The Improbable Wendell Willkie by David Levering Lewis (Review)
Originally Published in the Kansas Government Journal – October 2023.
Soon after Tara and I bought our first home in 2007, we visited the nearest library in Bonner Springs. In the new-books section, I noticed, Twilight at Monticello: The Final Years of Thomas Jefferson, by Alan Pell Crawford. I thought it looked interesting and dove in.
The book explored the complex relationship between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the severing of their friendship, and the eventual restoration of their camaraderie at the end of their lives. I particularly enjoyed reading the reprinted correspondence between the two men within the book. That book started me on the path of reading presidential biographies and steered me to a deep love of biographies.
I’ve since read at least one biography of most of the presidents, but I’ve also come to find increasing intrigue about the also-rans. It sets up the hypothetical of what might have changed had someone other than the actual winner won the election.
The first and most interesting example I read was the autobiographical notes of Charles Evans Hughes. I knew of Hughes as the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1930s. But when I read about his narrow loss to Woodrow Wilson in the 1916 presidential election, I discovered that he also served as (1) Governor of New York, (2) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, (3) U.S. Secretary of State, and (4) Judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice, a post-WWI international court connected with the League of Nations. He had quite the prolific career of service to then be largely minimized in U.S. history.
My reading on Hughes then led to former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, which provided an interesting history on the Republican Party. Rockefeller eventually rose to Vice President under Gerald Ford, but his attempts for the presidency throughout the 1960s never bore fruit. Finally, Doris Kearns Goodwin’s, No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II, gave me a deeper curiosity about Wendell Wilkie. In The Improbable Wendell Willkie by David Levering Lewis, the author described the unlikelihood of a Wilkie candidacy. He never held elected office, but Wilkie made the 1940 race interesting and closer than many expected.
Wilkie was interesting to me on two fronts: (1) is graciousness in defeat, and (2) his service to FDR as WWII continued. In his concession speech, Wilkie presented an idea that reflected both these points: “Let us not fall into the partisan error of opposing things just for the sake of opposition. Ours must be an opposition for a strong America.” Reactionary opposition is too often the norm today, which connects with another idea of Wendell Willkie.
In An American Program, Wilkie made this observation: “Whatever we [the United States] do at home constitutes foreign policy. And whatever we do abroad constitutes domestic policy.” It may be a bit of a leap, but I think of this idea in relation to the incivility that so often reigns in politics. Here’s how.
On one hand, the news we see on national television or in the papers often has little effect on our day-to-day lives. The events in the news quite often occurs far away from home, which often leads to context-free information. The events reported in the news may occur, but their effect often feels quite small (see “Tuchman’s Law”[1] for her astute observation). Yet on the other hand, when our national leaders practice a bombastic approach to opponents or even as a general approach to communication, the result will lead others to practice a similar approach. This is what makes Wendell Wilkie a model worth remembering all these years later.
Wilkie had his moments of fiery criticism against Roosevelt, sometimes veering into insults as Election Day drew close. Yet in his concession speech,[2] he observed that calmer moments might have left his prior words unsaid or phrased more thoughtfully. More importantly, he noted that his posture—and that of all his supporters—should be one of respect and best-effort support. He did not minimize the importance of opposition, but fleshed out the manner in which opposition must function.
Wilkie emphasized that our principles of democracy should direct us to debate without “petty partisan politics…without selfishness and without fear.” Further, he warned that “we must be careful to be constructive. We must help to show the way.” Wilkie offered an example of cooperation, selflessness, and courage without losing his voice of opposition—a style we could use more of today.
While the examples that take place far from home may be uncivil, city leaders can help model a better way. By avoiding personal attacks and focusing on the issues at hand, it encourages those who are watching to do the same. Such civility is not uniform groupthink, but it is a matter of respect. Learning to disagree without being disagreeable is one of the elements that should distinguish local government and ideally model the right way to disagree.
Which brings everything back to Wendell Wilkie’s comment that U.S. policy at home is also U.S. policy aboard. His idea fits neatly with the thought that all politics is local. Each of you have a unique opportunity to set an example for civility in politics. By modeling respectful dialogue, you can encourage your constituents to do the same and expect the same from other public officials. The idea of civility does not mean uniform thought or passivity, but the practice of civility moves us forward to improve our cities, our state, and our country for everyone.
As city officials, you have a unique opportunity to set an example for civility in politics. By modeling respectful and constructive dialogue, you can encourage your constituents to do the same. When we disagree, let's do so with civility and respect. Let's focus on the issues that matter to our communities and work together to find solutions.
Wendell Wilkie was a great example of a leader who was able to disagree with his opponents without resorting to personal attacks. He showed us that it is possible to have strong disagreements without being disagreeable. Let's follow his example and make our city a more civil and respectful place to live.
I believe that city officials have a responsibility to promote civility in politics. We can do this by setting a good example, creating forums for dialogue, and encouraging our constituents to be respectful of each other, even when they disagree. When we work together in a civil and respectful manner, we can make our city a better place for everyone.
Sources
[1] Tuchman, Barbara. A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978; p. xviii (noting “Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times. After absorbing the news of today, one expects to face a world consisting entirely of strikes, crimes, power failures, broken water mains, stalled trains, school shutdowns, muggers, drug addicts, neo-Nazis, and rapists. The fact is that one can come home in the evening—on a lucky day—without having encountered more than one or two of these phenomena. This has led me to formulate Tuchman's Law, as follows: “The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold (or any figure the reader would care to supply).”
[2] Wilkie, Wendell. “Post-Election Radio Address to the Nation.” The American Presidency Project, UCSB, 9 Nov. 1940, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/post-election-radio-address-the-nation.
