If FDR had run as a Third Way Democrat in 1940, might he have won

[MannyGoldstein]

a third - or dare I say - even a fourth term in office?

But he just *had* to do that Liberal stuff, and Wilkie kicked his non-Social-Security-cutting ass, winning all but 38 of the 48 states we had back then.

Predictable.

And it's a good thing, too, because everyone knows that a Liberal President would have lost WWII. Would have been all "peace" and "talk", no manly action!

Face it people - Liberals, like that difficult woman from Massachusetts, cannot win the presidency.

Regards,

Third-WayModerate-Democrat Manny

[NYC_SKP]

1. He had a killer congress, like fucking liberal butter.

All the more reason for drafting Liz Warren!

[hrmjustin]

2. I doubt she will run.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Yes, but Bernie might!

Long shot, sure, but pretty progressive!

If I was younger and less jaded, and if I hadn't lived through Bill Clinton disappointments, I would be more likely to embrace Hillary.

As it is, I don't think we have time. I move to Manhattan the year Jerry Brown got a pie in the face and Carter had TPB sink his rescue plans and watched as Reagan took the helm.

It was horrible. And it was followed by the Iran Contra hearings. We will never recover.

Then came Clinton, yeah, but where did the environmental and banking standards go? What happened to CAFE standards? And WTF NAFTA?

I just have to insist on better presidential stock.

[hrmjustin]

5. Bernie would have a great campaign but I doubt he would beat Hillary. But that should not stop him

if he wants to do it.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Any Liberal can beat Hillary like a drum

Her Third Way past will haunt her like a poltergeist made of crystal meth.

[hrmjustin]

20. I have my doubts about that. I think she will be our next president.

[Eleanors38]

29. Which liberals do you have in mind?

[Beacool]

66. Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton????

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Be honest... wouldn't you actually cry? nt

[Beacool]

69. No, because it wouldn't happen in a million years.

I just don't get where some of you get these ideas. How in hell do you think that if Bernie got the nomination by happenstance that he could win a general election? What country are you living in? It'll be hard enough to keep the WH in Democratic hands in 2016, unless things improve from here to then, and some of you want Bernie as the nominee???????

[sabrina 1]

38. He would easily beat Hillary. And that is why we are seeing so much anger that he is even

considering a run. I will not support Hillary, she voted for the Iraq War demonstrating such incredibly bad judgement on a matter of LIFE and DEATH, that there is no way I could ever consider supporting her. I said that the night she cast her vote for George Bush's War and meant it. And I KNOW I am not alone. The irony is she sold her soul with that vote, miscalculating the political ramifications, planning even then, a run for the Presidency, she needed to 'look strong' or whatever. And it was THAT VOTE that lost her the election in the end.

I will never forget that betrayal nor can I ignore the dead human beings who so needed people of principle in this country to stand up against the lies and greed that led us into that war.

If Bernie runs, he will get a huge part of the Progressive vote.

I am stunned at the short memories of people who claimed to be so opposed to Bush's war. Even more so because now we know about the slaughter of innocents, the torture, the corruption. And yet, people are willing to turn a blind eye to all the death and destruction for the 'team'?

But there is also a huge part of the Democratic base who will not forgive that massive crime or those who facilitated it.

[Enthusiast]

41. You. Are. Not. Alone.

[jazzimov]

65. Nope! Although I love Bernie, that is just wishful thinking.

He'd lose, pathetically.

[sabrina 1]

73. Really? Well, let's see what happens. If the Dem Candidate is not someone Dems can vote FOR

but someone who is funded by the Global Corps, you might be surprised at what happens.

Times are changing, it's not ten years ago now and we've seen the results of voting 'against the Republican' when we had all branches of this Government and WE STILL heard nothing but excuses for why we could not do what Republicans can do IN THE MINORITY.

Keep dreaming that people can still be manipulated by a strategy that worked, on me, and on millions of others, for far too long.

There's a whole new generation of voters who have been the victims of Corporate Policies and they know it. They are not beholden to any party and someone like Bernie has been talking about the issues that matter to them.

See what happened in 2010 when Independents who had voted Democratic and the young, stayed home? Give them someone to vote for and they will not stay home.

[Beacool]

68. Angry?

I think that the concept that a 75 year old Socialist could win the Democratic nomination over Hillary is quite funny.

[dflprincess]

72. What makes you think Bernie would want the Democratic nomination?

I don't care what label he uses, if he runs, I'm with him.

[sabrina 1]

77. Ah, Agiesm rears its ugly head, right here on a progressive forum. You might want to be careful

about that since to a huge bloc of the voting public, Hillary is old.

What are you going to say to those, and I've already seen this, who say to YOU:

'I think that the concept that a nearly 70 year old DLCer could the Democratic nomination over a Democratic Socialist who is approximately from the same generation' is quite funny'.

[Beacool]

81. There's no comparison.

One has zero chance of being elected and the other one has a pretty good chance of winning. No offense to Sen. Sanders, but he would not win a general election.

[sabrina 1]

82. You're right, there is no comparison. And one of them has zero chance of being elected.

The election is three years away. The Dems have time to produce a candidate that those of us who will no longer vote AGAINST something, especially if we have a choice, can vote FOR. Because the days of holding noses before going into the voting booth, have passed. The times are changing, the old ways haven't worked, and something is happening that may surprise a lot of people. OR they can get on board and be on the right side of history.

[hrmjustin]

74. I do not have a short memory about the war. I have forgiven her for her vote.

[sabrina 1]

75. I assume you are not one of the tragic victims of that 'vote'. It is not for us to forgive those who

set in motion a killing machine that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings. Not to mention thousands of our own troops whose lives were wasted.

I am not in a position to forgive her or any of the others who KNEW Bush was lying yet cast that criminal vote for a massive war crime.

Maybe if I were the mother of an Iraqi baby blown to bits because those votes I would be in a position to forgive them.

Do yyou forgive Cheney and Bush also? Apparently 'moving forward' from these massive crimes is all the rage.

But some of us cannot forget the dead children and cannot possibly support anyone who NEEDS FORGIVENESS for such a horrifically, deadly wrong and just plain BAD decision that cost so many lives and who KNEW they were being lied to.

This is why we never make progress in this country. They count on enough people to 'move forward from all their crimes'.

Some day when the people decide that they will not support crimes committed in their names, we will get a better standard of leadership.

I would love to know how many Iraqis, the tortured, the maimed, the loved ones of the dead feel about forgiveness for that historic crime. I know some have because the horrible pain they have suffered is enough of a burden to have to live with for the rest of their lives, and just don't want to add the kind of anger these crimes more than deserve, to their already over-burdened lives. They are better people than those who attacked them.

I guess my conscience will never allow me to support people who deliberately do things that will harm others just so they can profit from them, either financially and/or politically. Just can't do it with the images that will remain in my mind for the rest of my life of all those dead children and the tortured people who were treated like animals, as a result of this country not having enough people of principle in positions of power to stop it.

[hrmjustin]

76. This is the story of how my cousin was killed in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_of_Phillip_Esposito_and_Louis_Allen

Louis was my cousin.


I believe some good people got it wrong. Bush and Cheney do not have my forgiveness.

[sabrina 1]

78. I'm sorry about your cousin too. He should be here, living his life rather than being sent to

fight a war for profit and power. It is shameful. Hillary absolutely knew Bush was lying. WE KNEW.

And it's even worse if she didn't. What kind of fool ever believed the obvious lies they were telling? She had access to way more information than the average person did. We know she deliberately did not take advantage of information that proved they were lying. Was she not aware of Joe Wilson's report that proved they were lying?

What kind of leader would not be able to sort out those lies that people all over the world saw right through?

I want leaders who GET THINGS RIGHT the first time, especially when it involves the most serious decision a leader can make, a decision that will cost human lives.

I truly am sorry about cousin. What a terrible thing to be responsible for. I would not be able to sleep at night, even I was a 'good person who got it wrong'.

Additionally, Hillary has NEVER admitted that she was wrong, nor has she ever apologized for that vote.

The truth is SHE REALLY DID SUPPORT IT. And that, imho, makes her unfit to lead this country.

And hopefully one day there will be prosecutions for that War Crime. But to do that, we need honest people with courage and integrity in power.

[hrmjustin]

80. Thank you. It was a horrible war and should not have happened.

And I understand how you feel.

[sabrina 1]

83. Thank you for understanding. I have read the article on your cousin and I am

so, so sad. He seems to have been a wonderful, ethical person. Reading stories like that, so tragic, so sad, makes me all the more angry at those who could have tried to stop it.

His story is truly disturbing and all I can say is I hope his family have found some peace.

You are a good person to find it in your heart to forgive those who failed people like your cousin so badly. Maybe I could if they were not asking to be given the enormous power to repeat tragedies such as the war that took your cousin's wonderful life. But I would be doing the same thing if I helped anyone who made that terrible decision, gain the power to do it again.

I feel the loss of every brave soldier who only wanted to do what they believed was the honorable thing to do.

Take care, I will keep your cousin in my thoughts and his family. Along with all the other victims of Bush's terrible war. I have to go with my conscience on this, and I appreciate your understanding that.

RIP all those who have died and especially tonight, your cousin

[Beacool]

84. You presume a lot when you insist that Hillary knew that Bush was lying.

Show some proof before you make that kind of accusation.

Besides, attacking Iraq was supposed to be a measure of last resort. Many Democrats voted for the IWR, not just Hillary. One of them is the current SOS.

[sabrina 1]

86. If she didn't know, that is even worse, isn't it? Someone in a position to help stop

one of the most criminal administrations in living memory, wasn't even as smart as ordinary people like us, or didn't do her homework? Is that what you are saying? Because the information WAS available to them so you're saying she didn't even consult with people like Joe Wilson eg, who TOLD the country, it was published in the NYT, that the claims made against Saddam Hussein were not true re 'yellow cake' before making such a deadly decision??

We sure don't need leaders who are in such a bubble that they know LESS about the major decisions they are obligated to make than ordinary people?

It doesn't really matter whether she did or didn't, she had far, far more ACCESS to information on Iraq's WMDs, from very credible people, than ordinary people did, and she chose to believe Bush and his lying War Criminals.

Sorry, lots of other Democrats made the RIGHT decision with their vote at that critical time, why didn't she?

She has never apologized for that vote, as some of the others did. That leads people to the conclusion that she SUPPORTED the Iraq War.

Sorry, but this country needs people who make RIGHT decisions on issues as important as this.

[happyslug]

37. Remember DU rules, you can NOT support a NON- Democratic Candidate ON DU.

And Bernie Sanders is a Card Carrying Socialist.

[sabrina 1]

79. Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. I am hoping more Democrats will join him

on the issues that are actually Democratic Party platform issues. If they do that, and if we get a real Progressive Candidate in 2016, no one will have to worry about the party being split.

[Beacool]

85. Says who?

Try to nominate Sanders and a royal battle will ensue.

Talk about splitting the party.........

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Do you know how many vetoes FDR had?

Hint - it was about two-thirds of the number of press conferences he held.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Thank you for making my point. He had the power.

You can't sign 635 vetoes if you're faced with an opposition party majority.

Am I missing something?

[MannyGoldstein]

12. With all due respect... Yes, you *are* missing something.

Signing a veto is denotes preference, not success, unless *I'm* missing something. Which happens.

It's certainly not a sign of a Congress under the complete control of the President, no?

[NYC_SKP]

15. Do your remember the "line item veto"?

Were vetoes easier or harder to dole out for FDR than for Reagan, Clinton, or Obama.

I'm no historian....

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Was there a rules change that I'm unaware of?

I believe that the veto rules under FDR have remain unchanged through the present. Line item vetoes are typical in state government, but has never been enacted at the federal level.

[awoke_in_2003]

35. Yep...

Line item vetoes have been a repuke wet dream since Rayguns.

[former9thward]

45. A line item veto law was enacted during the Clinton administration.

It was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Question about all that liberal stuff you reference in your OP

What did Congress look like when FDR was Prez? How many Dems/GOPers. How many filibusters did he face?

Thank you in advance.

[rhett o rick]

10. Seems you are trying to make an argument by Just Asking Questions.

There is a term for Just Asking Questions. "the act of spouting accusations while hiding behind the claim that one is "Just Asking Questions.""

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off

If you have something relevant to say, be brave and spit it out.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Why are you following me around from thread to thread?

Go away.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Question about asking people to go away

Is it because they say things that are discomforting?

[Cali_Democrat]

16. I'll answer questions from people who don't stalk me

Can you answer the question I initially asked you?

It's pretty straightforward and has nothing to do with discussing DUers.

Thank you again...in advance.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Both houses of Congress were Democratically controlled

Yet FDR signed more than 600 vetoes, about one per week. Congress was not in his pocket.

Of course, the Democrats made huge gains during midterm elections, at least early on, when the electorate saw how practical and effective Liberal policies were.

Filibusters were rare then, because the rules were different. We could return to those rules, but the Democrats prefer not to.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. What kind of control are we talking about?

Overwhelming control? Do you think that had something to do with why FDR was able to get programs like SS through? I'm assuming the GOPers opposed those initiatives.

If other Democratic presidents had overwhelming numbers in Congress, perhaps they would have been just as productive?

Do you know where I can find the info on the number of seats controlled by each party back then?

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Democrats won 53% of the House in 1932

Later, of course, once Americans saw how Liberal values produced fantastic outcomes, and quickly, Democrats picked up many more seats.

Perhaps If other Democrats actually did stuff that dramatically helped the 99% instead of being fierce advocates of investment bankers, they'd build great majorities in Congress, too.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Damn! Good for FDR and America!

...and back then filibuster was almost never used.

Awesome!

[Doctor_J]

43. Obama could have had the same thing happen

If he had lived up to his 2008 campaign rhetoric in 2009-2010, we would have made huge gains in the 2010 midterms and we'd by now be well on our way to undoing the Bush destruction.

[KittyWampus]

49. It's DU's dream babble like that ends up making me laugh. "Gerrymandering"- look it up.

[Doctor_J]

62. There wouldn't have been "Gerrymandering" if he'd presided like he campaigned

by 2010 all of the 2008 first-timers who'd voted for hope & change had figured out they'd been had. If the president and Reid and Pelosi had given them just half of what they'd been promised, they'd have shown up en masse like they did in 2008, and our margins in the Senate House, statehouses and governors' mansions would ALL have improved. But the president abandoned labor, the public option, and the environment, and signaled a backpedal on the budget-busting tax cuts. Exposing himself as a DINO kept millions home in 2010, and we will suffer because of it for years.

[FogerRox]

70. Build great majorities in Congress. SO simple and so obvious

but gridlock is so much more convenient. And thats what the plutocracy wants done.

[happyslug]

39. Here is the makeup of Congress through the years

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 03:20 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

............................................Senate.................................House of Representatives
Congress....Years,........ Total Dem REP OTHERS....Total, ...Dem,.. REP.. OTHERs..Vacant
71st.....1929–1931......96.....39.....56..... 1 -----—-- 435.....163.....267.....1.............4
72nd....1931–1933......96.....47.....48..... 1 ------—- 435.....216.....218.....1 —
73rd.....1933–1935......96.....59.....36..... 1 ------—- 435.....313.....117.....5 —
74th.....1935–1937......96.....69.....25..... 2 ------—- 435.....322.....103.....10 —
75th.....1937–1939.....96.....75..... 17.....4 ------—-- 435.....333.....89..... 13 —
76th.....1939–1941.....96.....69..... 23.....4 ------—-- 435.....262.....169.....4 —
77th.....1941–1943.....96.....66..... 28.....2 ------—-- 435.....267.....162.....6 —
78th.....1943–1945.....96.....57..... 38.....1 ------—-- 435.....222.....209.....4 —
79th.....1945–1947.....96.....57..... 38.....1 ------—-- 435.....243.....190.....2 —


Read more: Composition of Congress by Party 1855–2013 | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html#ixzz2mU6K9kfO

Just look at the 75th Congress, the "Court Packing" Congress of 1937 to 1939 (elected in 1938). 23 GOP Senators out of 96 (2/3 of 96 is 64m thus from 1935 till 1941 you had more then enough Democrats to end any GOP lead filibuster unless the Filibuster also included Democrats).

In the 75th Congress you had only 89 GOP, AND members of the following parties:

Wisconsin Progressive (P): 7
Progressive (P): 1
Farmer-Labor (FL): 5

The Wisconsin Progressive were Seven GOP progressive who jumped the GOP but in subsequent years returned to the GOP

The Progressive party member was a former GOP progressive on his way to being a Democrat

The Five Farmer-Labor party had started in 1920, but the 1930s was strong only in Minnesota (Where it had started). In 1944 it merged with the Minnesota Democratic Party to become the Farmer-Labor-Democratic Party of Minnesota (The Democratic Party in Minnesota).

Remember from the election of 1930 to the election of 1994 (1931-1995 for actual terms of office), the Democrats were in the Majority of the House except for 1947-1948 (Truman's do nothing Congress, which he ran against more then Dewey his GOP opponent).

The Senate was clearly Democratic from 1933 (after the election of 1932) till 1947 (after the election of 1946), Then again from 1949 (election of 1948) till 1953 (election of 1952). Then from 1955 (Election of 1954) till Reagan in 1981 (Election of 1980) and would GOP till 1987 (election of 1988) and would remain Democratic till 1995 (election of 1994).

As to actual Numbers of Democrats in the House and Senate, it was overwhelming in 1935-1941 period, the only things close is the 1959-1971 period. The highest number of Democratic Senators was in 1937-1939, when you had 75 Democratic Senators and 333 Democratic Members of the House (Out of a total of 96 Senators and 435 Members of the House). In the 1938 election the numbers of Senators dropped in 69 out of 96 total Senators. The 1938 saw a huge drop in the number of Democrats in the House from 333 to 262, out of 435).

FDR kept Congress overwhelmingly Democratic from 1933 till 1939 (election of 1932 to 1938).

The Second period of Democratic Domination was the 1960s. The Democratic Party surged in the election of 1958, winning 64 out of 96 Senate Seats and 234 in the House. in the election of 1958 the GOP won 201 seats, the most seats it will hold in the House till the election of 1994. The Democrats in the Senate would surge to 68 in 1965-1967 Congress (and would have been 69, but that is the year Storm Thumond defected to the GOP). They will be more then 60 Democratic Senators till 1969, and 58 till 1971. The number would drop to 54 in 1971, then back up to 56 in 1973, 61 in 1975 and remain at 61 till January 1979 when it would drop to 58. The GOP would take the Senate in the 1980 election, thus the GOP was majority in the Senate from 1981 till 1987.

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Thanks for all that info...

very interesting.

[fadedrose]

47. Thanks for that

It seems that the Dems were popular for many years and created a lot of good programs.

The Republicans were sharp to nominate and elect Eisenhower, who, inspite of being a Republican, was well-liked. Loved, in fact. "Beware the military industrial complex.." He was no tyical Rep..

I sort of remember some of his family in PA leaning towards the Democrats or am I mixed up as usual?

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Eisenhower was a Republican... but he was a Liberal

He insisted on a top marginal tax rate of 91%.

Liberal policies before Ike's election proved to be so successful that even the Republicans became Liberals.

[happyslug]

71. You also see the shift of the Democratic Party from Rural to Urban based

People forget that most cities were GOP strongholds prior to the Great Depression. The first step in ending this stranglehold was prohibition. Prohibition forces most Saloons to close, and those Saloons had been how the GOP controlled inner City Voting.

Prior to the 1930s, the Democratic Party main Strength was in the Rural South and West. Today, these areas are known to be Conservative, but that was NOT the case from the 1880s till the 1930s, these areas had not only more people then they do now, but also a larger share of the people in the US. Thus most were much more progressive then they are today.

Now, Small cities and Towns (and what the Census bureau calls "Urban Clusters" i.e. groups of 2000 people living close together, I will use the term "Urban Clusters" for it is a more accurate term then Small City or town) have held their population compared to the surrounding rural countryside. Such Small urban areas tended to be much more conservative then the people actually living on the farm. Thus with the number of farms declining, the power of these urban clusters increased in such rural areas, and with the switch you saw rural America turning much more conservative.

Thus both Rural America and Urban America went through a transformation staring in the 1920s, accelerated in the 1930s do to the depression, but continued at a much slower pace after WWII. The Democratic Party in the 1960s still had massive support from Rural Farmers (But its support from Urban Clusters were in rapid decline, especially in the South)m but increasing support from the Inner City as more and more rural African Americans moved north to such inner cities and switched from GOP to the Democratic Party (Most whites who moved from Rural America to Urban America tended NOT to switched parties).

Thus the 1960s saw the remains of old Democratic Rural domination still holding out, reinforced by the new Democratic majority in Urban America (With the main GOP support coming from the Suburbs, and Urban Clusters outside the South).

In the 1960s you saw the first signed of the decline of this domination as the GOP embraced its "Southern Strategy" of giving up on African Americas (who had been loyal to the GOP from the Civil War till the 1930s), and embracing the urban clusters of the South. By the 1970s, this move had made the GOP a close second to the Democrats, and by 1994 the Majority Party in Congress (Through more people ID themselves as Democrats then Republicans during this whole time period).

Since 2000, you have seen fewer and fewer people in the South defecting to the GOP (Southern Democrats Turning GOP was big in the 1970s and 1980s, but disappears after 2000). The GOP seems to have peaked in the period 1994-2000, held its own 2000-2008, and are now in as slow, but steady decline (like the Democratic Party was in the 1970s and 1980s).

Basically, the reason for the reversal, is that people of lower income (Working class people) moved from the Rural areas to the Large Cities starting in the 1920s. This reduced the number of Working Class people in rural area, while increasing them in urban areas. The Democratic Party was better able to address the needs of this group, and thus the Democratic party stayed strong till we get into the Children and Grandchild en of the people who moved. This later group tended to go to collage and become GOP, as part of a plan the GOP adopted in the 1960s to get these Collage Students to think in GOP terms NOT the terms their parents thought in.

Those terms, while sounding great in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990, has since 2000 have become more and more hollow, and the modern students are in many ways returning to the ways of their Grandparents and Great Grandparents. What will happen in the next 10-20 years will depend on how while the Democratic Party leads these collage students of today over the next 10-20 years. They have needs, and will embrace the party that works on those needs. The Democratic Party of the 1930s and 1960s worked on those needs, and the party has to return to those roots, i.e. work for things that help the bottom half od the population not the top 1%.

[KoKo]

89. Recommend your post...!

[jazzimov]

64. Those are good questions, and I noticed you never got an answer.

You got replies that tried to deflect those questions, but no one seemed willing to answer your questions.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. In what way is the political and economic context of 1990-2000 relevant to 1940?

[BainsBane]

23. I think what we are seeing here is the danger of reducing history to trivia

rather than understanding a particular time period.

[Fumesucker]

9. "I welcome their donations" -FDR

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Certainly, if FDR had been more of a pragmatist

That would have been the actual quote.

[Doctor_J]

44. "My party has become dependent on entitlements" - FDR

[BainsBane]

22. If the semiconductor had been invented in 1634

would . . .

Taking individuals out of their historical context is nonsensical. Politicians respond to the times.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Hmm... we had a depression in the 1930s, we have a depression now

Totally different, of course.

[BainsBane]

28. We had a strong labor movement putting pressure on FDR

An active communist party. All kinds of popular groups pressured FDR. This summarizes some of that activity: http://www.isreview.org/issues/25/The_1930s.shtml

You imagine change happens from the President downward. It doesn't. It didn't during the New Deal, during the Civil Rights movement, and it won't today. During periods of reform, political leaders have always responded to popular action. Sometimes they draw upon it to enact legislative changes, sometimes they coopt it, and other times they repress it. What they never do is create it. You can spend decades wishing for the perfect President, and it won't change a thing if significant segments of the population aren't mobilized in demanding change. Typically, more radical demands by the public are channeled into more moderate reforms, which is precisely what FDR did.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. "I welcome their hatred"

vs. “I know both those guys [White House regulars Jamie and Lloyd]; they are very savvy businessmen,”

Change comes in both directions.

FDR was elected to do a job. He did that job:

"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

FDR tried things. He tried Liberal things. He tried Conservative things. The Liberal things helped the 99%. The Conservative things didn't. So FDR became a Liberal.

FDR's Cabinet and White House started with a few bankers and a few Liberals. It ended up stocked with Liberals. He was held out as a traitor to his class. In fact, he quelled an attempted insurrection by his class.

Here's the number of Liberals who've served in Obama's White House and Cabinet: 0

Obama actually brags that he's out-Hoovered Hoover in starving the economy. FDR would not brag about that, of course. Obama seeks to cut Social Security and wage more "free" trade against the 99%, while fighting like a banshee for bankers to make ever-more lucre.

FDR held 998 press conferences. He wanted to stay close to Americans, to keep debate in the open. Obama? His staff holds its meetings with lobbyists at a coffee shop so they don't have the inconvenience of their names on the guest log.

FDR fought like a mother#%^*er to get things done for the 99%. More than 600 vetoes. Regular run-ins with the Supreme Court as he tested boundries. Fireside chats where he worked for years to bring the American people to his side, to they right side, on controversial issues like the Lend/Lease Act.

And when we went to war, we won. In less than four years. A world war.

[BainsBane]

63. Okay. So?

You like FDR. So what? Clearly, I can't dislodge you of a 19th-century view of historical change. What difference does FDR make to our current politics and near elections?

[JoePhilly]

46. We have a Depression, now?

Um, ok.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Only for the 99%

So nothing for you to worry about.

[JoePhilly]

55. If you are going to throw around a word like "Depression" ...

... and use it to compare or equate today's economic situation with a prior economic situation, you should at least make an attempt to use the term correctly.

Or you lose credibility.

Not that that would bother you, I guess.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/04/23/a-rise-in-wealth-for-the-wealthydeclines-for-the-lower-93/

During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.

From 2009 to 2011, the mean wealth of the 8 million households in the more affluent group rose to an estimated $3,173,895 from an estimated $2,476,244, while the mean wealth of the 111 million households in the less affluent group fell to an estimated $133,817 from an estimated $139,896.

I have zero evidence that it's gotten any better.

End This Depression Now, by Paul Krugman

[JoePhilly]

60. Zero evidence? Didn't I read an OP from you recently in which you bought

the latest gaming console?

Or was that OP written by third-way Manny?

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Well, it's hard evidence that our son's allowance isn't in a depression.

But beyond that, I'm not so sure that it proves anything.

[Fumesucker]

26. And America in 2013 is a center right nation

At least that's what the Very Serious People in the M$M tell us and we know they are always right.

[Eleanors38]

30. Yes, over & over they say it, traipsing through the graveyard.

[MFrohike]

31. Inaccurate comparison

FDR was very much a moderate on the 1930s political spectrum. He was a big believer in balanced budgets, was extremely skeptical of relief (as welfare was known), and was, along with Cordell Hull, a big believer in free trade. As a more accurate thought exercise, had FDR been running in 1948 instead of Truman, he really would have been the "Third Way" candidate of his day (excepting the fact that his campaigns were usually short of funds). He, and Truman, were definitely to the right of Wallace while still being noticeably to the left of Dewey (everybody was a bomb-throwing radical compared to Strom).

FDR looks like the great liberal light partly because of the decline into right-wing nuttery over the last 40 years and partly because he simply looms above American politics in a way that no other figure has quite managed. Don't get me wrong, others have been far more influential (Hamilton), more admired (Jefferson and Kennedy, in both cases a lot more myth than reality), and far more liberal (everybody's favorite whipping boy, LBJ). No one has simply dominated the politics of his age in a way that really leaves no room for a discussion of his opponents. When you read about the GOP in the 30s and early 40s, it's a story of their margin of defeat. It's not a story of anything useful, except in fringe histories which cast FDR as some kind of satanic figure bent on totalitarian rule or something). Even Reagan, the FDR of his day*, couldn't manage this. A large part of his story is dedicated to the blatant criminality of his administration and the devastation it caused on the country.

In short, FDR is more legend than real these days. We're better served by remembering his most important qualities, his optimism and his willingness to try something new, than by mythologizing him.

*The FDR of his day simply means that Reagan consciously copied Roosevelt in his public performance as president. He was notoriously upbeat, emphasized national greatness through platitudes, and constantly portrayed himself as someone bringing common wisdom to a diseased capital. Reagan learned how to ACT like a president, but he never learned a thing about BEING president. I really should have called him a cut-rate wingnut version of Roosevelt and I guess I just did that.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Which is why I picked 1940

FDR started his Presidency as a moderate, of sorts - he was personally a moderate, perhaps fiscally conservative. But he tried things, big things, both Liberal and Conservative things. The Liberal things worked, the Conservative things failed, and in time FDR became a Liberal.

Have many things in history been more Liberal than FDR's Second Bill of Rights?

And that Lefty Wallace that you mention... did he have any sort of relationship with FDR during the latter's presidency? Was Wallace under the bus like, say, all Liberals under Obama? And who was that chick with the funny hat? The Penny Pritzker of her age?

[MFrohike]

34. I get you

I still don't think 1940 works, but I get you.

The essence of FDR comes from his own words in 1936: "I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match, I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces have met their master."

One thing about FDR neither of us has mentioned is that his time in office opened up opportunities for a variety of liberals to make their mark. One of the greatest, and least remembered, was Sam Rayburn. One of Rayburn's great achievements, and one of the top achievements of the New Deal, was the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935. It broke the financialization of power and made electricity affordable to almost everyone. Sadly, it was largely replaced and weakened in 2005.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. I'll toast to that!

[CorrectOfCenter]

42. Elizabeth Warren has a way better chance than most and it'd be a great tribute to Ted Kennedy.

There's going to be a lot of disappointed people from both parties the closer we get to 2016.

3 years is an eternity in politics.

And it's ridiculous to assume Clinton or Christie are inevitable this far out.

If Warren runs, I will vote for her in the primaries and support the nominee in the general. But I won't engage in the bashing of any Democrat.

[JoePhilly]

48. When are you going to start DU's FDR group?

You could develop and entire alternative US history, in which FDR is always the President.

We'd learn about how FDR would have written the US Constitution so that slavery ended when the Constitution was ratified in 1776 (I know it wasn't actually ratified until 1787, but FDR would have had no problem getting it done simultaneously with the Declaration of Independence).

We'd hear about how FDR would have ended the civil war before it could start by talking the South into thinking ending slavery was in their best interests.

You could jump over the period in which he was actually President.

Then, we'd read about how FDR prevented the Vietnam war.

Of course there would be no need for a civil rights movement because FDR would have ended slavery in 1787, or in the mid-1800s.

He'd have ended the cold war before it started too. No Cuban missile crisis either.

JFK? No need to assassinate him, he's a private citizen, a philanthropist. And he's still alive because FDR advanced health care and cured cancer and the diseases of aging.

Trip to the moon? BORING!!! FDR would have had US colonies throughout the galaxy by now. We'd have no need for oil because we'd be using Barrilium Spheres mined from far off planets to provide free energy to everyone on the planet.

And homelessness, bah! FDR would have ended that before the 1900s even started. Everyone would be a doctor.

The rise of the right wing Christian fanatics of the last 30 years ... lol ... that never happened because FDR beat Reagan in a landslide. Reagan had to go back into acting, and surprisingly, wins an Oscar for his role in Die Hard 8.

I mean ... if you are going to play the alternative history game, why not skip these silly threads and really go for it.

[KittyWampus]

50. Great post. And made this waste o'thread at least useful. Good job.

[treestar]

54. Exactly it's only to pit FDR against Obama

That's the only purpose of this FDR worship. Always ignoring the much more strongly Democratic congress and the political will brought about by the Great Depression.

[sabrina 1]

87. So you don't like one of the Democratic Party's most popular and effective Presidents?

We get it. FDR was accustomed to being hated, he didn't care about those who hated him for working for the PEOPLE. Fortunately he had the courage to buck the Right Wing counterparts of today's lunatics.

People obviously respected HIM over THEM since he was the longest serving president in our history. Imagine any of today's presidents getting elected that many times. Very unlikely unless they were willing to fight hard against the Corporatists who control many of our politicians.

So who, in your opinion, did the most for the people of this country while serving as President?

[JoePhilly]

88. Did I say that? No. FDR was a great President.

What I'm enjoying ... really enjoying, is the effort that some around here will go to, complaining that Obama isn't FDR.

Its become hilarious.

The right has their ZOMBIE Reagan ... and now some on the left are trying to reanimate their own Zombie FDR ... then, they can plot Zombie FDR into any situation and POOF, their desired outcome magically would certainly occur.

As for any President getting elected as many times, ... umm, Bill Clinton could have won a 3rd term ... Obama would have a good shot too ... and the proof will probably come if and when Hillary wins in 2016 ... and I suspect that if and when that happens, it would really tick you off.

You ask which President did the most while serving ... well, a couple extra terms helps FDR a great deal. I think his impact is far easier to judge years later. Obama's ending the Iraq war, and then ending the Afgan war, while realigning our diplomatic efforts in the middle east will be huge down the road, as will the positive effect of the ACA. And he still has 2 years to go.

I suspect that in about 5 to 10 years, you'll be very unhappy to be hearing very positive comparisons of Obama and FDR. Comparisons that will improve as history moves on.

So look, you feel free to praise Zombie FDR, meanwhile, I'll continue to appreciate the actual FDR with the historical clarity that 60+ years of distance provides.

[pampango]

53. 1940 republican platform:

Tariff and Reciprocal Trade

We are threatened by unfair competition in world markets and by the invasion of our home markets, especially by the products of state-controlled foreign economies. We believe in tariff protection for Agriculture, Labor, and Industry, as essential to our American standard of living. The measure of the protection shall be determined by scientific methods with due regard to the interest of the consumer.

Labor Relations

The Republican party has always protected the American worker.

We shall maintain labor's right of free organization and collective bargaining.

Equal Rights

We favor submission by Congress to the States of an amendment to the Constitution providing for equal rights for men and women.

Immigration

We favor the strict enforcement of all laws controlling the entry of aliens. The activities of undesirable aliens should be investigated and those who seek to change by force and violence the American form of government should be deported.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29640

In some ways FDR was running against a different republican party in 1940.

[geek tragedy]

56. White racists voted overwhelmingly Democratic back then.

So he had a margin for error that today's Democrats will never have.

[Corruption Inc]

58. Yeah, all he had to do was stack his cabinet with bankers

and "look forward" past those pesky Nazis.