Fascism Made in the USA: The Night Nazis Fought on the Streets of New York City

by Nomad

The United States has had its share of fascist groups that have come and gone. One of those was the American Nazi Party, the Bund Party. Here's the story of its 1939 rally and how it led to its collapse. 

A "Pro-American" Rally

On The night of 20 February 1939, something occurred that became an interesting footnote in American history. Today it is mostly a forgotten bit of the history of New York City. And for many, it could be a period they would rather not recall.

That evening, Madison Square Garden was the venue for the American- German Bund party Washington's Day celebration, hosted by American-German Bund party. 

You may not be familiar with the Bund party, it was better known as the American Nazi party. 

Advertised as a "Pro-American Rally" it was attended by somewhere between 17,000 and 22,000. It was one of the largest gatherings of American Nazis of its time.

From the photographs of the event, there were the usual Nazi rally fixtures, flags, the swastikas, and uniforms. In order to establish its brand as true blue American, a forty-foot portrait of George Washington graced the stage. That was more than just window dressing. The organization had declared that Washington was "the first Fascist" who did not believe democracy would work. 

The meeting opened with a salute to the flag and the playing of the "Star-Spangled Banner." (It was to end with the Nazi anthem, however.)

Teddy Roosevelt and The Necessity for Government Regulation

by Nomad

TheTruth Behind Obama's Use of Ambassador Posts as Political Rewards 2/2

by Nomad

In Part One of this two-part series, I told you about the recent embarrassing confirmation hearing for one of Obama's ambassadors. The quality of the president choices has been called into question. More importantly some on the Right have been asking whether the president isn't simply rewarding his top dollar campaign contributors with these positions. 

It's a good question. In this part we will look at the more recent history of this practice and how it has evolved in the last forty years.

A Look Back: Carter, Bush and Son

Candidates that have run on a reformist platform - like Obama- have fallen into the same trap. President Carter, for example, came under fire in 1977 for exactly the same thing. An article in The Telegraph reported at the time that four top ambassadors were high dollar contributors to Carter campaign in the Georgia governor's race in 1970. 

But, of all the presidents, Carter holds the record for the most number of career appointees, meaning people who have spent their lives working for the Foreign Service- not friends or political contributors. 

In 1980 Congress actually attempted to restrict the practice with The Foreign Service Act. It stated that the Foreign Service, which of course includes ambassadors, should be operated on the basis of merit principles. Merit naturally requires some kind of career in the diplomatic service. More specifically, the Act states that ''contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission.'' 
Upon signing of the bill into law in October of that year, President Carter said:

This bill provides the first comprehensive revision of personnel legislation for the United States Foreign Service in 34 years. It is an important step in the reform, simplification, and improvement of personnel administration in the Government, a top priority of my administration.

It didn't take too long for the Reagan administration to ignore that. According to a 1983 study by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan tied for the number of political ambassadors they appointed, at 32 percent each, according to a 1983 study by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). That figure is just above an average of roughly 30 percent since World War II.

By the time George H.W. Bush became president, it was as if the reforms of 1980 had never been written . In 1989 one report found that half Bush's administration's 26 reported ambassadors-designate were President Bush's enthusiastic campaigners, or direct Republican campaign contributors or old friends of the family. At that time, President Bush had set a new standard for the spoils system. 

Henry Wallace and The Last Progressive Party

by Nomad

(image courtesy of MoveOn.org)

In the Midst of all These Riches

The quote on the right comes from Henry A. Wallace's book, “Democracy Reborn.”
Today the book is not so easy to find and Wallace's name means very little to most Americans.

Nevertheless, I think the man deserves a little attention because, when you look over his words and ideals, Wallace seems- in some ways- ahead of his time.

For example, he also wrote:

“Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion."

That sounds achingly familiar to the speeches made during the Occupy movement.

Henry Wallace was the 33rd Vice President of the United States under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was the closest he ever got to the White House. Before that, Wallace had served as Secretary of Agriculture during the dust bowl days which saw Americans desperately fighting for survival.

The March of the Bonus Army- Washington, June 1932

by Nomad

The story of the Bonus March on Washington in the summer of 1932 isn't as famous as it should be. Here's a post about the protests and how they were ended by brute force.

Where the March Began

The 1932 march of the Bonus Army has largely been forgotten by the public. The reason for this collective amnesia is perhaps easy to understand. Details about why it started and how it ended do not fit in well with how we Americans think of themselves and our country. Moreover, a few of the people of we think of as heroes today played less than heroic roles in the affair.

The origins of the march began much earlier than 1932. They can be traced back to the days after the Armistice of the First World War. Returning veterans came home and were dismayed to learn of the differences between their wages compared to those in the civilian branch of the selective service. State-side draftees made quite a bit more than those that had actually fought and risked their lives. The war veterans demanded that some kind of compensations be paid for their lost income. During those boom years, Congress tended to agree.