The Obligations We Inherit

By Grant Gillinger

“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never know” is one of my favorite Greek proverbs. In my relatively short life, I have always been fascinated by the study of history because it seeks to explain and contextualize the world around us. We examine the past actions of our fellow citizens and human beings across continents and eras, each with their own cultural cornerstones and zeitgeists which build into the next. Generations of Americans, including my own, have grown up in the comfortable shade of these trees that were planted, built upon, and improved by those who came before us. They come in many forms, such as institutions or standards of living. Our lives are spent dominated by these best efforts to build on the loftiest ideals that invigorated the hearts of the statesmen and women of the past. They, like their forebears, were all inspired by the same thing: obligations that they inherited by virtue of having been born. These obligations are duties, steeped in morality, that we owe to our communities and every member within them. They are all informed by our history as a species and as a country to constantly rectify the mistakes of the past and expand the rights and liberties that citizens should enjoy. They require sacrifice and hard work, often at the cost of individualistic desires and monetary gain. But they are always inspiring to learn about after the deeds are done. And yet today the narrative has changed and our cultural cornerstone has moved away from building a brighter future for those who will follow us. Instead, the majority of Americans have chosen the path of division and lies that will consume our government and society for the foreseeable future. The deterioration of our ideals has sent us teetering on the tightrope between advancement and stagnation as more and more we choose to forget or ignore the obligations that we have inherited. It is only natural for me to turn to history to find solace and courage. While there are so many stories and famous moments from our collective memories, there is one forgotten moment and individual that encompasses that proverb of building something better for a future that they would never see.

This favorite example also comes from one of the darkest moments in human history. The Second World War was the culmination of a multitude of factors, one of the most prominent being the failure of the League of Nations to be an effective system of resolving world disputes and unifying international coalitions. The League was almost immediately handicapped when the United States, the nation that recommended its creation, did not join because a cadre of isolationist Republican and Democratic Senators defeated the treaty ratifying the United States’ admission. In the years that followed, unprecedented economic growth under nominally isolationist Republican administrations engrained isolationism as a mainstay. When World War II first broke out in Europe, a majority of the American people were against any intervention, including sending aid to the beleaguered Allies. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration believed that, for moral and practical reasons, the United States would eventually be dragged into the war. The issue became more pressing after the fall of France to Nazi Germany in June 1940, leaving the British Isles as the last bastion of freedom fighting in Europe. At the very least it was prudent to send aid in the form of food, fuel, ammunition, and materials that could keep the increasingly fraying British war machine alive. The idea of sending anything was met with immediate backlash by the isolationist Republicans, hoping to capitalize on the anti-interventionist sentiment they saw within the country. Since 1933 they had been in the minority in all sectors of government and saw Roosevelt’s sympathy for the Allies as a possible attack tool. Never mind that the same isolationists had been proven wrong after each European appeasement effort failed; never mind that Nazi discrimination, war crimes, and anti-democratic streak went against the fiber of every ideal that the United States stood for. This was a European conflict with no direct influence on America, so it should be left entirely to the Europeans. 

Going into the 1940 Republican National Convention, it seemed likely that the nominee would be an isolationist, and therefore, the main issue of the entire election season would be over aid to the Allies. The Convention opened just two days after the French surrender and most of the candidates emphasized their opposition to any military involvement in Europe, hoping that a race to the bottom on the isolationist issue would increase their chances. Instead, a dark horse candidate and complete anathema to the isolationist leaders of the Republican Party would take the convention by storm and an unstoppable momentum would sweep the delegates into handing him the nomination on the sixth ballot. Wendell L. Willkie was an unusual candidate to take on Roosevelt in his historic third presidential run. The Midwesterner was a business leader, had volunteered for the Army when the United States entered World War I, and most shockingly, had been a staunch Democrat until 1939. He had made a name for himself opposing the Tennessee Valley Authority but supported the objective of lowering power costs and expanding access across rural areas. However, he was also an internationalist who was supportive of military aid to the Allies and increased cooperation with democracies against the authoritarians of the world.

A pressing issue on American preparedness was the start of a peacetime draft. As a Roosevelt-backed proposal, and one with an already tenuous path to passage in Congress, the eyes of the nation were on nominee Willkie and if he would come out in support of or against the bill. It would have been incredibly easy and prudent for Willkie to come out against the draft in that it would repair ties with the isolationist Republican heavyweights. Willkie knew that by coming out against it he might earn political points, but believed a draft was in the best interest of the nation. He understood that the Nazis in Germany, the fascists in Italy, and the imperialists in Japan could not be negotiated with and inevitably the United States would face the precipice of intervention. So, when that precipice came, the United States needed to be prepared to defend democracy on the world stage. It was a matter of principle, and even though it was unpopular with Republican leaders, Willkie believed it was necessary. In his first campaign speech, he came out in support of the draft and any other aid to the Allies that the Roosevelt Administration would recommend. The effects of this were immediate and positive for American preparedness.

Even though they controlled Congress, many Democratic Senators and Representatives were at risk of losing their reelections if the issue was primarily one of isolation versus intervention. They would not vote for preparedness unless the Republican nominee gave them coverage, so by coming out in support, preparedness was no longer a campaign issue. Instead, it was a bipartisan and necessary measure for national defense. The rest of the campaign showed Willkie’s unwillingness to attack the Administration on issues of preparedness and increased cooperation with the Allies because he recognized that it was the right thing to do. With no legitimate isolationist candidate in the 1940 election, the United States gained valuable time to prepare the nation for the War that would change the world, and place the United States in a position of global leadership.

After the election, Willkie was still the nominal “leader” of the Republican Party and fully intended to use his tenure to be an effective loyal opposition in such a time of crisis. Immediately after the third inauguration of Roosevelt, Willkie was personally asked to be an official envoy to Winston Churchill on a fact-finding mission to the war-torn United Kingdom. On his immediate return from London, Willkie, still wearing his wrinkled suit from four days of travel, testified to Congress on the importance of passing the Lend-Lease Act which would make it easier to support the near-bankrupt Allies with military equipment. He was instrumental in getting the Act passed, again at the behest of the isolationists that ran rife within the Republican Party. Days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Willkie met with Roosevelt to have lunch at the White House to discuss more ways they could unify the country against their common foe. This action alone would have been incredibly relieving for an American public so paranoid and shaken by the events of December 7th. There are many more examples from the War of Willkie acting as the model of how a loyal opposition should act in a time of crisis. For the greater good of the country and the entire world, he set aside partisan struggles and possible political victory to do what was necessary to help win the war, defeat fascism, and fulfill his inherited obligations to the world. He had the individual courage to do this all while angry old party loyalists and isolationists fumed and schemed on how to push this “outsider” from party leadership. For all his hard work, Willkie would be defeated in the 1944 Wisconsin primary, ending his run to keep the Republican nomination. 

It is important at any time, but especially in dangerous times of crisis, for leaders to have individual courage and a firm grasp of our inherited obligations. Willkie’s example shows how much good an individual can do for the entire country, but it also shows the personal and professional risks that come from standing up for these sacred principles. He had the courage to take the unpopular stance because he knew that in the world’s most dire hour of need, the United States needed to have a united front. He chose to fulfill our inherited obligations by taking a stand that would help defeat tyranny and expand liberty. Wendell Willkie would die in October 1944, but the seeds for a brighter future he planted would grow into idealistic organizations like the United Nations and normalize internationalism with a focus on human rights in American politics. He would never see the shade that his efforts gave to generations of people across the world. Like many other parts of American history, Willkie’s story is largely forgotten today. 

I began this essay with a discussion of why history fascinates me, but my reasoning that it contextualizes our modern world is only half of it. I believe that history is the synthesis of being absolutely astounded by the expanse of human courage and kindness and being absolutely disgusted with the equivalent margin of human capability to destroy and cause harm. It is up to us to learn from the right examples that history presents us with and to cast down those that are outdated and do not serve the common good. As much as we like to ignore, deflect, or forget about it, ours is a world in crisis. In the past few years, global sentiment has turned away from the Western consensus that espoused the ideals of global democracy, cooperation, and liberalization. However, in fairness, these ideals have begun to lose their shine with the deterioration of individual standards of living across the globe and an erosion of hope. Is this because those ideals are wrong? Or is it because after the end of the Cold War, we became entranced and fell for the “end of history” myth. We expected that because of our forebears' struggles, bravery, and courage, the long march of progress would continue unimpeded with or without our efforts. This philosophy has been proven to be faulty. We must defend democracy at home and abroad. We must give aid to those besieged countries in need. We must be able to effectively respond to the greatest crisis that our species will ever see, the impending peril of climate change. We must have the courage and strength to do these things even though they are issues not of our own making. We must fulfill our sacred obligation to build a better world. I encourage those who feel distraught by the state of our Union to remember those who have sacrificed everything to maintain our country and humanity. They too were inspired by the lessons from history and chose to uphold their inherited obligations. We cannot be indifferent. We cannot be cynical. Our lives, and the lives of our children, depend on it.

Featured Image: Geekstreet