A Critique of Dudziak’s Cold War Civil Rights.

Introduction.

In Cold War Civil war, Dudziak tries to account for the Civil Right Reform in post World War II America by arguing that the Cold War was a major influence of these reforms. By arguing that the Cold War indirectly led to Civil Rights reforms, Dudziak claims that her analysis is not supposed to replace, or undermine the role played by other domestic factors; however, a premise implicit in Dudziak’s historical narrative is the idea that American political motivations in domestic matters are always sensitive to America’s long-term international interest. That is on Dudziak’s view, American administrations always try to tailor their domestic policies in way that: (1) safeguard America’s image abroad and (2) help America’s international interest. This paper tries to illustrate some of the problems with Dudziak’s narrative. That is, it is not always clear that America acts in ways that are conducive for their long-term international interest. The Vietnam War is clearly an example of an instance in which America engaged in policies that directly undermined her international image as well as her long-term international interest. Even if we grant Dudziak the premise that the modus operandi of American policy is to act in ways that are beneficial to America’s long-term interest, the burden of proof will still be on Dudziak to explain-away events that do not fit her model—like the Vietnam War. The fact that America decided to invade Vietnam despite the foreseeable harm that the invasion will have on her foreign policy is a fact that anyone sympathetic to Dudziak’s argument must explain.
Setting up the Stage: Civil Rights Reform and the Cold War.
In his seminal 1946 speech Winston Churchill proclaims the beginning of what is now called the Cold War with the following word, “[f]rom Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an Iron curtain has descended across the World”(Modern History sourcebook). The Cold War will last from Churchill’s speech to the fall of the Berlin War in November of 1989 and during this period tensions between the communist nations led by Russia and capitalist/democratic regimes of the west almost led the world to a full blown nuclear war— like in the Bay of Pigs Affair. In Cold War Civil Rights, Dudziak explore the influences of the Cold War on Civil Rights reform by suggesting that “[t]he need to address international criticism[ about the inadequacies of American democracy] gave the federal government an incentive to promote social change at home”(Dudziak, p.12). Implicit in Dudziak’s arguments is something like the following model:
Domestic event + international pressure = reform; where reform is amenable to international pressure (my formalization of Dudziak’s argument)[1]

i) Dudziak’s Model at work in cold war civil war.

In Cold War Civil war Dudziak’s presents her argument according to the model outlined above that is, first she presents a domestic event and then she present the international reaction to the event and finally she shows how the international pressure forced the government to undertake social reforms that always accommodated the critics of America. To see Dudziak’s model at work consider the following domestic event: The 1946, lynching of Blacks in the south. This event was criticized by the Fiji time and China tribune reports and ultimately President Truman meet NAACP and promises to pass civil rights reform — a move that ultimately split the DNC, as the Southerners created the States’ Rights Party and choose Strum Thurman as their candidate. Similarly she argues that in McLaurin v. Oklahoma (1948), the Supreme Court warned the state attorney general that “these kind of segregation affected America image abroad” (Dudziak, p.98-99). To further illustration the effectiveness of Dudziak’s model, consider the 1958 incidence involving Jimmy Wilson a handyman from Alabama given the death sentence for stealing less than a dollar in change. The international pressure surrounding this event came from the following sources:

1) Canadian judges wrote a petition to the Governor of Alabama, James Folsom
2) Italian newspaper L’UNITA called it “a new unprecedented low in American segregation”
3) Hulda Omreit a Housewife from Norway wrote a petition to the Governor of Alabama (Dudziak).

Dudziak goes on to argue that it was as a result of the international pressure that the governor of Alabama James Folsom was forced to grant Wilson Clemency. Similarly she argues that in 1961 Kennedy’s active involvement in African matters such as the independence of Algeria, was largely an attempt to improve American bilateral relationships with Africa in the aftermath of an incident surrounding the newly appointed Ambassador of Chad Malick Sow. (Dudziak, p.153). So far I have showed how Dudziak argues for her thesis that international pressure played a crucial role in bringing about
Civil Rights reform in America during the Cold War. What follows provide evidence in support of my argument that Dudziak’s model of explanation breaks down, because it cannot be used to explain American policies in other Cold War events like the Vietnam War.
The Nature of the American Political Motivation and the change it produces.

Historically American has never been known as a country that yields to international pressure contrary to what Dudziak want us to belief. Although Dudziak gives compelling reason to explain why the Cold War played a major role in bringing about Civil Rights reform, it seems as thought her argument rely on the premise that American domestic policies are highly influenced by international pressure. However, the claim that U.S. domestic politics is sensitive to international pressure could not be established by fiat, nor could it be established by looking at a couple of historical events during the Cold war. Rather, one needs to examine other historical events in order to establish that as a general principles America would always engage in the course of action that is most suitable to her international interest. That is, Dudziak’s thesis will loose its intuitive appeal if further analysis of the Cold War reveals evidence suggesting that America made decision that undermined her long-term geopolitical interest. That is, if one could successfully show that in at least one instances American has made political decisions that jeopardizes their foreign politics then Dudziak would have to show why her theory for explaining American political motivation works for only a carefully selected set of events but fails to account or other event.
The Vietnam War is used in this paper to show contra Dudziak that, American often takes decisions which are contrary to her long-term international interest even in light of international pressure. In June of 1965, USIA Director Carl Rowan’s daily briefing suggested that “[i]ncreasing U.S. involvement in Vietnam brings growing editorial concern and divided opinion, some of it strongly critical” (National security Files, Kennedy library). The Johnson Administration’s increased its involvement in Vietnam despite the fact that America’s daily involvement in Vietnam threatened to undermine domestic Civil Rights reform. According to Dudziak’s model, one would have expected the Johnson Administration to withdraw from Vietnam due to growing international pressure along with the domestic unrest brought by the war. Thus, despite its initial appeal Dudziak’s model for understanding the motivations of American policies is far too simplistic. The problem seems to be that Dudziak fails to appreciate all the complexities underlying the political motivations of any government. As a result one gets a very static and monolithic view if U.S. political motivation.
One could object to my criticism of Cold War Civil Right, by arguing that Dudziak is not making any normative claims about American political motivation and that she is simple giving a descriptive account of historic events. I response to this objection to my critique of Dudziak by arguing that there is no such thing as “ purely descriptive claim,” because descriptive claims always entail normative implication. That is, by describing how subsequent U.S. administrations responded to international pressure, Dudziak is ultimately claiming that American policy is sensitive to international pressure as a matter of fact. Unfortunately we have found at least one instance (i.e. the Vietnam War) in which American policy did not show this sensitivity to international pressure. So the burden of proof is on Dudziak to explain why her model is not successful in explaining U.S. political motivations in Vietnam.


References
1) Dudziak L.Mary, “Cold War Civil War”
2) Kennedy Library online at http://www.jfklibrary.org/
3) Modern History sourcebook online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html

[1] Note that Dudziak presents no formal argument in her book so this formal rendition of her argument is my attempt to clearly articulation some of her unstated premises. This is, her historical narrative operates under a certain model according to which domestic events plus international pressure always led to a social reform; whereby, the reforms were always meant to silence international critics of America. In what follows I will illustrate how Dudziak makes use of this model to advance her thesis by showing how the model works in a good number of domestic events that took place during the cold war. However I will show how the model breaks down when applied to the war in Vietnam.