FDR faced a third-party threat in 1935 which he worked to destroy through stealthy means.

[LoZoccolo]

http://books.google.com/books?id=kJqyQ18fUyEC&lpg=PA136&ots=df9AZcYDUw&dq=FDR%20union%20party%2050th%20law&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false

[JHB]

1. So what? It just shows FDR knew how to disrupt a radical opposition.

So let's direct these tactics against the actual radical opposition of our day: the Republicans and their lockstep voting patterns in congress.

Their whole strategy lives and dies by their maintaining Politburo-grade adherence to the Party Line. What would their position in "negotiations' be if if they were routinely faced with members balking at the hard-line position and voting with the Democrats?

Yet for years now our party leaders have treated this as if it were a fact of life, an immutable obstacle that they could only work around. Undermining it takes time but it can be done. Republicans did not even hide the fact that they would simply oppose everything the Obama administration did, so it's not like we've been suddenly surprised with a new situation.

I think you'll find a lot less noise about third parties here if some of those stealthy means were actually deployed against the Republicans.

[LoZoccolo]

3. A third party is easier to disrupt, though.

It's often composed of people who refuse the discipline of maintaining solidarity with an established party, so it's easy to provoke them into breaking with this new one.

[JHB]

52. That's your response? "It's easier"?

The basic situation is not analoagous to the current tensions within the Democratic Party.

It's a much better match to the situation within the Republicans, where they've courted RW radicals for years, and stand to be dragged over (or, rather, even more over) the edge by their own useful idiots.

[tosh]

19. Exactly.

"...if some of those stealthy means were actually deployed against the Republicans."

[JitterbugPerfume]

2. this is really interestiing.

thanks for posting it LoZoccolo! I need to buy that book

[xphile]

4. So what's your point? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

5. One point is that not even FDR was this FDR that people contrast other politicians with.

Another is that history suggests that the professional left will likely never be satisfied anyways, even with the president held up as being the most liberal ever.

[xphile]

9. This president is not liberal.

And if you want to avoid a third party run from the left do what other politicians in the past did. Co-opt the leftist position.

The critics are not complaining because Obama is being too liberal. And the most liberal ever? You clearly do not know what the word means. Why am I not surprised you seem to enjoy learning words then start using them without actually knowing what they mean.

[LoZoccolo]

12. I would say he is, but I didn't mention that in this post until now.

I was referring to Franklin Delano Roosevelt as being the president that is usually cited as the most liberal.

[Better Believe It]

21. The two demagogues you cite were not anything close to being "leftists" or progressives.

Huey Long and Father Coughlin were not left-wing radicals in any sense of that term. They were right-wing reactionary demagogues that were opposed by the entire left and progressive movements during the Great Depression.

That's just an established historical fact.

So please don't try and portray Long and Coughlin as "professional leftists".

I hope you study that history more carefully.

[LoZoccolo]

25. John Birchers like to resort to the tactic of saying that fascism is left-wing. n/t

[MadHound]

6. FDR faced more than on third party challenge

The Socialists were much more of a third party threat than the Union Party ever dreamed of. The way that FDR dealt with their threat was to steal a couple of the planks from their party's platform and make them his own, thus winning the left to his side. Good thing he did, otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.

As far as this book written by 50 Cent, a rapper, and Robert Greene, a speaker and writer on the motivational circuit, it is short on historical accuracy. It fails to mention the biggest downfall of the Union Party, namely that it wasn't FDR's jedi mind tricks that caused the failure of the party, but the assassination of Long himself months after the party formed. Thus, the party was deprived of its main leadership and power.

If you want to study history, I suggest that you read the work done by actual historians.

[LoZoccolo]

7. I didn't say that that was ultimately what brought it down. n/t

[Better Believe It]

30. The Socialist Party in fact did run Norman Thomas for President against FDR

FDR didn't "steal" anything from the Socialist Party and other radical parties and organizations. The pressure was on FDR from socialists and many independent ooutside organizations which demanded, fought for and won those reforms using mass street actions, strikes and other tactics.

That's something we need today.

[demmiblue]

8. Huh...I didn't know that 50 Cent was a book author. n/t

[xphile]

10. WTF does FDR have to so with what appears to be some self help book anyway?

I swear I'm going to start automatically unreccing everything you post. You haven't managed to put up a single intelligent thought.

[LoZoccolo]

11. The book is about overcoming adversity.

Sometimes adversity comes in the form of opponents, who can be defeated through indirect strategies like the ones that Franklin Delano Roosevelt employed.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. your reference is "50 Cent"?

seriously?

[LoZoccolo]

14. He isn't the sole author of the book, but yes.

Do you think the cited story came to him in a dream, or some kind of delusion?

[LoZoccolo]

16. I'm also curious as to why you would discredit him.

Hmmmmmmmm?

[xphile]

20. Because he can barely spit out a sentence without the phrase "you know what I'm sayin"?

It annoys the crap out of me because then when *I* who does not use that colloquialism every two sentences speak people look at me as though they're surprised I can fucking speak English.

If I'm going to take someone's advice I would prefer to take advice from someone who actually went to college and got an education rather than someone who managed to pull himself up from a drug dealer to rapper no matter how admirable his now mostly law abiding life may be.

Most drug dealers are not going to get record contracts. Why? Because most of them end up either dead or in prison and I don't want to have any children I am related to to think that the best way to make it in this country is to go for highly improbable careers like rappers, singers, sports stars or actors.

WTF do you think 50 cent is someone whose example we should be following?

[LoZoccolo]

22. I think it's important for a speaker to audit whether or not he is being understood to that point.

Once it is established that the audience knows what he is saying, he can go on to perhaps another point which is dependant upon understanding what has just been said.

I don't think that I say anything about the book's advice being good to follow, just that I'd like to establish some historical events that are cited in the book.

[xphile]

44. It's a self help book. I do not go to self help books for historical fact.

Neither do people who have a semblance of credibility.

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. 50 cents said he would have voted for George Bush

I think that's all we need to know...


wikipedia..... look it up the guy is a punk

[LoZoccolo]

27. Even if he was, an ad hominem on 50 Cent does not really argue with the topic at hand. n/t

[xphile]

28. I didn't read that far on him. But that would be another reason why a self help book

written by him is not something to be read.

I rarely see self help books that actually are of help. Most of them try to get you to think that if you think positive things good things will happen because somehow whatever bad things happen to you is your own damn fault. No thank you I won't read any such book and I especially won't read a book by 50 cent.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Discredit? Exactly what credibility does 50 Cent have with respect to american history?

Here I'll help you out with the answer: zero credibility. I cannot possibly discredit 50 Cent as an authority for modern american history. I was simply astounded that anyone would use a self help book by 50 Cent as a reference for a point being made about american history. Then again considering who posted it...

[LoZoccolo]

31. How about Robert Greene, who's written three other historical books? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Seriously? Again? Have you no shame?

Bibliography

1998 The 48 Laws of Power (with Joost Elffers)
2001 The Art of Seduction
2006 The 33 Strategies of War
2009 The 50th Law (with 50 Cent)
2010 The Descent of Power (ebook)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greene_(American_author)

[LoZoccolo]

35. Seriously.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tmmOvqV4MboC&lpg=PA431&pg=PA431#v=onepage&q&f=false

I couldn't get the bibliography for the other books, but I invite other people to check them out for themselves, perhaps at their local public library.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Your claim that Greene has credibility as an authority on american history

is ridiculous. Par for the course.

[LoZoccolo]

38. He doesn't really have to have it, if his source does. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

40. How much fail can you achieve in one thread?

[LoZoccolo]

42. Let's look at what you might be trying to establish opposite this example.

Are you trying to say that FDR would not try to defeat a party that was being set up to defeat him?

[Warren Stupidity]

48. No I am wondering how you could possibly have claimed

either of these two men as authorities on american history. Was it a Google Fail?

[Rex]

49. Stop!

Otherwise I am going to lose all my soda and nearly not a drop drank!

:spray:

[LoZoccolo]

50. What would you accept, in unambiguous terms, to determine that this historical event happened?

I could give you the source that 50 Cent and Robert Greene used, but you could say "they are not an authority either". This tactic can be taken to absurd extremes, such as when the birthers would not accept the birth certificate as evidence of the existance of the birth certificate. They gave no criteria to determine whether or not they were wrong, and could simply keep questioning the credibility of anything in the abscence of it.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Dear OP: it is your source that is the problem. Not the alleged events. nt.

[LoZoccolo]

53. I have no idea what that means.

Do you believe that the events happened or not?

[xphile]

36. Wow that's really an impressive bibiography. Not.

I thought merely having 50 cent as the author of a self help book was ridiculous. But now we've got this dude who is supposed to give it credence according to the author of this thread? This thread has officially become clownish. Where's the overstuffed car?

[eilen]

15. Isn't it verboten here to mention 3rd parties? nt

[LoZoccolo]

17. It is verboten here to advocate for third parties.

I'm doing the opposite, and have been putting them down for something like seven years now.

[Better Believe It]

24. Is advocating for a second political party also forbidden?

[LoZoccolo]

26. Yes; the Republicans were established after the Democrats. n/t

[rug]

32. You, of course, realize that the antisemite Fr. Coughlin and the Union Party have no current analogy

to disgust with the substance and pace of Obama's reforms.

Or do you simply prefer posting misinformation?

[LoZoccolo]

33. I am sure that many of the Union Party platforms would appeal to DUers.

We could perhaps put them up for vote in a series of polls?

[rug]

39. I dare you.

[mmonk]

43. Do not even compare the Roosevelt administration with the current one.

Or disatisfied ignored Democratic party members and citizens with the past. We are discussing currently further weakening what's left of the New Deal and blaming it as an impediment to economic growth.

[LoZoccolo]

45. I'm not sure that I was doing that. n/t

[mmonk]

60. Are you comparing any challenges from the left with that challenge?

Otherwise I fail to see the point of the post other than being a random tidbit of information unlinked to current events.

[whatchamacallit]

46. You've finally done it!

I agree with whatever-the-fuck you're trying to convince us of!

[LoZoccolo]

47. It might not happen often because I usually don't like to post things that are not novel.

I agree with DUers on a lot of things, but wouldn't have much to contribute as far as saying "I disagree with cutting Social Security" and the like, at least not as well as other people have. Usually where I have something new to say is on some point where I disagree with a lot of DUers, and when that happens it is usually on some question about strategy rather than ideology. I've been painted as a troll but if you really pick apart the things I post I think you'll find I'm generally liberal but advocate pragmatism and partisan solidarity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. ..."is a shit statement"

LZ, there's no way you can try to claim you like to avoid 'not novel' posts.

This was a particularly pointless thread of yours; you could have actually started it by mentioning the Union Party, Coughlin, or anything else from the 1930s, but instead you show us the cover of a selp-help book by a rap artist, which, you claim, has something (we've still fuck all idea what) about the Union Party somewhere inside it.

Instead, people got to play the "What The Fuck Is LoZoccolo's Point Today" guessing game. Which involves people getting more and more angry with you until you finally decide to start talking.

'Passive-aggressive' fits you perfectly. You're a ridiculous combination of "if you don't know why I'm not talking to you, then there's no point in me explaining", "one word: plastics" and "you can't handle the truth!".

You give the centrist wing of DU a very bad name. You probably drive more DUers from voting for Obama than Ralph Nader. Who on earth would want to be seen to be like you?

[LoZoccolo]

61. The link isn't working?

it's supposed to show you about three pages of the book, not just the cover.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. All I get is the cover, a couple of 1 sentence user reviews, and publisher's blurb

No mention of FDR, the Union Party, or the 1930s. There is a box saying "no preview available".

Under 'about the author' it says:

"About the author (2009)

Greene was a notorious figure in his own time, leading a life of excess and debauchery (or at least so he represents himself in his many journalistic pamphlets). His exposes of the Elizabethan underworld may or may not be based on real experience. He died, according to his friend Thomas Nashe, from a "banquet of Rhenish wine and pickled herring." In addition to his plays, Greene wrote many charming prose romances, with interpolated lyric poems. His works helped lay the foundations of the English drama, and even his worst plays have historical value."

Seriously.

[xphile]

63. +1000 Well said. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

54. Too bad this party was headed up by Huey Long & Charles Coughlin..........

.......the latter whom was a KNOWN fascist agitator; btw, why wasn't he tried for treason?

[Puregonzo1188]

55. He faced a lot of third party challenges, including in 1932 when almost a million voted for

the Socialist Norman Thomas and the Communist William Z. Foster.

And by 1935 a lot of unions were seriously discussing forming a labor party. It's funny--a lot of the benchmark New Deal legislation was passed that year and then the labor union opposition collapsed.

As for the Union Party, as several people have pointed out Father Coughlin was a rightwing fascist, an anti-semite who supported Hitler and Mussolini. Please don't even try to imply he's a leftist.

Huey Long I have more mixed feelings about, however, neither of them are really representative of the left opposition to Roosevelt, which included John Dewey and Norman Thomas and the Communist Party (prior to the Popular Front policies of the Cominterim) who were busy organizing the CIO and the Unemployed Councils, who among others are responsible for the New Deal.

I'm not entirely sure what your thesis is here.

[ipaint]

57. What Huey Long did for the poor in Louisiana remains unmatched.

And the rich in the state hated him for it.

http://www.hueylong.com/life-times/governor.php

[ipaint]

58. Long was quite popular nationwide.

"Huey Long posed the most potent political challenge to Franklin Roosevelt in the first few years of his New Deal administration. How much of a challenge has long been a subject of debate among political analysts and historians, but FDR himself regarded Long as "one of the two most dangerous men in America" (the other being General Douglas MacArthur). The concern was great enough for the Democratic National Committee to commission a secret political poll (perhaps the first use of polling for this purpose) to gauge his appeal; it found that he could get as much as 11 percent] of the vote if he ran as a third party candidate in 1936.

...By the fall of 1933, however, the Long-Roosevelt alliance had ruptured over differences on policy and patronage as well as Long's own growing interest in running for president. Early the next year, Long organized his own, alternative political organization, the Share-Our Wealth Society, through which he advocated a populist program that focused on redistributing large fortunes through sharply graduated income and inheritance taxes. Through these measures, Long promised, every American would be guaranteed a homestead worth $5,000 and an annual income of $2,500. In the next two years, Long enthusiasts created 27,000 Share-Our-Wealth Clubs with perhaps as many as eight million members, although some historians wonder about the depth and commitment of that support."

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/hist409/long/long.html

[pampango]

59. Very interesting. We all know of Huey Long and Father Coughlin, but

their effort to run against FDR from the left in 1936 is new to me.

FDR intentionally kept quiet and let them feel the air with their "charges and threats" thinking "the public would grow tired of their shrill attacks" as time went on and that the faction within the Union Party would "begin to fight with each other".

At the same time he worked behind the scenes to weaken Long and Coughlin. He understood the principle that "if you meet them head on you are forced to fight on their terms" and are usually at a disadvantage. "It is better to fight them in an indirect manner..." and "give the aggressors some space to go further with their attacks, getting them to expose themselves in the process and provide you with plenty of juicy targets to hit."

Does this sound like a strategy being used against the teabaggers?

[Zorra]

62. I wish Obama would use stealthy means to destroy the "Third Way" party.

"It's often composed of people who refuse the discipline of maintaining solidarity with an established party, so it's easy to provoke them into breaking with this new one."