9 Ways FDR's 'New Deal' Purposely Excluded Blacks

[nikto]

22. So LBJ is a bigger "hero" than FDR now?

Last edited Thu Jul 7, 2016, 04:08 AM - Edit history (2)

No one says The New Deal was great for everybody, and it is well-known some of its effects were mitigated
by racist southern democrats and others.
African=Americans did get the short end of much of the New Deal, due to the stifling climate of racism back then.
Yeah, FDR should have fought against it harder.
FDR also should not have signed-off on the Japanese Internment, or rejected the German transatlantic liner St. Louis,
with her 1000+ Jews aboard, most of whom ended up dying in concentration camps. (I'm Jewish, so that hurts especially).

FDR also should never have allowed corporate insider Harry Anslinger in his administration, who pushed for the illegalization
of cannabis, destroying the lives of millions via incarceratiion in the decades that followed, for smoking a flower.

But regardless, many of FDR's economic ideas are worth keeping, and adapting and improving, in our era, right now.

So now, instead of admiring what was good about the New Deal, and speculating about *how we could do it better now*,
we get a convenient new "Centrist" narrative
about how great LBJ was, and FDR wasn't really all that hot, etc.

Beware the coded message:
The New Deal wasn't so good after all, and should not be replicated.
A perfect GOP/Conservative/Reaganite opinion.!
And that's a fact, dear deFacto GOPers!

So this is how FDR's acknowledged failure to extend the New Deal properly to African Americans in a racist era
becomes a possible rationale (wait for it) for more corporate-leaning, Conservative fiscal policies (you, know, stuff that ain't the New Deal, maybe even more tax cuts and trade deals like TPP and NAFTA, more for-profit prisons, and other goodies).

Both men did good things, and both men had feet of clay and made some big mistakes.
That would be the realistic way to view history.
But that doesn't support some folks' agendas quite enough, does it?

Sounds like some folks are preparing themselves, after Dem victory, for a
scattering of a few shallow social programs, a bunch of investor-friendly policies and a great BIG war,
under Hillary (maybe Libya can be the new Vietnam under the Neocons, eh?).

That could well turn out to be what happens after 2016 (but I hope not).

This thread seems to me like one big rationalization for what is very possibly to come,
under the expediency of Democratic Party "centrism".
This is how people get led astray, little-by-little.

Sorry, JMO.


But I am really wondering about some of the things I've been reading on DU lately.

If you wanna' know the truth, I find it increasingly creepy.
Again, just MO.

BUT...
It is a fact that Democratic Party "Centrism" (as seen in the 1990s, especially)
tilts decisively towards corporatism. This is measurable and has been documented,
so I'm not going to list the pro-corporate policies that were passed then.
You probably know what they are.
If you don't, then you are not ready to form a respectable opinion on this topic.
Go back and do some reading.
I will respectfuly suggest refrences if you need some guidance.

Dem Centrism = pro-Corporatism.
It is all part of the "slippery slope" towards the corporate state.

Why are so many Democrats blind to this dangerous truth?