take for granted. Now that we reap the benefits of their struggle for equality and justice, it is easy to caricature the labor movement that was a lifeline for many Ukrainian Americans struggling to make a decent life for their families in the harsh years prior to World War II.

We forget that at one time the basic concepts of Social Security and collective bargaining were reviled as socialist anathema. Had this narrow vision of capitalism remained intact, it is doubtful that the marvels of the latter half of the 20th century could have ever come to fruition. America would never have unleashed its creative potential if workers had been "kept in their place." By creating a more assertive, affluent workforce, by distributing wealth through better wages and working conditions, America created new markets for goods that were once affordable for only a privileged few. By energizing consumers, environmentalists and minorities, America instilled an ethos of social responsibility and created a demand for products and industrial processes that were safer, healthier and generated higher quality goods. This has resulted in a society that is not only more humane but more rational than one guided by mindless and unadulterated greed.

Dr. Kuropas is right to condemn Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his complicity in Soviet expansionism, for his moral cowardice at Yalta and Teheran, for his failure to challenge Stalin on the Terror Famine in Ukraine. However, many historians are firmly convinced that FDR played a critical role in saving the United States from Communism by implementing social and economic reforms that were essential for the long-term survival of free enterprise in his time. Roosevelt robbed the Communists of their most potent rallying cries. He persuaded Congress and the federal courts to institute policies that protected the common man against exploitation and catastrophic economic cycles. For all his hubris, his flaws and sins, FDR brought new meaning to Lincoln's commitments to create a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." His policies enriched our government's role in protecting the "least among us." FDR redefined the terms "commonwealth" and "public trust," and America is a much stronger nation for it.

In his commentary on Time magazine's nominations for "Man of the Century," Dr. Kuropas gives too short a shrift to other major figures who do not fit neatly into any convenient stereotypes as creatures of either the right or left.

With more than a hint of contempt, Dr. Kuropas dismisses Mahatma Gandhi, Lech Walesa, Martian Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela as "bit players" on the century's screen. He argues that their triumphs were achieved in relatively "safe vineyards" governed by the rule of law. This ignores the fact that Gandhi and King were both assassinated, that Mandela spent over 25 years in prison, and most of these in solitary confinement. We forget that apartheid in South Africa and in the United States gave a white man the right to murder a black man with almost complete impunity.

For all its horrors, the 20th century also helped inaugurate a new form of non-violent resistance by which the oppressor's brutality is exposed for what it is, where publicity and moral suasion and cognitive dissonance replace terror and guerrilla warfare as a powerful weapon in the struggle for freedom. Gandhi and King and the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights helped to create a conceptual framework that captured the imagination of a whole generation of Ukrainian dissidents, inspiring them to resist evil and to defy insurmountable obstacles. One can dismiss the importance of their contribution by echoing Stalin's cynical question "How many armored divisions does the Pope command?" Yet Pope John Paul II himself has turned this sarcasm on its head by showing the limits of military might and the virtually limitless potential of human integrity, defiance, faith and non-violent witness to the truth.

Dr. Kuropas has every right to question the impact of Gandhi's and King's teachings on human conduct. Certainly, war and oppression of the weak by the strong are still the dominant form of resolving conflict. At the same time, the 20th century was the first century in which non-violent struggle and unarmed dissent actually succeeded in toppling empires and overthrowing brutal patterns of oppression. The rules of politics are changing. What was once a "necessary evil" 100 years ago is no longer acceptable today. Non-violence and basic standards of human rights have become a force to be reckoned with, and this is something new under the sun.

By tearing down the pillars of segregation and institutional racism, King actually helped to restore America's moral authority to challenge the Soviet Union and to challenge lesser despots around the world. King enabled America to address the issues of human rights in the global arena without fear of ridicule of its own glaring internal contradictions. For all the social and political upheaval it caused, the civil rights movement and Gandhi's "satyagraha" campaign showed that humanity could achieve radical social transformation without destroying social institutions, and this has given other revolutionaries the strength and the daring to dissent and to enter into meaningful negotiations with their oppressors in Ukraine, Russia, Chile, Ireland, Palestine and other historic flashpoints.

If it were not for the example set by Gandhi and the civil rights movement, it is highly doubtful that the Solidarity movement in Poland and the Rukh movement in Ukraine could have achieved as much as they did with so little bloodshed. Dr. Kuropas may scoff at the shortcomings of Rukh and the inadequacies of the government it created, but this feeble democracy has remained intact and kept Ukraine independent far longer than any of the experiments that were ushered in by armed struggle.

As we evaluate the great spirits and the momentous events that shaped the last century, it is worth keeping an open mind about the "bit players" who commanded no armored divisions, but whose faith moved mountains nonetheless.

Alexander B. Kuzma, an attorney, is the director of development for the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund in Short Hills, N.J.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, March 12, 2000, No. 11, Vol. LXVIII

| Home Page |