In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

chaPTer 3 The stevenson effect When Helen Myers, delegate to the democratic convention in chicago in 1952, landed back home in los angeles after watching the nomination of adlai stevenson, she found that events had not gone unnoticed in california. “as soon as i got back,” she recalled, “there was a stack of phone calls on my desk—people calling in wanting to know if they could work for adlai stevenson .” This sudden enthusiasm for national democratic politics in los angeles came at just the right time for activists like Myers. “The stevenson people came into politics just at the time we were trying to create a new structure in the county,” she remembered. “i collected all the names, found out what assembly district they lived in, and sent them out to the campaign manager in that district.”1 stewart udall, influential democratic congressman from arizona who later became JFK’s secretary of the interior, claimed in a 1958 article that “stevenson acted as a fulcrum for the upsurge of his party in several of the states. it was hardly accidental that many of the stevenson strongholds of 1956—california, oregon and Pennsylvania, to name a few—were the states where stevenson’s 1952 campaign set in motion new forces and personalities. in many instances it was this fresh corps of amateurs and egghead recruits who provided the extra drive that revitalized weak party organizations.”2 The stevenson presidential bid energized left-of-center activism in california, and provided a new lease on life for the democratic Party, and in particular the more radical elements within the liberal coalition. But why stevenson, and why 1952? californians had voted happily for Fdr or truman without at the same time seeming particularly interested in democratic Party politics more generally. The stevenson campaign helped to unify a range of grassroots movements just coming together in california behind a search for meaning for the left in affluent 1950s america. The campaign provided the organizational impetus for the formation of a new democratic Party infrastructure chapter 3 56 in the mid-1950s, and also provided the kind of ideological soul-searching needed to propel the party to power later in the decade. americanism Versus foreignism The parallel story to this rejuvenation of political debate among democrats is the remorseless rise of the republican right in 1952, marshaling its forces and planning another clearly delineated left versus right battle that had worked so effectively for them in 1950. republicans held most of the political advantages : they were well-financed; their political message was simple and easy to articulate; their campaign team was in place early; incumbent senator William Knowland was a major political player on the national stage whom no democrat wanted to take on and who could act as a central figure around whom the other campaigns could revolve. Knowland, a darling of the right because of his hard-line stance on opposing communism in the Far east and his staunchly anti-Fair deal voting record, also served as an antidote to the moderate republicans who were largely blamed for the 1948 defeat: earl Warren had been the vice presidential candidate and was increasingly seen as useful only for his own election. “Has [Warren] forgotten,” wrote one angry southern californian to Knowland in november 1951, “that his name was not magic in 1948. . . . He has too many socialistic ideas to please any real american.” another correspondent to Knowland and richard nixon begged them not to nominate “another ‘Me-tooer’ for president. dulles, eisenhower, stassen, truman, Warren and Willkie, birds of a feather. ‘ForeiGnists’ all. The 1952 campaign will be a clear issue of americanism vs. Foreignism.”3 Knowland was perfectly placed to represent the forces of the california right in a campaign of this kind. He was a vocal champion of conservative causes, foreign and domestic, in the u.s. senate, and the family name had considerable political clout in oakland and the east Bay. His grandfather, Joseph Knowland, had arrived in california in the 1850s and had made a huge fortune in lumber, mining, shipping, and banking in the Bay area, and Bill’s father, J. r. Knowland, had combined an equally successful business career as owner-editor of the Oakland Tribune with his role as a prominent advocate of conservative and republican Party political causes. Before buying the Tribune in 1915 he had been a republican member of the california state assembly and then a u.s. congressman, but his failure to win...

Share