In recognizing the relation between gender, race, and class oppression, American women of the postwar Progressive Party made the claim that peace required not merely the absence of violence, but also the presence of social and political equality. For progressive women, peace was the essential thread that connected the various aspects of their activist agendas. This study maps the routes taken by postwar popular front women activists into peace and freedom movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Historian Jacqueline Castledine tells the story of their decades-long effort to keep their intertwined social and political causes from unraveling and to maintain the connections among peace, feminism, and racial equality. Postwar progressive women and their allies often saw themselves as members of a popular front promoting the rights of workers, women, and African Americans under the banner of peace. However, the Cold War indelibly shaped the contours of their activism. Following the Progressive Party's demise in the 1950s, these activists reentered social and political movements in the early 1960s and met the inescapable reality that their agenda was a casualty of the left-liberal political division of the early Cold War era. Many Americans now viewed peace as a leftist concern associated with Soviet sympathizers and civil rights as the favored cause of liberals. Faced with the dilemma of working to reunite these movements or choosing between them, some progressive women chose to lead such New Left organizations as the Jeannette Rankin Brigade while others became leaders of liberal "second wave" feminist movements. Whether they committed to affiliating with groups that emphasized one issue over others or attempted to found groups with broad popular-front type agendas, Progressive women brought to their later work an understanding of how race, class, and gender intersect in women's organizing. These women's stories demonstrate that the ultimate result of Cold War-era McCarthyism was not the defeat of women's activism, but rather its reconfiguration.

In the decades following World War II, American liberals had a vision for the world. Their ambitions would not stop at the water’s edge: progressive internationalism, they believed, could help peoples everywhere achieve democracy, prosperity, and freedom. Chastened in part by the failures of these grand aspirations, in recent years liberals and the Left have retreated from such idealism. Today, as a beleaguered United States confronts a series of crises, does the postwar liberal tradition offer any useful lessons for American engagement with the world? The historian Leon Fink examines key cases of progressive influence on postwar U.S. foreign policy, tracing the tension between liberal aspirations and the political realities that stymie them. From the reconstruction of post-Nazi West Germany to the struggle against apartheid, he shows how American liberals joined global allies in pursuit of an expansive political, social, and economic vision. Even as liberal internationalism brought such successes to the world, it also stumbled against domestic politics or was blind to the contradictions in capitalist development and the power of competing nationalist identities. A diplomatic history that emphasizes the roles of social class, labor movements, race, and grassroots activism, Undoing the Liberal World Order suggests new directions for a progressive American foreign policy.

In this startling, intensively researched book, bestselling historian Paul Kengor shines light on a deeply troubling aspect of American history: the prominent role of the "dupe." From the Bolshevik Revolution through the Cold War and right up to the present, many progressives have unwittingly aided some of America's most dangerous opponents. Based on never-before-published FBI files, Soviet archives, and other primary sources, Dupes exposes the legions of liberals who have furthered the objectives of America's adversaries. Kengor shows not only how such dupes contributed to history's most destructive ideology—Communism, which claimed at least 100 million lives—but also why they are so relevant to today's politics.

Some of today’s premier experts on Woodrow Wilson contribute to this new collection of essays about the former statesman, portraying him as a complex, even paradoxical president. Reconsidering Woodrow Wilson reveals a person who was at once an international idealist, a structural reformer of the nation’s economy, and a policy maker who was simultaneously accommodating, indifferent, resistant, and hostile to racial and gender reform. Wilson’s progressivism is discussed in chapters by biographer John Milton Cooper and historians Trygve Throntveit and W. Elliot Brownlee. Wilson’s philosophy about race and nation is taken up by Gary Gerstle, and his gender politics discussed by Victoria Bissel Brown. The seeds of Wilsonianism are considered in chapters by Mark T. Gilderhus on Wilson’s Latin American diplomacy and war; Geoffrey R. Stone on Wilson’s suppression of seditious speech; and Lloyd Ambrosius on entry into World War I. Emily S. Rosenberg and Frank Ninkovich explore the impact of Wilson’s internationalism on capitalism and diplomacy; Martin Walker sets out the echoes of Wilson’s themes in the cold war; and Anne-Marie Slaughter suggests how Wilson might view the promotion of liberal democracy today. These essays were originally written for a celebration of Wilson’s 150th birthday sponsored by the official national memorial to Wilson—the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars—in collaboration with the Woodrow Wilson House. That daylong symposium examined some of the most important and controversial areas of Wilson’s political life and presidency.

In this timely book, American Marxism: How a New Cold War Drives the Progressives' Agenda, author William Reeves takes a close look at the history of Marxism. It examines the evolution of socialism, how it was refined over the course of several decades by neo-Marxists from an economic theory to a social science to a political and cultural path to power. It highlights how today's progressives--who have overtaken Liberals in setting the agenda for the American Left--have used Cultural Marxism to construct a divisive and hypocritical platform that flies in the face of every ideal put forth by our Founding Fathers.Learn more about how the tenants of Marxism have been rebranded as progressivism, and how this tired and failed philosophy has enveloped a far left that is bent on the destruction of America. Discover what this toxic ideology means for the future of our country and how this movement is used by those in the arts, the media and academia to negatively influence what American's can and should believe about our nation. By discussing both the history of Marxism and how it is being applied by the leftist political movement in an effort to win the hearts and minds of Americans, we can better understand the intentions of their agenda and develop counter measures to expose it. William Reeves holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in urban studies and a Master of Arts degree in economics. He has enjoyed a lengthy career as a public policy and government relations consultant, writer and educator and lives with his family in Southern California.

Shortly after the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, Hannah Arendt quipped that "only in America could a crisis in education actually become a factor in politics." The Cold War battle for the American school - dramatized but not initiated by Sputnik - proved Arendt correct. The schools served as a battleground in the ideological conflicts of the 1950s. Beginning with the genealogy of progressive education, and ending with the formation of New Left and New Right thought, Education and the Cold War offers a fresh perspective on the postwar transformation in U.S. political culture by way of an examination of the educational history of that era.

In the presidential campaign of 1948, Henry Wallace set out to challenge the conventional wisdom of his time, blaming the United States, instead of the Soviet Union, for the Cold War, denouncing the popular Marshall Plan, and calling for an end to segregation. In addition, he argued that domestic fascism--rather than international communism--posed the primary threat to the nation. He even welcomed Communists into his campaign, admiring their commitment to peace. Focusing on what Wallace himself later considered his campaign's most important aspect, the troubled relationship between non-Communist progressives like himself and members of the American Communist Party, Thomas W. Devine demonstrates that such an alliance was not only untenable but, from the perspective of the American Communists, undesirable. Rather than romanticizing the political culture of the Popular Front, Devine provides a detailed account of the Communists' self-destructive behavior throughout the campaign and chronicles the frustrating challenges that non-Communist progressives faced in trying to sustain a movement that critiqued American Cold War policies and championed civil rights for African Americans without becoming a sounding board for pro-Soviet propaganda.