I also posted this to /r/rhomeworkhelp, but I'm thinking I might get a better answer here. I'm a high school student.
So, I'm reading the Novikov Telegram for a history essay I have to write, and I got to this one paragraph that is really confusing me.
"Right now US foreign policy is not being determined by those circles of the Democratic Party which (as when Roosevelt was alive) try to strengthen cooperation between the three great powers which composed the basis of the anti-Hitler coalition during the war. When President Truman, a politically unstable person with certain conservative tendencies, came to power followed by the appointment of Byrnes as Secretary of State it meant the strengthening of the influence of the most reactionary circles of the Democratic Party on foreign policy. The constantly increasing reactionary nature of US foreign policy, which as a consequence of this approached the policy advocated by the Republican Party, has created a foundation for close cooperation in this area between the extreme right wing of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This cooperation of the two parties, formalized in both houses of Congress in the form of an unofficial bloc of reactionary Southern Democrats and the old guard of the Republicans headed by Vandenberg and Taft, is especially clearly demonstrated in the fact that in their statements about foreign policy issues the leaders of both parties are essentially advocating the same policy. In Congress and at international conferences where as a rule prominent Republicans are represented in American delegations the latter actively support the foreign policy of the government, and often due to this the above [policy], moreover even in official statements of "bipartisan" foreign policy." I know the context - the author is talking about how America would view Soviet influence in Eastern Europe as a threat to American expansionism. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what he's trying to say in this paragraph. I'm also a bit confused on the specification between democrats and republicans. It refers to the extreme right-wing of the democrat party, but by this point, isn't the democratic party the more leftist party? Is this me misunderstanding, a misunderstanding by Novikov, or a general Soviet view that all American politicans are far-right? Why are southern democrats brought up in this case?
Thank you.
Internal American politics is not my area of expertise but Novikov's analysis does have a logic to it. Keep in mind that this is before the civil rights era and Nixon's 'southern strategy'. There existed a large caucus of 'Southern Democrats' who were significantly to the right on topics such as civil rights, anti-communism and foreign policy.
The context for this, and the reason for the Soviet Ambassador noting it, is Truman's foreign policy. This married a rather alarmist view of Soviet foreign policy (sparked by Kennan's famous 'long telegram', to which Novikov's was a response) with a massive extension of US power throughout the world. This was a confrontational approach that committed the US to a policy of 'containing' the USSR across the globe.
Hence the importance of the paragraph that follows the above:
At the same time, there has been a decline in the influence on foreign policy of those who follow Roosevelt's course for cooperation among peace-loving countries. Such persons in the government, in Congress, and in the leadership of the Democratic party are being pushed farther and farther into the background... Wallace's resignation means the victory of the reactionary course that Byrnes is conducting in cooperation with Vandenberg and Taft.
This is Novikov noting that those figures who would have supported a more cooperative approach to US-Soviet relations have been sidelined or marginalised. Instead of the older 'Democratic' policies of collaboration, Truman is relying on the 'bipartisan'* support of Republicans and the more reactionary Democrats to develop an anti-Soviet foreign policy.
Again, I can't comment on how accurate Novikov's reading of Congressional politics is. I do think though that his analysis of US foreign policy is rather more realistic and persuasive than his counterpart Kennan's 'long telegram'.
*Part of the confusion might come from the idea that 'bipartisanship' is a uniformly positive thing. That is not always the case
Edit: so i'm going to not be as open as i want to to ensure you can form your own opinions on your homework (thanks for being honest BTW) so i'm gong to but out a basic arg followed by a long quotation.
. I'm also a bit confused on the specification between democrats and republicans. It refers to the extreme right-wing of the democrat party, but by this point, isn't the democratic party the more leftist party?
not really. you should read Schellinger's book on the "Vital center," here is wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital_Center
If you think the democratic party is a peacenik leftist" party by truman's administration i have 2 words for you: "(Scoop Jackson)"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson].
I'm going to end with a block quote form Schlesinger about the vital center
The degeneration of the Soviet Union taught us a useful lesson, however. It broke the bubble of the false optimism of the nineteenth century. Official liberalism had long been almost inextricably identified with a picture of man as perfectible, as endowed with sufficient wisdom and selflessness to endure power and to use it infallibly for the general good. The Soviet experience, on top of the rise of fascism, reminded my generation rather forcibly that man was, indeed, imperfect, and that the corruptions of power could unleash great evil in the world. We discovered a new dimension of experience - the dimension of anxiety, guilt and corruption. (Or it may well be, as Reinhold Niebuhr has brilliantly suggested, that we were simply rediscovering ancient truths which we should never have forgotten.)[paragraph break]Mid-twentieth-century liberalism, I believe, has thus been fundamentally reshaped by the hope of the New Deal, by the exposure of the Soviet Union, and by the deepening of our knowledge of man. The consequence of this historical re-education has been an unconditional rejection of totalitarianism and a reassertion of the ultimate integrity of the individual. This awakening constitutes the unique experience and fundamental faith of contemporary liberalism. [paragraph break]his faith has been and will continue to be under attack from the far right and the far left. In this book I have deliberately given more space to the problem of protecting the liberal faith from Communism than from reaction, not because reaction is the lesser threat, but because it is the enemy we know, whose features are clearly delineated for us, against whom our efforts have always been oriented. It is perhaps our very absorption in this age-old foe which has made us fatally slow to recognize the danger on what we carelessly thought was our left--forgetting in our enthusiasm that the totalitarian left and the totalitarian right meet at last on the murky grounds of tyranny and terror. I am persuaded that the restoration of business to political power in this country would have the calamitous results that have generally accompanied business control of the government; that this time we might be delivered through the incompetence of the right into the hands of the totalitarians of the left. But I am persuaded too that liberals have values in common with most members of the business community--in particular, a belief in free society--which they do not have in common with the totalitarians.
I hope this helps (if not feel free to respond)