VIDEO: How Henry A. Wallace Speaks to Our Moment

Below is a lightly edited transcript of the opening remarks at our third annual Wallace Symposium, called “Forging a Democracy That Works for All.” Watch and read more from the symposium here.

John Nichols: Good afternoon. My name is John Nichols, and I acknowledge up front I am a rural American. Thank you — that’s about the level of applause we get. I was born in a town of 970, I was 971, and very aware of that. 

Henry Wallace had roots in Orient, Iowa, a town of about 300. I spent a lot of time writing a book on him in Orient and on that little farm. In fact, somehow through a little bit of dumb luck and some twists and turns, I even convinced Senator Bernie Sanders to come and visit the farm because I thought it would be relevant to some of the things he was trying to say to America. 

First off, thank you to the Wallace family for everything that you’ve done and everything you continue to do. It is absolutely, absolutely amazing. There’s so many people I love and value in this room that I will not go row by row and note them all. But I appreciate all of you being here. 

I only have a couple minutes, so I will begin simply by saying that I live now in Madison, Wisconsin, and Madison last night or yesterday afternoon, experienced a police killing. The shooting of a young man, middle-aged man, by police officers who shot three bullets into his head when he was on the ground. Everything that I’ve seen, and you know, there is still a lot to learn, is that this is every bit as heartbreaking, as horrific, and as angering as so many of these incidents that we have seen across this country, year after year, decade after decade, century after century — and it is something that must stop. 

And my reflection on that last night and this morning led me right back to Henry Wallace. Because Henry Wallace — at a time when those with wealth and power so neglected these fundamental issues of humanity — he ran right toward them. 

There was a famous incident in July — in fact, we’re literally almost to the day — in July of 1943. They had in Detroit what was called a “race riot.” That was the New York Times’ comfortable language for what, in reality, was the murder of black workers in Detroit. Because under pressure from the great A. Philip Randolph — who would go on to be the chief organizer of the March on Washington in 1963 — under the pressure of A. Philip Randolph in the early 1940s, Franklin Roosevelt had integrated the war industries. He had integrated the industries that produced the “Arsenal of Democracy.” 

And in Detroit, there was a reaction against this from people who did not accept that integration.

Anyone who tells you that the great struggles of the civil rights movement were only in the South doesn’t know the reality of many northern cities. And it was an incredibly jarring moment. It was a moment when the country was very torn and uncertain, and the entire political class did exactly what they do today, which is run right away from where the incident, where the horror is taking place. They didn’t want to be seen near it. 

Except for Henry Wallace, who chartered a plane and flew to Detroit, and appeared in front of a multiracial, multiethnic audience of thousands, and said — and it’s in your program, so I don’t have to do much research here — and he said, in 1943, the middle of the war, “those who fan the fires of racial clashes for the purpose of making political capital here at home are taking the first step toward Nazism. The people of America know that the second step toward fascism is the destruction of labor unions.” 

He was speaking to a UAW audience in Detroit in 1943, and that was the statement that destroyed his political career and ruined him politically.

The New York Times and other publications said immediately that “Henry Wallace has said something that divides us in a time of war.” They could have said that he did something that unites us in a time of war. They could have said that he said something that was essential in a time of war. Instead they said “oh it divided us.’’ And so they challenged him to write an essay.

And he wrote an essay for the Times called “The Danger of American Fascism,” in which he identified fascism as something not just overseas but also right here at home, and said that you can see it in millions of powerful people in this country who accept an ethos that says I am better than that other person because of their race, because of their gender, because of their class. He said it at that moment. 

And it so terrified power that they extracted him from the Vice President’s office in 1944 at the Democratic National Convention, and eventually left him outside of the purview of the Democratic Party. 

In the book I wrote on Wallace, The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party, I charted the struggle that he went through and the struggle that so many others have gone through. And it is an interesting thing that because I wrote that book, even when I am in the company of the Wallaces, I am absurdly asked, “What would Henry Wallace do? How would he respond to this moment?” And the interesting thing is, there was no political figure in American history who wrote more, who put more on paper about what he would do, than this man, Henry Wallace.

As a result we know, we have the answers, because he did it in his lifetime. He didn’t reflect on how you might get it right. And this is one of the great things about history to understand: there’s always someone who got it right at the time and was punished for it. And unfortunately history doesn’t write it that way. 

Well, Henry Wallace was the guy who got it right at that time. He was against racism, he was for peace, and he wanted to fight the threat of American fascism. 

And so when people ask me, “What would Henry Wallace have done about all sorts of things?” I say “you’ve got to go see the Wallace family.” They’re going to tell you — they were with the guy, right? 

But when you ask me about politics, when you ask me about elections — if you ask me, would Henry Wallace have been excited about Zoran Mamdani as the mayor of New York City? — I say he would have loved it. He would have looked at this mayor and said, “That is exactly what I want to see someone doing in my beloved New York City.” He was rural, but he loved New York City. He campaigned in New York City. He campaigned for Vito Marcantonio. He campaigned for W.E.B. Du Bois. He campaigned for progressive and leftist candidates in New York City. 

People say to me, “Well, what would Henry Wallace think about these young leftists that are winning primaries, defeating incumbents, around the country? You know, what would they think about Claire Valdez? What would they think about Chris Rabb in Philadelphia? What would they think about Brad Lander in New York City?” I will tell you these are the type of candidates that Henry Wallace campaigned for. 

And so without making a partisan statement — because this goes beyond partisanship, this goes beyond political parties — Henry Wallace, in his lifetime, thought that it was possible to solve the problems of America in the moment, at that time. 

He did not believe in incrementalism. He rejected compromise. He said, “We look at the realities of our time, and if we have to charter a plane and go to Detroit and speak to a multiracial, multiethnic audience of workers and charge that there is a threat of American fascism, I’ll do it as the vice president of the United States, even if it costs me everything politically.”

And so I will say this to you: Henry Wallace, in his time, wanted political leaders who were willing to address the fundamental challenges of the moment. He was a Republican. He was a Democrat. He was an independent. He was a progressive. He ended his life even endorsing a Republican, because he thought Dwight Eisenhower was better on race and peace. And so the fact of the matter is, Henry Wallace saw beyond partisanship toward morality. 

When he finally ran for president in 1948, he was asked “what’s at the root of this thing?” As he campaigned in the South he refused to speak in front of segregated audiences. He ate his meals in his car because if a restaurant wasn’t integrated, he wouldn’t enter it. 

Henry Wallace was asked, “What’s this about?” And he said, “It’s kind of a simple thing in America. If two children are born, and one of those children is white, and one of those children is black, the white child, same town, will live 10 years longer.” He said “we fight for those 10 years. We fight to make that right.”

Brothers and sisters, when I am asked who Henry Wallace would be excited about in this moment, he would be excited about the people who fight for what is right — for economic and social and racial justice, for saving this planet he loves so deeply, and for peace, for diplomacy, and an end to the wars that need not be fought.

And he would tell you that if there is someone who is running around pointing at somebody, calling him a communist, calling him whatever name, he would say, “I want to hear what that person’s saying. I’m not going to believe what a president or some powerful person says. I want to hear what they’re saying, and if that person is for economic and social and racial justice, I’m going to stand at their side.”

He did this as the Vice President of the United States, as a man who could have been president. 

And brothers and sisters, when I look at our great American political history, I look to one man, and I say: Henry Wallace got it right in his time, and he teaches us how to get it right in our time. 

Solidarity.