General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Great essay written by a billionaire Dem [View all]JHan
(10,173 posts)Unions have been weakened yes, but again Republican legislative power accounted for that - the "something" which happened was Reagan. And Republicans took full advantage of the backlash against civil rights by retaining power to such a degree they believed the Presidency was their divine right.
But let's go back down memory lane: the lionizing of FDR ignores that northern more liberal democrats were annihilated in the '38 midterms, resulting in FDR having to triangulate with Dixiecrats who had a loose coalition with Republicans and were obstructionist. There was also backlash against the New Deal after the recession in '37, evident by polling done at the time. The New Deal did help African Americans in some ways but it also worsened existing conditions in others:
The segregation that President Franklin D. Roosevelts administration inherited reflected preexisting institutions, of which restrictive racial covenants may have been the most important. They were still relatively new, however. FDR might well have used his unprecedented leverage over housing finance to undo them.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-deal-as-raw-deal-for-blacks-in-segregated-communities/2017/05/25/07416bba-080a-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.85e4f3833f63
Instead, the New Deal did the opposite. The FHA promoted racial covenants and other instruments of segregation through underwriting standards discouraging home loans in areas infiltrat[ed] by inharmonious racial or nationality groups. The rationale was the governments need to protect its investment, and those of white homeowners, against the threat African American neighbors would pose to property values.
No data supported this ostensible concern, as Rothstein notes. The FHAs pro-segregation policy reflected racist assumptions that pervaded even progressive circles in the 1930s plus FDRs need to appease his Southern Democratic supporters.
When World War II began, the federal government constructed dwellings for workers who flocked to defense-related factories. This housing, too, was allocated by race. In some affected localities, there was no housing segregation, nor even any particular history of Jim Crow, until the feds created it
This is not to undermine the advocacy of either of the Roosevelts, but it shows that Triangulation is nothing new and that things were decidedly NOT rosy for many Americans during the Roosevelt years. It was not a socialist or leftist paradise, and FDR was NOT anti-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination.
As for Foreign Policy, American Exceptionalism and the effort to contain the Soviet Union meant that foreign policy remained largely consistent from President to President pre 80's. In biographies some Presidents found themselves in less than ideal situations, making "tough choices" which they regret after. Yet one of the most idealistic Presidents who fervently believed in intervention was LBJ - who implemented the great society. And FDR was the main architect of the establishment of the "Liberal Order" which is now being maligned by far leftists and rightwingers, and undermined by Trump.
The problem with blithely comparing periods in History is that details and context get completely lost.
There's a lot more money in the system now - thanks to the efforts of Conservative appointments to the bench and Conservative ideology. But the "donor class" have always been a factor during elections. FDR was a rich plutocrat who also courted donors.
Further, can you name more than 5 pro life Democrats in the house? Dems used to have at least 50 prolifers, now I can barely summon the name of 5. Do we even still have third way Democrats? Biden is perhaps the last third-way politician around right now and funnily enough, I don't hear progressives complain about him much.
It is actually irritating to read pieces like those in the op which pretends that the Democratic landscape today is the same as it was during the Clinton years. And yes, after losing an election to Reagan who won 48 states, and Democrats losing up and down the ballot, the conventional wisdom was to broaden the tent to "Rockefeller Republicans" . The hilarious thing about this critique is that the Democratic party ALWAYS had moderates.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)