Can you feel the joy yet? The whole week after the announcement on Aug. 6 about the selection of Kamala Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has been a joy fest within the Democratic Party not seen since the days when Franklin D. Roosevelt wowed the press corps. What with pundits declaring Harris and Walz “happy warriors,” you would think “Happy Days Are Here Again,” as FDR’s 1932 presidential campaign theme song blared out constantly.
The Washington Post headline was “Harris and Walz seize on joyful message in contrast to darker Trump themes.” Jennifer Rubin exulted Walz’s “happy-warrior vibe” at the first joint rally in Philadelphia.
At The New York Times, Charles Blow called Walz “the epitome of the happy warrior,” “the dad figure,” “the soldier,” “the coach.” Tom Elliott at Grabien captured nine utterances of “happy warrior” by pundits on TV. And Harris’ laughter has been measured and shown to be four times greater than Biden’s was on the campaign trail!
The New York Times Belabors the Joy
Times reporter Katie Rogers in her Aug. 9 “analysis” offered that at one time Harris, given the criticism by conservatives, “wondered to confidants whether she should laugh, or show a sense of humor, at all.” They reassured her that she should. Yet, even as she “focused on issues like abortion rights and worked to bolster her foreign policy chops,” the “laughter never really left her.”
It was a good thing, for “joy — a battle-tested version of it — has become the backbone of Ms. Harris’s campaign in recent days,” and her running mate, “a walking bear hug,” is trying “to strike a contrast with what he casts as the gloomy vision of former President Donald J. Trump and other Republicans,” according to Rogers.
Walz said in Detroit, “The one thing I will not forgive [the Republicans] for is they try to steal the joy from this country.” But the “next president … emanates the joy.”
Rogers noted that in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted the song “‘Happy Days Are Here Again’ to offer a promise of a bright future to Americans stricken by the Great Depression.” She did not note that the reality failed to match up to the theme song, as the Depression dragged on longer than for most other countries until industry geared up for World War II, which Roosevelt was as eager to get the country into as he had been for World War I during his stint as assistant secretary of the Navy, as I reveal in my book, Debunking FDR: The Man and the Myths.
FDR Didn’t Like the Term ‘Happy Warrior’
More analogies were made to the mythical FDR (a favorite comparison during Barack Obama’s campaign). Bill Kristol, with co-author Andrew Egger at the Bulwark, waxed on about their appearance with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro in Philadelphia. “They were happy warriors,” a term “introduced to modern American politics by Franklin Roosevelt, who lifted it from Wordsworth to describe Al Smith — but Smith prevailed neither in the fight for the nomination in 1924, when FDR bestowed the moniker on him in his nominating speech, nor in the general election in 1928.”
But it turns out that Walz, though he is “happy,” was not the “warrior” he claimed to be in Iraq, having quit the unit he had been trained to lead before he could be deployed into battle. Since his run for Congress, the ostensible reason for retiring from the National Guard, Walz has been misrepresenting his military record.
Kristol and Egger get the history wrong. In fact, it was Judge Joseph M. Proskauer, an advisor to Al Smith, who inserted the phrase into the speech written by others, as the path-breaking Roosevelt-scholar and Harvard University professor Frank Freidel notes.
Roosevelt objected to the line about the “happy warrior.” He thought it was “too poetic” for “a gang of delegates” and wrote a new draft of the speech. Proskauer did not like it. Nor did Herbert Swope, managing editor of the New York World. Without knowing the authors, Swope, according to Proskauer, threw Roosevelt’s speech down in disgust and called Proskauer’s “the greatest nominating speech since Cleveland was nominated by Bryan.” After Proskauer, speaking for Smith, gave him an ultimatum to use his text or not give the speech, FDR gave in, predicting it would be “a flop.”
Roosevelt was wrong, of course. The June 27, 1924, New York Times headline stated, “Roosevelt Offers Name of Gov. Smith / Declares He Would Restore Executive Prestige and Faith in the Government / Calls Him ‘Happy Warrior.’” When he was later asked how he came up with “that wonderful idea of the happy warrior,” Roosevelt had replied that he had written the speech and gave it to Proskauer, who approved it. But Roosevelt thought that it needed “a phrase” to give it “punch.” When Proskauer suggested, “Why don’t you call Al the happy warrior?” Roosevelt had agreed and “stuck it in.”
FDR Liked to Twist History
This was just one of the innumerable cases of Roosevelt’s twisting of history and taking credit for the work of others. Other whoppers included the claim in his 1932 acceptance speech to have had “Navy training,” which he attributed to helping him get through turbulence in a plane on the way to the Democratic Convention. Roosevelt had been assistant secretary of the Navy, an administrative and ceremonial position. He was never in the Navy to receive Navy training.
Another analogy to the earlier Democrat is appropriate. While Roosevelt seemed to exude warmth and optimism, his treatment of those closest to him revealed something darker, as his attorney general, Francis Biddle, a fellow alum from Groton Preparatory School, revealed in his memoirs.
FDR was “intuitive of a man’s weaknesses,” Biddle wrote. He “loved to tease.” It was “genial” but also “an edged and acid weapon, never far from his hand.” When Roosevelt “felt in that particular mood,” he pointed the weapon “with a prick of torment, and went to the essence of a man … Occasionally he could not resist yielding to such an impulse when he knew that the other was emotionally defenseless … I saw him wound members of his entourage …”
Kamala Off-Camera
Laughing and smiling Kamala seems to similarly be quite different when not in front of the camera. Her toxic work environment resulted in an “unprecedented” 92 percent staff turnover, her former employees say.
All the happy talk surrounding the Harris-Walz campaign is to cover up misery, just like Soviet propaganda about happy farm and factory workers covered up compulsory labor and starvation. They may have been happy days for Roosevelt and the advisors and bureaucrats who swelled Washington, D.C., but they were not for the legions of unemployed.
We should be wary about such myths as the “happy warrior” and “happy days.” Given their records, the future under Harris-Walz is no laughing matter.
