A simple question about what is needed from Democratic candidates....

[punpirate]

I don't mean this to be yet another "attack the candidate" thread. But, I am trying to find historical parallels with our present time with what has happened in the country in the past.

It seems to me that the closest parallel (apart from the current foreign military engagements of all kinds) is the Hoover-Roosevelt contest in 1932.

I say this for the following reasons. In the early days of the post-Wall Street crash and the Great Depression, Hoover put the burden of taxation on the middle class, and protected the corporate world from taxation, in part because of the Republican abhorrence of deficit spending at the time. He denied that the economic health of the country was endangered, and sought to minimize the problems of the ordinary people of the country (so much so that the Detroit police convinced him to avoid parades in downtown Detroit in 1931 because they couldn't guarantee his safety).

I hope that sounds a bit familiar. Many families today have avoided abject poverty because their credit is still good, but that may not last.

So, rather than concentrating on supporting a particular Democratic candidate for what he or she is saying, why not concentrate on what needs to be said?

Let's ignore that Dubya is trying to co-opt Franklin Roosevelt's image for himself for political purposes and look at FDR's record coming into the 1932 election. He was governor of New York, so there was a presumption that he had some experience in governing, as might be afforded every candidate today.

But, I think, what Roosevelt had going for him was an understanding of the problems in the country at the time which transcended his background. He was smart--no question of that--but he was _wealthy_, and yet his wealth didn't obstruct his view of what needed to be done.

Further, his wealth and his experience as governor of New York likely gave him insight into the mental workings of Wall Street, and he found Wall Street wanting.

His whole domestic program, despite his wealth and his political background, depended upon a repudiation of the robber barons' method.

He understood that deficit spending and providing jobs through the WPA and the CCC was necessary, and that severe and sudden controls and regulation of corporations were necessary to save the country.

His plan worked. While many charge that it was only WWII that pulled the economy out of the depression, there's some evidence that employment and average income were improving before the United States entered WWII.

FDR turned the country upside-down in just a few years despite the howling of the wealthy and powerful corporations, and his plans pulled the country out of its worst economic dilemma in a hundred years.

My feeling is that what is truly needed now is a 2004 analogue to FDR, someone who is canny and savvy about the common weal and how to upset the intentions of Wall Street when its interests don't coincide with the needs of average people.

I don't mean this to be an invitation for all to find one thing about their favorite candidate which resembles FDR in his campaign for the presidency in 1932. I mean it to elicit some discussion about what is needed today. In fact, I challenge all to avoid mention of any candidate and to limit the discussion to concepts and ideas.

While the human suffering today, statistically, does not compare to that of 1932, it is getting nearer. The Republicans, wittingly or unwittingly, are supporting programs and spending irrationality which may cause us, in retrograde fashion, to find ourselves in pre-New Deal times. What must be done to avoid this eventuality?

Cheers.

[Girlfriday]

1. Good summary;

I couldn't agree more. Anyone who reads, knows that Shrub is Hoover all over again. The depressing article written by Paul Krugman ( an excerpt from his book THE GREAT UNRAVELING) points out how these right-wing bastards are trying to undo "The New Deal" and "The Great Society". The chasm is getting wider everyday, and that's the way they like it. :mad:

[punpirate]

2. Thanks, but...

... what do _you_ think is necessary _now_ to avoid what _might_ have happened in 1932 if Hoover had been re-elected? Bush is Coolidge and McKinley and Hoover all rolled into one. What will happen if Bush is re-elected and continues to get his way? What needs to be done to fix what has already happened over these past couple of decades? Those are the questions I think have been overlooked in all the jockeying over current candidates.

Cheers.

[SavageWombat]

3. Krugman

I think what's needed is for a Dem president to hire Paul Krugman and make him chief economic adviser - either that, or give him Greenspan's job.

What Hoover tried to do was to play "laissez-faire" and assume the economy would right itself. It didn't. The presumption that giving the wealthy money creates jobs is obviously false in practice - they seem to hold onto their money until the economy recovers.

So what's needed is government investment in infrastructure - DIRECT creation of jobs instead of hoping that private companies will do it for them. If (hypothetically) a new Dem president decided to give half a billion dollars to each state for highway repair, a lot of new transportation jobs would be created.

A side effect of the New Deal is that, in the interests of "job creation", the US took on a lot of projects that would otherwise have been deemed unnecessary or expensive. Things like nation-wide electrical connections, interstate highways, and massive dams have benefitted us hugely, but wouldn't pass our current government.

Many pundits have said that we need to challenge the nation, much like Kennedy did with the space program - but to the development of alternative energy sources. I submit that this would benefit us further: not only would we have more energy, and free ourselves from foreign dependancy, but we'd also be creating the millions of new jobs our country needs right now.

Oops, I almost forgot to talk like a pirate. Arrrrr, me hearties.

[punpirate]

4. Yup, that's what I was getting at...

... and, yes, indeed, it's talk like a pirate day, isn't it? *g*

The Bushies ought to be talking like that, pirates that they are.... *smile*

[F.Gordon]

5. I prefer 1952

In a reverse, twisted, "matrix" sort of way.....

The Democratic base of labor/unions felt betrayed by the Dems and the Southern Dems thought the party was becoming too liberal. The American Communist Party was losing credibility, in part, because their doom and gloom predictions about the economy never came true.

The Dem party was engulfed in what was called "the mess", a Republican term. The Dems were accused of giving loans to companies that didn't qualify for them and fixing tax fraud cases. The Democrats were damned if they did and damned it they didn't. If the President tried to clean house, the Republicans could shout "White-Wash!". If Democrats in Congress went after the dirt to prove their honesty, the Republicans could say: "See! What did we tell you!"

When Truman bowed out of the Presidential race the party was flooded with candidates. Eventually Stevenson was drafted after some Dem party arm twisting of the other candidates.

A new form of media/communication...television...was used for the first time in a Presidential Race. It attributed to the record voter turnout in 1952 with women voters essentially deciding the outcome for the Republicans.

The winner was a Republican; Eisenhower. He was courted by both Parties but chose the Republicans. The Dems only won the Southern States in that Election. The Repug VP running mate...Nixon was involved in a financial slush fund scandal but used "television" to distract from it by appearing with his cute dog..."Checkers". The public soon forgot all about the scandal.

Throw in McCarthy, sagging Retail sales, obscene amounts of money put into Defense Spending, the emerging "Cold War", and a few other "historical" comparisons and you have a 1952-2004 twisted sort of time warp.
--------------------------------------------------------------
You can make your own comparisons here about 2004 and 1952. Change the names. Switch "Democrat" to "Republican" and so on.....

2004 is going to be very difficult for the Democrats. This bakers dozen we have running is clouding the message and making the messenger all but invisible. Bush* is seen as someone who can be beaten, so we have this HUGE field looking to jab the dagger into him for a final death blow. I really, really fear that by the time the Primaries roll around the Dem Party is going to be so divided...so much in disarray....that we won't have time to repair the damage and defeat the MF currently in office.

Just my opinion, and I'm usually wrong.......

[punpirate]

8. All you've said can be taken as reasonable argument...

... but in terms of the times in 1952, the economy was reasonably healthy (exports and, therefore, the balance of trade were quite high in that time), so I don't think the economy was a central issue, as it is today. By 1952, a lot of the problems integrating returning soldiers into the workforce had been solved--places like Levittown were springing up everywhere thanks to GI Bill financing of homes, etc.

What was a notable issue, which you don't mention, is the war in Korea. Truman had taken a contrary stance to it, in the minds of the many conservatives, by first pitching out McArthur and then refusing to use nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. The conservatives were in flames about Communists about that, and about Truman's apparent unwillingness to do anything about Chinese communist support for the North Koreans.

Hence, the Republican drafting of Eisenhower, the general who had in their minds won WWII single-handedly, and Nixon, who made his name in Congressional committees fighting commies in the State Department.

1952, for the Republicans, was a lot more, to my mind, about image-making than about the economy.

Cheers.

[RichM]

6. The key phrase in your post centers on "someone ... canny

(enough)... to upset... Wall Street when its interests don't coincide with the needs of average people."

To rephrase slightly, this means looking for a candidate willing to stand up for average people -- which means, in turn, a willingness to oppose the interests of the very wealthy. The situation is one of class warfare. One is either on the side of the corporate oligarchy, or against them. (FDR was willing to oppose them, at least to some limited extent, for a limited time period. He opposed them less than is commonly thought, & he did so only to SAVE them in the longer view. Ironically, it was for his limited willingness to oppose them that he was so enormously popular.)

Those who get nervous when the phrase "class warfare" arises are essentially unwilling to take a position against the oligarchy. Those unwilling to bluntly call the conflict by its proper name, are not going to take the side of the bottom 98% of the population. If the conflict is not called by its proper name -- "class warfare" -- and a euphemism is used instead, this merely ensures that the real nature of the conflict will never be understood by the public, & that nothing will be done to remedy it. Euphemisms, and denying the real nature of the conflict, help the ruling class, because they afford cover to the enemy, while misleading & confusing the victims.

Most -- but not all -- of the Democratic Party is composed of cowards ("pragmatists," in their own minds) who will never in a million years talk about the class war. It makes their palms sweaty just to hear that language. They feel it is a "divisive" impolite subject for conversation. Anyone who feels like that is unwilling to take the side of the lower 98%. To deny that it is a class war is to deny the real nature of the conflict. Such a position is of invaluable assistance to the top 1% or so, in their efforts to control the wealth of the entire country.

You ask, "What must be done to avoid this eventuality?" as the Republicans try to roll back the New Deal? Basically, leadership must be sought that does not shrink from boldly identifying the true nature of the conflict. If one insists that "We're all Americans, let's not talk of class war," this amounts to a surrender to the ruling class. The war cannot be won by refusing to recognize that it exists. The right type of leadership is the type that offends, scandalizes & horrifies the ruling class. Anyone who doesn't offend them is not worth listening to.

The Busheviks have been waging the class war for years already. Any Democrats that want to talk "happy talk" about national unity, all living in harmony together, etc -- these people prevent the party from mobilizing as a force of opposition. These people are deluded pansies who want to continue being pansies while being ravaged by very un-deluded rightwing extremists.

[punpirate]

9. Sorry not to have kept up with my own thread....

I agree with a good deal of what you've said, and especially with regard to the right describing what is going on as "class warfare." It's a carefully chosen term, meant to elicit visions of the poor breaking into the gated communities of the country and looting the McMansions of the not-so-hard-working well-to-do.

But, with regard to FDR, perhaps you're being a bit too hard on him (compare what was done in his time to both repair the economy and to thwart the aims of the robber barons) and compare his programs to what has been described as visionary in the last twenty years.

But, standing up for the average people is the watchword, and one I was hoping would be expressed. FDR knew that such could be accomplished through law and government regulation, but only if he was willing to rein in the wild men, and he did, for the most part (even when WWII came along, FDR insisted upon stiff taxes on war profiteering, something that would give many in the current administration heart failure).

Think, for an example, of someone today proposing direct government involvement in public works projects such as the WPA and the CCC for the expressed purpose of putting people back to work (without profits accruing to corporations through government contracts), and running relatively mild deficits to accomplish that. The smears from the right-wing think tanks would be neverending.

Think of someone proposing to raise the top income tax rate on the wealthy to 91%--for the specific purpose of redistributing income, rather than balancing the budget (after all, Hoover ran on a platform including a balanced budget--he just put the burden on the middle class, rather than the wealthy). That was something Roosevelt got through Congress, somehow, and that tax rate remained in effect until roughly 1963, when Kennedy proposed reducing it to 77%.

Without declaring it as an objective, FDR managed to use government for the betterment of the bottom 90%, and, I suppose, that's what I feel is what all Democrats today should be proposing to do, whether they speak out in those terms or not.

Today, the media has managed to distort the debate so thoroughly that few people have the historical and emotional context to realize that things _were_ different in times past. Part of that came from the 1934 Communications Act, which effectively created rules for fairness and public service in communications because those rules were tied to the notion that the public owned the airwaves. Contrast that to the free-marketers in force today who believe, as does the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that the airwaves should be a privately-held commodity to be traded at will amongst companies for profit.

I suppose I pointed to FDR's election in 1932 for those reasons, because, to me, the economic and political climate today so resembles that time in 1932, and any Democratic candidate who cannot see the similarities between then and now will never be able to focus the message sufficiently to overcome the media onslaught of the right.

Cheers.

[fob]

7. How about this strategy...

I will win the war on terrorism in 2 years! What's bushco* gonna do then? They will ridicule and say it's not possible and ask fo rthe plan and blah blah blah, but in the end, if EVERY candidate repeated they will win the war in 2 years (or pick a length), they could say as a matter of concern for the nation all Dem candidates have pledged to implement the plan to win in 2 years. Eventually when the number of candidates dwindles the message will pick up steam, leading to the Dem nominee having a 2 year (or less) plan to win the WOT and the alternate of bush* and a never-ending War on Terra.

What'dya think?