Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you suppose we’ll ever see another Franklin Roosevelt in the White House?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:51 PM
Original message
Do you suppose we’ll ever see another Franklin Roosevelt in the White House?
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:34 PM by Cyrano
A week or two ago, Katrina Vanden Heuvel wrote an editorial in The Nation magazine which implied that the time is ripe for another Franklin Roosevelt and the “New Deal” he brought us. It was an outstanding piece and it got me to wondering what the hell happened to our ideals, our dreams and our innocence.

The “Great Depression” of the 1930s was brought about by almost the same circumstances of Republican greed, arrogance, entitlement and so-called “moral superiority” that we see today. Their mindset was that if the “lower classes” suffered, so be it. It was their own fault for being “lazy, ignorant, and lacking ambition.”

FDR was one of those accidents of fate where the right person came along, with the right ideas, at the exact right moment in history. But these past seven years of insanity seem to have left us on the verge of another “Great Depression.” And there’s no (apparent) FDR in sight.

Many of us here on DU believe that if the Christ of the bible came back today, he’d probably end up in Gitmo or worse. So what do you think would happen if another accident of history presented us with a sane candidate capable of bringing us back to a sane existence? My guess is that, at best, he/she would be “swiftboated.” And at worst, the word “assassination” would once again become operable.

I really don’t know if another FDR could save us from our current national disaster. And I really don’t know if the majority of people in this country even realize that we are teetering on the edge of a cliff.

So what are your thoughts on this? Will a “savior” come along? Will fate intervene and save us from ourselves? Or are we witnessing the end of “The American Empire?”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. None save economic collapse.
Because people aren't aware they need saving at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AdHocSolver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
38. People know there is a big problem. They can't get beyond the capitalist b*llsh*t about what to do.
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 01:55 AM by AdHocSolver
So far, no one (except, maybe, John Edwards) has actually addressed the problem and what to do about it. There are two elements to solve the current economic crisis. First, reimplement the regulations on corporations and their activities that were implemented by FDR. Second, take away the unfair advantage given to corporations that off-shore their business, relative to companies that produce goods in America.

The only creator of wealth is manufacturing. Sending the production of goods overseas drains the wealth of a country. It puts Americans out of work, puts us in debt to foreign countries, and drains our treasury since people without jobs do not pay taxes. This means the government borrows money to pay its bills, pays unnecessary interest to its lenders, and puts the U.S. in hock to foreign countries.

By defining the problem in this way, the solution becomes obvious: rewrite all international trade agreements that make it profitable for multinational corporations to send all of our manufacturing overseas to cheap-labor countries. This includes the WTO, IMF, NAFTA, World Bank, and all other such agreements and institutions.

Forget this nonsense I hear about organizing workers abroad to upgrade their wages to "level the playing field" so as to encourage corporations to manufacture in the U.S. again. By the time that happens, the majority of the people in this country will be unemployed and destitute. Immediate steps must be taken to rewrite trade agreements, change tax laws, and impose import quotas and tariffs. There is no "free market" to level the playing field. The term "free market" is a hoax. The current situation was set up by the multinational corporations to benefit themselves, and the current infrastructure they set up to control markets for their own benefit has to be redesigned. If it isn't, nothing will change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes.......
....and she will outdo FDR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I concur....kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Is she Clinton?
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 10:59 PM by mmonk
If so, I hate to say but New Democrats aren't New Deal Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. Exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Are you refering to Clinton?
If so...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. If FDR wasn't elected, the US could've become a pro-Hitler fascist dictatorship.
In a way, the Great Depression made it possible for his rise to power. I don't see anybody of that caliber ever rising again except if there were another economic collapse near to the scale of the Great Depression.

Even after he was elected, the industrialists in America wanted to emulate Hitler's approach to dealing with economic downturn. There was one reported failed coup against FDR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I dont know about Hoover being a "pro-Hitler" fascist
or are you referring one of the other poor schmucks (Dewey, Wilkie or whats his name in '36)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Not Hoover. Industrialists on Wall Street wanted to reduce FDR into a puppet like the King of Italy.
Hoover was utterly discredited and no longer popular.

Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler was asked by the coup plotters to organize veterans in a military coup to subjugate FDR. This testimony was given before Congress in 1934 after Butler blew the whistle.

"My interest is, my one hobby is, maintaining a democracy. If you get these 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of Fascism, I am going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will have a real war right at home."

-- Reply to Gerald MacGuire, after being asked to organize WWI veterans (for military support) in a fascist-coup of FDR, as related by Butler in testimony before Congress, 1934. A reporter (a Butler confidant) testified MacGuire said, "We might go along with Roosevelt and then do with him what Mussolini did with the King of Italy." Which was, made him a figure-head.


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Yeah
I have heard this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. another bush involved here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. Yep, Grandpa Prescott.
He and his Wall St. banking buddies were trying to rig a fascist coup here at the same time they were bankrolling Hitler.

It took them a lot longer here, but unfortunately they did succeed on December 12, 2000 :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
26. I think the reference would be more to the fact that the people
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:33 PM by dflprincess
who were hurt most by the Depression were ripe for following a dictator. I had a history professor who said no one really wants to remember how close the country was to rebellion in 1932. It would have been very easy for a Hitler or a Stalin to take over. And, if the corporate crooks at the time had figured that out I'm sure they would have been happy to back that kind of a candidate. Fortunately, they didn't care enough about the people hurt by the Depression to pay much attention to any what was going on with them - Roosevelt and his people did.

Shortly after FDR's first inaugural, when he laid out his plans for his first 100 days, one of his aides said to him "If you succeed you will go down in history as our greatest president." FDR responded, "If I don't, I'll go down in history as the last one."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I remember reading that FDR was called a "Traitor to his class."
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:41 PM by Cyrano
Apparently, those who held great wealth hated his guts for trying to help the vast majority of the American people.

And it's also apparent that some Limbaugh or Coulter back then came up with the despicable phrase "Traitor to his class."

There have always been traitors among us, and as the Valerie Plame outing demonstrated, those traitors, more often than not, are the "haves," not the "have nots."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. He was very much a paradox
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:14 PM by SharkSquid
And I believe in my heart of hearts that he was not one of those "anyone can become president" types. I think that he believed (like Jefferson and his Cousin) that there was an elite "ruling class". But that that class has a responsibility to the people to treat them equally and fairly ("Square Deal, New Deal")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Noblese Oblige? The duty owed by the "haves" to the 'have nots?"
I have no idea what Roosevelt did or didn't believe about the responsibity of the "Ruling Class." However, I do believe in his accomplishments. And I also believe that Eleanor Roosevelt had a lot to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. I actually think Elanor was almost completely independent
of him, if you look at the history of there marriage.

Strange story.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. I think FDR knew what he was doing was preserving capitalism, in essence.
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:38 PM by Selatius
In the Great Depression, communism and socialism were starting to become somewhat popular with the masses. In those days, people were starving to death in the streets. Soup kitchens had lines thousands of people long. There were food riots, and unemployment was topping 30%. For some, it did look like capitalism failed, and they wanted a replacement.

He was, in short, saving capitalism from its own excesses. Otherwise, the US could've fallen under fascism or even communism in the mistaken notion that they can usher forth workers' paradise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Are others as captivated by the photo of FDR with the tear
advert on this page/ What an elegant man he was...And what a leader...

Yes, it is hard not to wish for the reincarnation of such a man..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Nope
The "base" would eat a "new FDR" alive and if they didnt, if the accepted this creature the Republicans would dessicate his career and personal life piece by piece.

But my short time at DU has sucked all the optimism out of me :)

Happy Saturday yall.:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. (Pssst -- you left your italics tag open) To answer your question: No. I don't believe
that a "savior" will come along. And the sooner people stop looking for one, the better off we'll be.

We have to look to ourselves, and focus on building up our own progressive infrastructure beyond electoral politics.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
12. I'd be happy with another Teddy Roosevelt...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. He would get eaten alive too
Spit out by the republican base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. No kidding.
An anti-big business, conservationist, diplomatic, for-the-common-man Republican? He'd not stand a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharkSquid Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. He wasnt so much anti "big business"
More anti-non-regulation

if the double negative makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Well...you're right about that.
He wasn't totally against big business...his conservationism certainly wasn't unfriendly to the businesses...but he certainly was for regulation. He didn't like corporations screwing the small guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. FDR actually saved capitalism
by putting regulations on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AdHocSolver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. He saved the U.S. FROM capitalism (and fascism) by implementing regulations on capitalism.
Unregulated capitalism, with its penchant for fraud and thievery, had brought about economic collapse. Roosevelt understood this, and he also understood that the ONLY way to restart the economy is to provide people with money to spend (not give tax breaks to the rich, which actually makes the economic situation worse).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. If another FDR came along, the "centrists" & "moderates" would immediately declare him "unelectable"
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:20 PM by scarletwoman
due to his determination to shake up the status quo.

sw

(on edit -- oops, I didn't notice that your post said TEDDY Roosevelt. Duh. Still my statement on FDR stands, even if it's not germane to your post.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Yeah, the only cantidate we can get...
is someone 'safe' who won't 'rock the boat'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. FDR was a centrist, in his day, iirc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Yes, but not by *today's* standards. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. My point is that a centrist can forge good policy. And get it enacted.
Especially with a committed, involved Congress. Political compromise for the greatest good happens across the spectrum. Always has.

FDR was vilified as a 'socialist' in some right wing sectors, of course. Held as a 'savior' to some others. He was neither.

He was a consummate politician, was able to bring various factions together to meet the needs of the day as best they could. And they did well. Very well.

*Together* they did much to lay the foundation of our current broad federal safety net we take for granted.

The Republican extremists want to dismantle it. And they have chipped away at some aspects, yet all is not lost.

Again, not all centrists - even by today's standards - are going to undermine what needs to be done. In fact, given the right set of circumstances and cooperation, they may help enable real progressive legislation.

And that legislation, if enacted, is the real, political savior.

Thanks for your post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #18
39. FDR originally ran as a centrist in 1932.
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 01:34 AM by Odin2005
Mostly to get the support of the business suck-up side of the party led by Al Smith, the 1930's equivalent of the DLC. It was not until 1934 or so that he burned his bridges with business interests in order to follow the rest of the country's left-ward lurch and to neutralize would-be populist tyrants like Huey Long and Father Coughlin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
22. I think so. 'Savior' may be overstating the case, but I think a politician that can craft
a broad set of federal responses to a broad set of national political/economic/social problems has a place in our future.

(aside) The New Deal was bitterly fought, negotiated, compromised at times and finally enacted in chunks of legislation - and some remain that we all benefit from still. The process wasn't quick, yet the times were desperate for some response. We are not in the same situation as the Great Depression generation. I agree, though, we need some bold, broad action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AdHocSolver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #22
40. In some ways, the U.S. may be in a worse situation than the Great Depression generation.
Back in the 1930's, the U.S. still had its manufacturing infrastructure intact. Also, the U.S. wasn't into debt to foreign countries, such as China and Saudi Arabia, as it is today. Finally, the Federal deficit wasn't huge like it is today, so that the government back then could create debt to start public works projects to put people back to work without causing inflation.

The U.S. today has so much debt, that it is more like Germany during the Great Depression, when Germany was in hock to the allies to pay reparations (which was really a scheme to profit British and American bankers). The value of the Deutsch Mark plummeted because of the debt, causing high rates of inflation. This situation is what brought the Nazis to power.

I am sure our American capitalists understand the mechanics of the situation, since many of their ancestors provided funds to the Nazis to enable them to succeed. Once the Nazis gained power, our capitalists were quick to invest in the Nazi war machine. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, IBM, and many other corporations and American banks financed or profited from WWII.

One prominent businessman who profited handsomely from such activity was Prescott Bush, W's granddaddy. Many others who profited comprise a "who's who" of American business and politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
31. A new FDR - New Citizen Contract is a pleasant and optimistic thought
There is a huge disconnect between the citizens and the elected and professional leadership of this country.
Vote democrat unless you can viably vote green or the like locally.
Maybe someone will incubate a FDR clone in some time. I don't see that transcendence in any of our flawed candidates. Placeholders at best and not aggressive to a basic reset back to prior the "War on Terra" -- I favor someone who will have minimal domestic conflict. Ideally, a good foreign policy President for peace and repair and a strong form VP on domestic issiues, particularly medical, infrastructure, good jobs, and the social saftey net. GWB has created problems and used fear to beat down the morale of the most aware citizens. Thank you for the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
32. Today's media would focus on the fact that he was banging his secretary
And wouldn't allow him to get anything done.

The media back then wouldn't even reveal that he was paralyzed, which shows you just how much times have changed.

It's also very unlikely that he could be elected in the primary system. FDR didn't have an ideology and so likely both the left and the center would hate him. On health care, for example, instead of committing to keeping private insurance or supporting single payer, he would gather the 5 best health care policy experts he could find, sit down with them in a room and come up with his own solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
33. He wouldn't win here on DU because he campaigned by 'triangulating' as 'they' call it now...
anti international organizations and pro-balanced budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lurky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
37. FDR didn't plan on the New Deal. He was forced into it by circumstance.
Things were so bad when he got into office that he had to do something. If I remember correctly, he ran on a much more moderate platform, but became a liberal as a matter of survival.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 03:34 AM
Response to Original message
41. We COULD see another FDR
But people are too busy supporting Clinton, Obama, et. al. to let him do the job.

Our potential new FDR's name is John Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
43. We could easily have another FDR in 2008. But no one would know.
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:27 AM by Perry Logan
A charismatic Democratic President comes along at least every 30 years. We had FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton. These are the charismatic Democratic Presidents that the right hate and the people love.

The problem now is the biased media. At this point, any Democratic President will be mercilessly smeared, no matter how well she/he does--just as Bill Clinton was. This by far our biggest problem.

Because of media bias, you will never hear a good thing about a Democratic President. We could easily have another FDR in 2008. But no one will know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
44. They are all Over This Country Now--They Just Need a Party, the Democratic Party
I think this is an extremely interesting topic also, and I like so many others, believe that it will be exactly that, another New Deal, that will save our economy, our country, our civic political system, and our relations with the other countries of the world. It is so complicated, to try to understand what the New Deal was, why it solved things, etc., that you should probably just read several books on it (if you already haven't) until you feel you understand the thing, and the era, a little better. My parents were lifelong, die-hard New Deal Roosevelt Democrats, who thought Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were saints, and so I have a great feeling for their mindset, which I believe is the only way to be, but if you didn't have personal contact, you may have to reconstruct it. One great book is "The Battle for Social Security" by Nancy J. Altman, very knowledgeable and wise about the situation, a book that not only explains why it is needed (a Godsend), but what a monumental battle it was, every step of the way, getting every Goddamned part of it past Republicans. For those of you who think they wanted to leave health care to "the wisdom of the marketplace," a concept that would have been alien to them, they tried to add universal health care to Social Security, but Republicans threatened to kill the entire thing and much of the rest of the New Deal, (as they later did do), so health care was dropped, with the hope that it could be passed later. It never was.

For the silly people who grab every opportunity to try to claim that "really, FDR was 'centrist' 'D'LC," one quote, among many, will suffice:

"A Radical is a man with both feet firmly planted--in the air.
"A Conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.
"A Reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards.
"A Liberal is a man who uses his legs and his hands at the behest, at the command, of his head."

(Apologies for the exclusive male reference that was the style then. Some people still talk that way.) There were many serious, or joking, comments from Roosevelt, and all of them were about being a proud liberal, or proud Democrat, or proud American. No "centrist" shit. Roosevelt made strong, attacking criticisms, and warnings, about "economic Royalists," greed, corporate traitors, about how big business hated Roosevelt and "I welcome that hate," and even warning about the threat of fascism from the power and organization of American big business itself: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."

The New Dealers thought of every industry as, first and foremost, the servant of the people, and that the people should regulate it all, for the general social good--the media and public airwaves (fucked away by Clinton), workplace rights and safety, pensions, the stock market, etc., and that the poor and destitute of the Depression needed help now--jobs programs, Social Security payments, and yes--welfare. Because of Nationwide suffering, never were the poor and unemployed less stigmatized than during the 1930s (read Studs Terkel's "Hard Times," etc.), because everyone knew someone who was jobless, had lost the family farm, etc., etc. "No business which depends for existence by paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country," FDR 1933. "Remember that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists," FDR 1938, after Eleanor put on a huge, free concert with the opera singer Marian Anderson, after she had been refused a concert at the DAR.

Contrary to some opinion, the public was not unaware that Roosevelt had polio--it was well-known; FDR after all created the March of Dimes against polio, had bought the resort at Hot Springs and given it as a gift to the American people, as a place to go to for treatment (as Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson bequeathed their Texas ranch as a public Historical Park and museum for the American people, and as they insisted that the LBJ Library be free)--imagine Bush, Cheney or this shitty ilk doing any of that! The thing that many were unaware of at the time was of how complete the loss of use of the legs was, and that Roosevelt could not stand at all, unaided. Most people who have studied it, credit the devastating onset of polio, to Roosevelt's deep understanding and compassion, which up to then had been pretty minimal. There was also the compassionate and radicalizing influence of Eleanor; they really were partners, however troubled their marriage on other counts.

Roosevelt even referred to the New Deal itself as the Sermon on the Mount put into practice. (Another one who tells the history very well is Thom Hartmann.) I also remember, but can't find, a comment something like, that Roosevelt wished that they could have done something to curb the corrupting power and influence of stockholders, that they subverted a business's true responsibility to the workers, the customers, and the general society. The point was not so much that FDR wanted to get rid of capitalism, considered a pipe-dream, unworkable, and would be replaced by something like Communism which would have been as bad, as that it was that the Roosevelts, like the Kennedys and some of the Rockefellers, etc., realized just how disgusting and corrupt, greedy and un-American some of their fellow rich people were/are.

This is a subject that goes on forever and really should be studied as the next cure. Any "D"LC "centrist" asinine enough to think that the New Deal is the "old" way, and that "we" need "new" ways--like deregulating everything back to the Gilded Age!--should realize the commonsense understanding of things, that poverty, corporate corruption, price-gouging, supression of wages, outsourcing, plant relocation, bribery of legislators, and all the rest, is not "new" and never changes. Since some 60-70% of the GDP is from consumer purchases (just heard again a few days ago on PBS NewsHour), and so, the basis, and almost total content of the economy is people buying things to keep their standard of living, then the only thing that DOES work is direct cash payments, jobs and infrastructure programs, and the new New Deal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
45.  i doubt it .
We see the dumbing down of america but we only look at it from one angle . We don't see that the entire government is just as dumbed down as the people they represent . Oh there are a few old timers still around who try to fight for what is right but what I see as far as leaders go are either corrupt , weak , ignorent , bought off or just plain scared .

We live in a world of mindset that has evolved into some sort of futuristic game board where everything is an illusion based on computer printouts and statistics . The tools of the future which do not apply to human logic or the bleeding heart .

The world changes much faster than the human can adapt all in the control of the machine .

Many years ago we were warned over and over about this but then you would have to read to know this .

What amazes me is that so long ago people could see where the paths we chose were going to lead us but we can't see this now while living in it .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC