Isn't it kinda late for "Fireside Chats"?

[trof]

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to the presidency in 1932, it was on a promise to restore the confidence of the American people and to bring America out of the Great Depression. Roosevelt stated in his first inaugural address that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." His objectives were to calm the economic fears of Americans, develop policies to alleviate the problems of the Great Depression, and gain the support of the American people for his programs.

Roosevelt called his radio talks about issues of public concern "Fireside Chats." Informal and relaxed, the talks made Americans feel as if President Roosevelt was talking directly to them. Roosevelt continued to use fireside chats throughout his presidency to address the fears and concerns of the American people as well as to inform them of the positions and actions taken by the U.S. government.

Now we hear that tonight's "performance" is the first of six that will be presented between now and the ill-fated handover date of June 30. Rove has evidently tried to crib a page from FDR's playbook.
It's a little late.

[AP]

1. What Bush does is the OPPOSITE of fireside chats.

Does everyone here realize the political significance of the fireside chat?

Fascism depends on fear. You scare people into thinking that their lives are threatened, and then people accept less. They don't complain about their jobs and about losing money. But what they don't realize is the stuff they're giving up is accumulating in the hands of private corporations, like, oh, say, oil companies and big banks.

In the 30s and 40s, there was a domestic threat of fascists (like Prescott Bush) taking control of the US. They wanted to do in the US what Hitler was doing in Germany -- they wanted to turn America into a country run by corporations.

When Hitler started doing his thing, the domestic fascists saw a great opportunity. They wanted to freak out Americans so badly that they'd think the only solution was to vote for law&order/national security Republicans who then would turn over control of the government to business. Nobody would mind about losing their freedoms because they'd be safe.

So, when Republicans were trying to freak people out over Hitler (and, yes, he was legitimately scary) FDR had a choice. He could ride the wave of fear and see if he could stay in office on it, or he could fight fear head on so that the sort of mood which precedes a rise of fascism would never come to pass. The fireside chats were intended to reduce fear--to put out the flames of nascent fascism.

Everything Bush has done since he was inaugurated has been designed to achieve the opposite. He wants Americans to be freaked out because it helps him.

There is no way that he's going to start giving fireside chats.

What he'll do, I bet, is he'll talk about how they "hate our freedom" and he'll use other phrases which suggest conflict and which try to steal Americans for a fight, and which suggest there are grave threats on the horizon if we don't act with resolve.

He's definitely NOT going to tell us there's nothing to fear and that the best thing to do is work together for a better tomorrow.

[truthbetold]

3. Good point AP.

I'd say Georgie boy had read "1984" if I didn't know he's illiterate.

[AP]

4. was I right or wrong?

More terror, fear, and danger.

That was no fireside chat.

[bryant69]

5. Of course the other big difference

For all their talk about believing in the citizens and decrying our "nanny state," the only thing that President Bush ever asks of the American people is to trust him and let him do what he wants that. Contrast that to President Roosevelts call on Americans to work together as a unified nation to defeat the axis. Roosevelt treated his audience like adults; Bush treats his audience like children.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[AP]

7. FDR felt that you made democracy strong by creating a wealthy middle class

so his message was, "you keep working (because that's how you create wealth) and I'll keep doing things to help you keep the wealth you create." This was even more of an imperative during war time as peace time, if you're going to hold back the fascists.

Bush feels that the job of the middle class is to go into debt and keep shifting wealth up the ladder. So his message isn't "work, get educated, do better while I look after your interests." His message is just, "keep spending, don't save, don't pay dow too much principle, take on credit card debt, and get a nothing-down ARM mortgage."

[JHB]

6. Republicans freaked people out over Hitler?

Can you provide some cites for that?

I mean, I know the Republicans weren't exactly the German-American Bund or the Silver Shirts, but if I know my history right the only "freaking" they did was over "reds". Communism was their big boogeyman, especially because of its association with foreigners and jews.

[AP]

9. Newsreals. Radio. Corporate media LOVED Hitler. He gave those crazy

ranting speeches. Nobody could understand what he was saying but they knew it wasn't good.

Now, Hitler was huge threat, but the reason FDR started giving the fireside chats on the radio was because he saw what radio and the newsreals were doing for the big business-friendly Republicans. People were getting scared and they were thinking that maybe they should go with the Republicans who might make them poorer but seemed a little more authoritarian and protective on national security issues.

[JHB]

13. Again, any SOURCES?

Hitlers rants scared some people, but others though he was a clown. Given that investigations in the early '40s found over a dozen Congressmen (Republicans outnumbering Democrats nearly 3:1) had been bribed by, acted in collusion with, or aided and abetted the Nazis, I guess I just need some actual examples of Republicans stressing the "Hitler threat" as a political issue.

(quick web link reference to the above: http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/1930sp5.html
For more than that I'd have to go to books, which I can't do right away, since it's been a while since I attended college, in whose library I read those books.)

[AP]

14. Yeah. A media studies professor I heard talk about this about a year and

a half ago.

It was a lecture.

I encoruage you to google, if you're interested. But this is what the domestic fascists were doing, and it's what the fireside chats were meant to counter.

This is the same way the Republicans use SH and OBL and used Khaddafi and the red scare in the past.

[bryant69]

17. You know I have my masters in history

and I specialized in the US in the 20's through the 40's and that wasn't my impression. Unless you are talking about isolated figures like Father Coughlin; but he was pretty far outside the republican main stream (might have even been a democrat).

There was a conservative faction that thought fascism was preferable to socialism/communism, and of course there were the German Bund. But to assign it to one party or the other I think is misleading. For one thing there were conservatives in both parties (this was before the civil rights movement, remember). And there were liberals and progressives in both parties.

Anyway I think it's simplistic to make this comparison.

Bryant

[AP]

22. Wall St plotted a military coup against FDR. Smedley Butler was asked ...

...to lead it, but refused because he was a patriot. IIRC, it was people like the Vanderbilts and Prescott Bush who were behind it. None were prosecuted. This is what big business was doing during the thirties. They were upset that the New Deal was going to deprive them of guaranteed profits.

I'm not talking about out and out American Naziism, willing to call itself that. I'm talking about Republicans who thought corporations should dominate American politcs and who were afraid of the democratizing impact of creating a wealthy middle class. That's fascism, even if you call it "Republicanism." The people who wanted the Republicans to win elections played up fear, because that worked for Republicans, and FDR played up otimism and played down fear (especially through his fireside chats). This is what Democrats and Repubicans have been doing since the 30s. After Hitler was goine, communists became the Republican's bogeyman right up to when the Berlin Wall came down, and they replcaced them with Khaddafi, and then with Hussein and OBL.

If Repbublicans had gotten elected -- if FDR's fireside chats had not been so effective in turning back fear and elevating hope -- Prescott Bush would have seen in his lifetime what his grandson is on the verge of achieving today: total domination of the goverment by a few very large corporations (in the banking and energy sectors). And that's fascism.

[bryant69]

24. I guess where I would disagree with you

Is with the idea that Prescott Bush was the Republican Party.

The Republican Party of the 1930s and 1940s was much more fractured than it is today. There was the Prescott Bush wing, to be sure, but there were other factors as well. La Follette for example.

Besides if you are going to make this accusation, it's just as fair to say that Southern Democrats wanted to preserve and codify a racially stratified society where Blacks and other people of color would be forever denied any meaninful participation in the government. I'm sure you can see the parallel.

[AP]

26. That's how it is today. But it is the case that Republicans at the top of

party were very interested in servicing a few very big, very powerful industries, and would do whatever Vanderbilt (or whomever it was who recruited Butler and hated FDR and Democracy) asked. Other Republicans fell in line without appreciating what was at stake.

Just like today.

I don't think Olympia Snowe wants Halliburton to run American politics, but 95% of the time she's probably voting for things that grease the skids leading to that outcome.

BTW, I'm not sure that I have a problem with that characterization of Southern Democrats. So, I'm not sure if that analogy works. Anyway, I wasn't really trying to disparage the whole Republican party. I was just trying to disparage the fascists in the Repubican party (and they would have won if FDR had lost, I beleive--even if the WI wing took the WH, Vanderbilt would have won by having FDR gone and the New Deal taken apart, and having fear win the day).

[bryant69]

30. I guess it's hard to put oneself back in that time

Now it seems like the Republicans are basically divided into a few groups, with one group (Neo Conservative/Religious Conservative) basically being on top, and the other groups (Libertarian Conservatives, Classical Conservatives) marginalised. Seems like in the 1930s and 40s they were more divided, and the more sensible voices in the party had more power.

But of course it's hard to gauge what was happening in the back rooms--it's possible that the Progressive Republicans of 1942 had no more power than Olympia Snowe has today.

[AP]

32. From the 1890s to 1930s Republicans knew their masters: business.

They took it too far. The depression as the inevitable consequence of shifting all wealth and power to the very top. FDR was the inevitable backlash.

However, some industries were still very powerful after the depression and they tried to fight FDR (and some were even willing to resort to a military coup). The Republicans never really forgot their masters, and they still haven't.

Do you really think there are that any Republican factions today? They all seem willing to put aside differences in order to present a united front. There are exactly 4 in the senate with any kind of conscience, but they only exercise it in the most extreme situations. Generally, they're most interested in doing the bidding of their big donors up to the point when it might result in something that the elctorate picks up on their radar, which isn't often enough.

In the 30s and 40s, they still wanted to beat FDR, even if they had their separate factions. They didn't fail by lack of trying and lack of unity, I suspect. They failed because FDR was too formidable a politiician.

[bryant69]

33. So is this a fair statement?

Since 1890 to the Present, the Republican Party has been largely dedicated to bring a corporate dictatorship or fascism. There have been a few republican individuals who have not gone along with this plan entirely, but they have been rare exceptions.

[AP]

34. If you think what we have today is fascism (and I do), then you look

back to Karl Rove's favorite president, McKinley, and Rove's spiritual guru, Mark Hannah, and you look at what they did and what they wanted, and you can draw a straight line right to where bush is at today, and the deviations (and the explanations for the deviations, and the Republican reaction to those deviations) are very obvious.

You had TR, who was a fluke. He was a patriot who believed in making America wealthier through a racist imperialism, but who wanted that wealth democratically available because he loved America and not money. Wilson only got elected because of the divisiveness caused by TR confusing Republicans about what they really stood for. However, Wilson was no match for the money behind the Republican party. So the Republicans got their way until they took business-friendliness and wealth concentration too far and the whole thing collapsed (this is exactly what we're headed for today, for the same reasons -- you just can't stip the scales so far in favor of one side without having the whole economy collapse down upon itself). FDR understood history, so he knew what he was fighting against -- concentration of wealth. He deconcetrated wealth and power, interestingly, by concentrating it in the hands of government and then turning government over to the people (which is slightly different from what Chavez is doing -- he's taking the power out of the central government and devolving it down to the people directly -- he's weakening the federal government in order to send power down to the people).

After FDR and Truman, the Republicans didn't have an ideological leg to stand on, so they ran a war hero, and hoped that people forgot about ideology.

Let's back up for a moment.

In the late 19th century iIndustrialization raised the stakes. There was money to be had, so big business with the assistance of the Republicans party go organized. The opposition to what they were doing was democracy. Sadly, there have been way more Democrats who have aided and abetted the Republicans than there have been Republicans who stood up for democracy in opposition to increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.

OK, got to go, so I can't finish this, but I think you could probalby fill in the blanks, draw out the trendlines, see where history has repeated itself, and you can then understand what was going on with Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and Bush...

[JHB]

29. I know that. That's not the part I'm questioning.

Wall St plotted a military coup against FDR. Smedley Butler was asked to lead it, but refused because he was a patriot. IIRC, it was people like the Vanderbilts and Prescott Bush who were behind it.

DuPont's a name you want to associate with that.

None were prosecuted. This is what big business was doing during the thirties. They were upset that the New Deal was going to deprive them of guaranteed profits.

Actuyally they were pretty much guaranteed profits anyway. The problem was, that wasn't enough. To borrow from Michael Levine, the rich only want one thing, and that's everything.

I'm not talking about out and out American Naziism, willing to call itself that. I'm talking about Republicans who thought corporations should dominate American politcs and who were afraid of the democratizing impact of creating a wealthy middle class. That's fascism, even if you call it "Republicanism."

That's what I'm talking about. If you ever have the chance, go through back issues of Fortune magazine in the 30's, especially the special issue on (and touting) Mussolini's Italy. What I'm asking you to point to some specific examples of mainstream Republicans playing up Hitler as a threat. (although, as bryant69 points out, both parties were much more mixed in terms of ideology than they are today.)

After Hitler was goine, communists became their bogeyman right up to when the Berlin Wall came down, and they replcace them with Khaddafi, and then with Hussein and OBL.

You're a little short on history there. Communists and "reds" have been bogeymen since the latter half fo the 19th Century, even moreso after the Bolsheviks took over Russia. The only break in that was during WW2, when the Soviets were our allies.

[AP]

31. I'm not really sure where we're disagreeing.

Do people really think that a large part of FDR's tightrope-walking during WWII did not have to do with making sure that Americans weren's so freaked out by international threats that they didn't turn towards fascism at home? Do peope really think that American business wasn't intrigued by domestic fascism, and wasn't strategizing to get Repbublicans elected who had been trying to deliver fascism from the 1890s to the 1930s, to be interrupted by TR's trust busting (Mark Hannah couldn't believe the mistake he made putting TR on the ticket with business-friendly McKinley!).

I believe that a big reason FDR was so interested in the UN was because he saw the threat of international bogeymen to Democracy. He could see how threats abroad (real or fictional) diverted America's attention from creating middle class wealth (and therefore democracy) and he wanted to remove all these threats so Americans could focus on creating wealth broadly and equitably. Furthermore, he seemed to appreicate that the point of playing international fear was to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few powerful, anti-democratic industries (many of whom were war profiteers).

I thought all this was relatively obvious to people? I thought it was pretty clear that this has been the essense of the poltical give and take for the last 70 years.

[AP]

11. "Nothing to fear..." was an anecdote to domestic fascism.

Fear is the road to fascism.

I don't think Americans really appreciate how intense the battel against fascism was at home when FDR was president.

When FDR said we had nothing to fear, it was more directly a response to people like Prescott Bush than it was to Nazis in Germany.

Everything George Bush does is the opposite of what FDR was doing. Bush tells you you have everything to fear so that you don't care that you're in record debt while the oil companies have record profits.

[bobthedrummer]

35. As an American citizen and sole surviving son of a US Marine that fought

against militarism and fascism-not to mention NAZIS in WWII, here is some history to consider.

NAZIS, (and you can take this to the bank)the real NAZIS that were given identities and jobs as Americans (immediately after WWII) in classified work brought along families, friends and colleagues-entire social networks containing real NAZIS were covertly in our country folks, AND THEY FOUND A POLITICAL HOME IN THE EXTREME RW OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/ratlines.htm

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MEL305A.html

Real NAZIS, many of them war criminals sentenced to death at Nuremburg, became prominent Americans.
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~shale/humanities/compositio...

http://www.infoage.org/paperclip.html

One thing I admired about the administration of President Clinton was the prosecution of NAZIS and their related criminal enterprises.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/holtzman.html

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/maloney.html

These NAZIS had a mutual admiration thing for many powerful Americans like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh and Mr. Wallace of IBM.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0241/black.php

Captains of industry-NAZI American "cousins"
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/waryearsp5.html

Prescott Bush and how the Bush family wealth was partially derived from the Holocaust
http://falloutshelternews.com/BushHitlerLinks.html

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ROG309A.html

I hate fascists.
My homestate of Wisconsin had 38 POW camps full of Nazis and regular Axis during WWII. I was born and raised in Milwaukee, which is a wonderful place to root out the social networks of real NAZIS.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

[Village Idiot]

2. Conflagration, anyone?

Pass the marshmallows.

[mopaul]

8. you are a humanitarian do-gooder insurgent

i don't know about you, you liberal flag burning tree hugger, but i am utterly reassured by the greatest president in history's speech.

if you don't like the 21st century, why don't you go back to the late sixties hippy?

it shows that they believe us all to be as stupid as w. i for one am tired of being insulted and having them spit in my face repeatedly. one gets tired of that.

[Ironpost]

10. 'Oh we're having fireside chats

Just not the kind that FDR had in mind.

[AP]

12. Yeah. While Rome's burning, Bush talks to us like we're retarded.

[trof]

15. Pleasant surprise when one of mine rises from the ashes.

I certainly meant NO comparison between W*s last ditch effort to convince us all is hunky-dory and FDR's great radio chats.

IMHO, Roosevelt was a master of the spoken and written word.
Dumbya* is an Elmer Snerd with an inept Edgar Bergen.

[mopaul]

18. mortimer

my memory is fuzzy, but is it mortimer snerd? who also was morphed into beaky buzzard in the warner bros. toons?

that'd be a great image! "mr. president, did you fall off your bike"? "duh---nope---nope---uh-huh--huh--huh"

[trof]

21. Damn! It IS Mortimer.

I hate it when I do that.
Maybe I was thinking of Elmer Fudd.

[Hubert Flottz]

20. Free Campaign time on TV!

The Freeloader in Cheap is always looking for some new way to steal more, something, anything! Anyone who believes a word the idiot says is just plain old everyday STUPID!

[elperromagico]

16. The thing is, FDR didn't do that many Fireside Chats.

In his twelve years as President, he only gave 30. That's less than three a year. I think he realized that giving too many would make them far less special.

Well, FDR was one of the greatest Presidential speakers of the last century (and probably of any century). Bush isn't. I think he'll regret giving these speeches.

[mopaul]

19. bush's speeches will be shown to students in speech class

as what not to do when speaking in public

[AP]

23. His first was in 33, but he really poured it on after '39, I beleive.

[elperromagico]

25. He had delivered 14 by 1939. n/t

[AP]

27. So, 13 in first 6 years, 20 in last 6 years.

[elperromagico]

37. No, more like 17 in the last 6 years.

Of course, this is all rather pointless. He was not delivering Fireside Chats biweekly. I think the most he delivered in a year was four.

[immoderate]

28. I had the Bush speech on...

I think it gave me attention deficit disorder.

I tried looking at him but would soon get distracted by a piece of lint on the carpet, or a slat of the blinds being misaligned.

How does he do that?

--IMM

[Kurovski]

36. Remember, GDub said he's running the WH like a business.

The talks are just promotional tie-ins to his campaign.

The networks aren't falling for it. If the Shrub folks want 6 33 minute infomercials, their gonna have to pay for them.

Now that the terrorist attacks are over, they've brought Karen Hughes outta her Texas hidey-hole and back as a Washington insider. They've given her this long-range job of selling dimbulb as a thoughtful leader.

I'd prefer to hear Madame Hughes deliver her own speech, George is a bit plodding and watching him struggle through pronouncing "Abu Ghraib" was painful. Ol' motor-mouth Karen woulda' polished it off in half the time.

[opihimoimoi]

38. The Stepford Prez does it again. 6 speeches gonna save his ass?

Not by a long shot.

Bush has no clue as what to do. His people are flummoxed because he cannot pull off what they ask of him. He is too LOLO to follow the script.

Shallow thinker.

Poor Leader.

Very Selfish.

War President reveals Anger and Delusion

Used and abused by his Pub Masters and very confused.

He is a lost guppy in the Pond filled with Piranhas