Americans for "Democratic" Action
ADA’s focus on issues like wealth redistribution fosters a divisive class warfare narrative that fosters implementation of economically detrimental regulations.
For more than two years, we have been sending you Spotlights on critical House and Senate races as we continue the battle for the soul of our nation. We have highlighted quality candidates striving to defeat naysayers, sexists, election deniers, conspiracy theorists, racists, and, sometimes, thugs. We have done so because we think it is essential that you -- our members, activists and volunteers -- have the information necessary for you to do your own election outreach.1
Americans for Democratic Action
Words 2,898 | Read Time 20 min | Enjoy
Foreword
We often wonder how so much of the progressive worldview seems to have an invisible hand behind its stunning penetration of society. Thus, this essay continues the quest to expose the nefarious organs that inculcate the majority of the masses into obedient serfs of the collectivist dystopia. Previous essays exposing the face behind the collectivist hive include Socialist Propagandists Liars & Crooks (SLPC), Alt Left Association, The Pungently Progressive Institute for Policy Studies, Nauseating NEA, and Nefarious National Council of Churches.
Grab some refreshments and enjoy the latest “exposure essay,” starting with the Union for Democratic Action (April 1941) and its transition into the Americans for Democratic Action (January 1947).
Introductory Summary
The Union for Democratic Action (UDA) was established eight months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Under the leadership of James Loeb Jr., the organization aimed to unite progressive forces to combat “totalitarian tyranny” and promote “democracy” in both political and economic spheres. During World War II, the UDA shifted its focus to influencing U.S. foreign policy, advocating for American participation in the European war and substantial aid to the Soviet Union. This involvement in foreign affairs highlighted the UDA’s significant political influence during this critical period.
The UDA strategically targeted the U.S. Congress and garnered support from influential publications and intellectuals. Louis Fraina, a key figure behind the UDA, used the organization to further his Communist mission. Publicly, the UDA featured well-known intellectuals and writers, creating a united front of leftist figures. However, its openly pro-Communist stance eventually led to its decline following the 1946 congressional elections.
On January 4, 1947, Reinhold Niebuhr convened over one hundred UDA members, forming Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). Despite presenting itself as a new organization, ADA was essentially the UDA under a different name. ADA’s founders included prominent political figures, union leaders, press representatives, and academia, and it claimed to be an independent, anti-Communist political organization.
However, ADA’s anti-Communist stance has been questioned over the years. Critics argue that ADA’s domestic programs align with Marxist and Socialist measures, and its foreign policy often appears to support Communist countries. Despite these criticisms, the ADA has played a significant role in presidential elections and continues to advocate for progressive policies. Under a saturated socialist umbrella, it promotes social justice, civil rights, and economic equity through grassroots organizing, lobbying, and coalition-building.
Union for Democratic Action
Eight months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Union for Democratic Action was established. James Loeb Jr., who became the UDA’s national director, stated that the organization aimed to:
… unite for common counsel and action all progressive forces in the nation who are agreed that totalitarian tyranny must be defeated by the vigorous and concerted efforts of all free peoples and that the preservation and extension of essential democracy in both our political and economic life is not only the prerequisite for victory over our foreign foes but is equally important for a solution of those problems and a healing of those ills which our civilization faced even before tyranny threatened it and which contributed to the rise and early successes of fascism against the democratic world.
During World War II, the UDA’s activities significantly changed from its original objectives. The UDA evolved into a major political force, particularly in foreign affairs. It concentrated on bolstering the survival of the Soviet Union and advocating for U.S. participation in the European war, a crucial aspect of its influence on U.S. foreign policy. Once the U.S. joined the war, the UDA fervently campaigned for substantial American aid to the Soviet Union, portraying it as a courageous ally deserving of wartime support and peacetime cooperation. This shift in the UDA’s focus during World War II underscores its significant influence on U.S. foreign policy, a lesser-known aspect of history that will surely enlighten the reader and deepen their understanding of this crucial period.
While patriotic Americans were focused on achieving victory in World War II, the UDA was strategically and astutely targeting the U.S. Congress. The UDA’s efforts were not in vain, as it garnered support from influential entities such as Time Magazine, Marshall Field’s left-wing PM paper, The New Republic magazine under Malcolm Cowley, Communist Party’s publications, the Daily Worker, and New Masses. The UDA’s active role in shaping U.S. policy during this critical period is a testament to its political insight and influence.
Louis Fraina, the temporary chairman of the first Communist convention in the Western Hemisphere in 1919, was a key figure behind the UDA. Fraina, also known as Lewis Corey, had a history of advocating for revolutionary propaganda and Communist principles. As the UDA’s research director, Fraina saw the organization as a vehicle for his Communist mission, supported by a core group of fellow travelers within the UDA. However, the UDA operated publicly with figures like James Loeb Jr., Reinhold Niebuhr, Joseph P. Lash, Robert Bendiner, and other well-known individuals, creating a united front of intellectuals, writers, and publicists of the left.
In its first five years, the UDA was so openly pro-Communist that it eventually outlived its usefulness as a front. While it had efficiently supported the Soviet Union during the war, it suffered a significant setback in the 1946 congressional elections when Republicans gained majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. This defeat was partly due to the Republicans’ criticism of Communist infiltration in various sectors.
On January 4, 1947, Reinhold Niebuhr convened over one hundred UDA members. This meeting and another two months led to the formation of Americans for Democratic Action. Among this group was the legendary lefty Walter Lipmann.
Americans for Democratic Action
The founders of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) wanted to give the impression that the UDA was defunct. However, the truth was that the UDA adopted a new name. When Niebuhr transitioned from the UDA to the ADA, he was joined by James Loeb Jr., Joseph P. Lash, Robert Bendiner, Nelson Cruikshank, Alfred Baker Lewis, Cornelia Pinchot, George L. P. Weaver, and others.
Walter Lippmann was a notable founder, often acclaimed as the “Dean of American Newspapermen.” His syndicated column appeared in over 300 newspapers, and his name on a book guaranteed it would become a best-seller. However, since 1940, his "scholarly" assessments of world affairs and reassuring evaluations of Communist intentions are now seen as quixotic rants. Lippmann was a longtime leftist. As a Harvard student, he joined the British Fabian Society in 1909, became president of the Harvard chapter of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society the same year, and was a close associate of Felix Frankfurter.
Lippmann rather consistently opposed any action to free the captive peoples behind the Iron Curtain. When the Hungarian Rebellion erupted in 1956, Lippmann was quick to caution against aid for the Freedom Fighters. In 1961, Lippmann, a long-time apologist for Castro, was shocked by the attempted invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and expressed relief when the try failed. In his May 2, 1961 column, Lippmann said:
Bad as have been the consequences of failure, they are probably less bad than would have been the indecisive partial success which was the best that could conceivably have been received.
Thirty-eight years after Walter Lippmann helped start the Intercollegiate Socialist Society chapter at Harvard, other influential editors, columnists, and Washington correspondents helped to found the ADA.
Among this left-wing group’s other media talking heads was Marquis Childs, Washington correspondent of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Child was widely syndicated, and he appeared regularly as a panelist on the TV news interview show “Meet the Press.” Others included the Alsop brothers, Joseph and Stewart, whose columns were used by many newspapers. They were also regular contributors to the Saturday Evening Post. Ken Crawford, a featured columnist in Newsweek magazine, was an ADA founder, as was James Wechsler, editor of the then left-wing New York Post.
In addition to Lipman and his cadre of fellow traveler press leaders, ADA’s other founders included union leaders, leftist “clergy,” and members or former members of Congress. Political figures included Eleanor Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr., among others. Among the academicians were John K. Galbraith and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Additionally, officials from various organizations, such as Walter White of the NAACP, Morris Ernst of the ACLU, and many other leftist luminaries, were also founders.
At its inception, ADA represented itself as an independent, “nonpartisan” political organization and an anti-Communist force on the left. In 1950, ADA’s Chairman Francis Biddle testified that ADA was largely founded to split the liberal movement from communist elements, which he believed had harmed the movement by allowing accusations of being fellow travelers. In 1962, ADA’s National Director Violet Gunther stated that ADA was founded to provide a political organization for anti-communist liberals. In 1965, ADA’s Director of Information Curtis B. Gans explained that ADA was formed as a non-Communist answer to the Progressive Party, opposing Henry Wallace and supporting Harry S. Truman.
However, ADA’s anti-Communist stance was a ruse. In 1950, President Sal Hoffmann of the Upholsterers Union resigned from the ADA national board, expressing doubts about ADA’s opposition to Communism in remote areas. In 1954, ADA’s attacks on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy led Republican Senator Everett M. Dirksen to criticize ADA, associating it with the Communist Party strongly. In 1958, Republican Representative Steven B. Derounian accused ADA of being morbidly fascinated by the USSR and overly critical of the United States. James Burnham’s articles in the National Review argued that ADA’s ideology supported internationalism, disarmament, peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union, and a welfare state, which undermined ADA’s anti-Communist claims.
ADA’s domestic programs have paralleled Marxist and Socialist measures, advocating for compulsory health insurance, federal control of prices, wages, and rents, massive federal subsidies for education and housing, and presidential power to modify tax rates and expenditures. Regarding internal security, ADA called for the abolition of anti-subversive statutes and defended the rights of Communists on campuses. It has supported civil rights activists, proposing legislation to address unfinished business enforcing civil rights acts. ADA’s foreign policy has often been anti-anti-Communist, advocating for diplomatic recognition and support for Communist countries while opposing aid to anti-Communist regimes.
ADA is an openly partisan organ, as it supports Democratic candidates and recruits leaders from the Democratic, Socialist, and Liberal parties. Its success can be attributed to the political experience of its officers, close ties with organized labor, and influential press support. Contrast that to the onslaught by the media that goes to great lengths to “expose” conservative outfits for the same things. That is called projection.
ADA has played a significant role in presidential elections, supporting candidates like Harry S. Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Hubert Humphrey. Members have held influential positions in various administrations, contributing to ADA’s salty success as a political organization. It continues its mission as a progressive advocacy organization that promotes social justice, civil rights, and economic equality. The organization remains actively involved in today’s trendy collectivist activities in these key areas:
Resisting Trump: ADA opposes policies and actions taken by the Trump administration that undermine “democracy,” civil rights, and social justice. This includes resistance to executive orders and legislative measures, which they see as “harmful.” Get a life.2
Courts: ADA advocates for a fair and impartial judiciary. They oppose judicial appointments they believe are ideologically extreme and support the confirmation of judges committed to upholding civil rights, social justice, and constitutional protections. Of course, in the pickled brains of ADA leadership, anything truly Constitutional is extreme!
Institutional Racism: ADA aims to combat systemic racism in all its forms. This includes advocating for policies that address racial disparities in criminal justice, education, housing, and employment. They support initiatives that promote racial equity and justice. “Equal,” ea? Will ADA fight for my lost right to wear a T-shirt proclaiming my heritage?
Democracy and Governance: ADA, in its quixotic view, works to strengthen “democratic” institutions and processes. They advocate for campaign finance reform, protecting voting rights, and ensuring transparency and accountability in government. Dumbocracy!
Education: ADA supports policies that ensure equitable access to quality education for all, from early childhood through higher education. They advocate for increased funding for public schools, affordable college education, and student debt relief. Barf!
Wages and Jobs: ADA supports policies that ensure fair wages, safe working conditions, and job security. They advocate for raising the minimum wage, strengthening labor rights, and promoting job creation through investments in infrastructure, education, and clean energy. Nannystate!
Health Care for All: ADA endorses a universal health care system that provides comprehensive and affordable care for all individuals. They support expanding Medicare, reducing prescription drug costs, and ensuring access to “quality” healthcare services regardless of income or pre-existing conditions. BigPharma!
ADA continues this smoky grassroots organizing, lobbying, and crummy coalition-building to advance these priorities. It works with other putrid progressive organizations, lawmakers, and activists to create and support policies aligning with its social and economic justice mission. ADA strives to influence public policy and promote a more “just and equitable” society through education, advocacy, and mobilization.
It is worth noting that the ADA website lacks an LGBTQ+ advocacy section. Quick, get on the horn to the Southern Poverty Law Center to get them placed on the “hate map.” Contrast ADA to The Pungently Progressive Institute for Policy Studies, which has a nifty stylized rainbow on its homepage.
Conclusion
The antics of the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) can be seen as emblematic of a broader trend among progressive organizations that prioritize idealistic and sometimes impractical policy goals over pragmatic solutions. The ADA’s staunch advocacy for expansive government intervention and social welfare programs clashes with the truly good principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty.
The domestic goals of the ADA include total state control of the nation’s economic life through applying the theories of the British Fabian economist John Maynard Keynes. An end to loyalty checks for federal employees, elimination of loyalty oaths for students on government scholarships, and a halt to Congressional investigations of Communist activities constitute some of the ADA’s founding ideology.
In concert with the Fabians, the ADA’s platform calls for extensive social programs and regulatory measures that undermine personal responsibility and self-reliance, core tenets of a thriving society. It is easy to realize that such policies lead to an overreliance on government assistance, stifling economic growth and innovation by placing undue burdens on businesses and taxpayers.
Furthermore, the ADA’s focus on issues like wealth redistribution fosters a divisive class warfare narrative and implementation of economically detrimental regulations. ADA’s history of strong opposition to classical liberalism and policies also exemplifies a deeply entrenched partisan mindset. Instead of fostering dialogue and compromise, its approach demonizes opposing viewpoints and stifles constructive debate.
In summary, the antics of the ADA represent a broader ideological struggle between progressive idealism and time-tested building blocks of a safe and thriving society. Today, there is inflation, unimaginable debt, and rising crime. The ADA’s advocacy for expansive government intervention and progressive social policies is fundamentally at odds with the vision of a free-market economy, limited government, and individual liberty.
Bottom line: “Democratic” is a euphemism for collectivism of every stripe imaginable under the sun. 📕
Puff Piece Parting Shot
Get the barf bag ready.
Now, it’s time to replenish the stock of those bags.
Sources
Frederick R. Smith Library
A Biographical Dictionary of the Left - Volume 1 ~ Francis X. Gannon, 617 pages, Western Islands, 1969
None Dare Call It Treason - 25 Years Later ~ John F. Stormer, 625 pages, Liberty Bell Press, 1990
Online
I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Tips are appreciated, too. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!
This footnote was added to the essay post-publication to respond to several salient comments about the “election deniers” term used by the ADA. The lack of analysis of that term seems to have made the essay unresponsive to that important issue. Thank you all for bringing that to my attention.
The term “election denier” is a pejorative used by leftists to fabricate a straw man to divert attention from the matter at hand: election fraud. It is the quintessential example of hypocrisy as it was a “serious matter” when Hillary Clinton, Stacy Abrams, and Al Gore claimed election fraud. Legacy media never called them “election deniers.” Today, we only hear when “Republicans” are found guilty (trumped up, that is) of fraud. We rarely see any alternative stories in lazy legacy media.
See footnote No. 1.
Footnote added:
This footnote was added to the essay post-publication to respond to several salient comments about the “election deniers” term used by the ADA. The lack of analysis of that term seems to have made the essay unresponsive to that important issue. Thank you all for bringing that to my attention.
The term “election denier” is a pejorative used by leftists to fabricate a straw man to divert attention from the matter at hand: election fraud. It is the quintessential example of hypocrisy as it was a “serious matter” when Hillary Clinton, Stacy Abrams, and Al Gore claimed election fraud. Legacy media never called them “election deniers.” Today, we only hear when “Republicans” are found guilty (trumped up, that is) of fraud. We rarely see any alternative stories in lazy legacy media.
They are the denier deniers!