What if people had been "disappointed" with Roosevelt after only 10 months.

[bos1]

Would look pretty foolish in retrospect, wouldn't it? If only people would avoid the absurdly impatient and selfish nature of our times and technology and instead take the long view. We have a great opportunity here, let's not mess it up.

[begin_within]

1. Was FDR a corporatist?

[HughMoran]

7. lol

people here are funny!

[phleshdef]

28. Especially when they use buzz words that they don't even understand the meaning of.

They are as bad as the tea baggers and their use of the word socialism.

[begin_within]

36. Speak for yourself

not for me.

[Dr Robert]

31. even better, he was an Aristocrat

[midnight armadillo]

39. Let's see in his own words...

President Franklin D. Roosevelt
October 31, 1936
Madison Square Garden Speech

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

[WI_DEM]

44. Yes, he saved the free enterprise system and the banking system.

[tekisui]

2. How do you know people weren't disappointed with FDR

after 10 months?

He is the one who said, 'Make me do it'. We are trying to make Obama make better decisions.

[saracat]

3. There is absolutely no comparison between Pres. Obama and Roosevelt.

Let each man be judged on his own record.

[bigjohn16]

4. 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He messed it up last night. nt

[treestar]

5. True

There probably were people who disagreed, but unlikely they put it in terms of being "disappointed" or "disillusioned." The 70s hadn't passed yet, which was about the era where it was so cool to be better than everyone else that way.

[bos1]

15. yes the 70's was when the infantilism of America set in

and our little individual insecurities became more important than the big picture

[rurallib]

6. One thing Obama has to fight that Roosevelt didn't

is an almost 100% media opposition. Hearing, seeing and reading negative reports on Obama 24 X 7 X 365 gets into the psyche of even his most ardent supporters.
They don't even take christmas off. (at this time of year we must ask, Is Obama a Muslim?)

[saracat]

10. As of last night Obama has new support from FOX, and the blame the media meme is stale

The media had and has an enormous love affair with Obama.That was how he got elected.Only FOX spewed the usual lies but now FOX war supporters that they are, have jumped on the wagon. For how long, I can't say. Likely not for very long. But the press, with some exceptions, has generally been very kind to Pres.Obama.

The press was not as supportive of Roosevelt and FDR had many high profile enemies like Joe kennedy. He was called a socialist far more regularly than Obama and at a time when it really stung to do that.The Hearst papers regularly bashed Roosevelt,as did many radio personalities.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Oh right, Fox News just loves them some Obama. We all know Hannity and O'Reilly hearts Obama.

:eyes:

[OnyxCollie]

19. The New York Times

smeared Smedley Butler and buried the attempted coup story, so it wasn't exactly beer and skittles for FDR either.

[treestar]

52. But it wasn't 24/7/365

And idiots didn't get the top jobs in journalism then.

[Oregone]

8. But, uh, they weren't, because, uh, he did a radically different job

So, uh, strange questions to ask.

Instead, in your hypothetical, you should ask:

"If FDR pursued crappy policy, what if they were upset after only 10 months"

My answer: So what...it probably illustrated he would of continued pursuing crappy policy. He wouldn't of been the same FDR

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Unemployment increased in FDR's first year on the job.

So, uhh, yeah, they definitely had a reason to say he was crappy in his first 10 months.

[Oregone]

12. Oh, so his crappy policies caused UE to incease?

Or was he pursuing good policies in a crappy economy?

Think about it

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Are you willing to eat your hat if things turn around at about the same curve under Obama? (nt)

[Oregone]

14. No, because on a policy level, many of Obama's policies are lacking greatly...

As far as the interests of the people go.

The Third way approach instantly shifts the emphasis from the people to multiple parties (business being one). Any partial recovery against all odds may of been amplified with some more common sense, people-focused approaches.

[dionysus]

47. at least you admit you'll be against him no matter what. it's an important first step

:rofl:

[izzybeans]

41. They were lower at about the same moment in their presidency. So uh...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html

[QC]

9. If FDR had continued Hoover's policies for ten months,

would the people who voted for him have been disappointed?

[democracy1st]

16. +1 we gotta a winner !

[QC]

20. Thank you!

Amazing that people are still making these boneheaded "Would you be disappointed in George Washington and Baby Jesus in only ten months" posts.

[bos1]

21. learn about history. Roosevelt made big mistakes

and his presidency was full of ups and downs. But his supporters understood his intent and helped make his presidential reign a proud era in US history. That's what we need now, not whining and self-sabotage.

[HamdenRice]

22. I don't remember Hoover passing one of the largest Keynesian economic stimulus bills in history

But then again, I'm stubbornly stuck in a fact based world.

[LastNaturalist]

17. Let's be honest.

Most of the people on here would have been supporters of Norman Thomas and would have thought FDR was some closet conservative.

[HamdenRice]

23. Yup or anyone but FDR

[PVnRT]

24. Well, you've been here since....today, so you'd be the expert

[QC]

25. Sometimes it seems like there are more sock puppets than actual posters here. n/t

[LastNaturalist]

51. I'm a sock puppet who apparently knows more history than you do.

[dflprincess]

54. Supposedly, Eleanor Roosevelt said she would have voted for Thomas had she not been married to FDR

http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/abouteleanor/timeline/tl2.cfm

(look under the 1932 timeline)

[JVS]

18. If FDR had given them cause to be disappointed, it would have been a shame

[sofa king]

26. They were!

You think the Wall Street Journal opinion page just turned into a Republican propaganda page the day GWB stole the office? Hell, no. They rallied against Roosevelt and Truman every day for twenty years.

As an example, here's every economist's best boy, John Maynard Keynes, telling President Roosevelt he sucks, at around the 10-11 month point in Roosevelt's presidency.

(Edit: For clarity's sake, I should mention that Keynes' letter appeared in the New York Times. Lots of newspapers put FDR at the top of their hit list, and he never came off even when the Nazis and the Japanese also made the list.)

[bos1]

27. yes Roosevelt was attacked from the get-go but that's not the same as his supporters collapsing into

self-indulgent fits of "disappointment"

[sofa king]

29. True. Back in FDR's day the "message board" was a bar or parlor.

But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those unrecorded conversations covered the same bases.

The real disillusionment didn't set in until 1937-38, when the economy took a second nosedive that goes largely unremarked because of events in Europe which presaged World War II.

[bos1]

30. yes and today's barstool talk, now in chatrooms, is manipulated to the level of news/propaganda. nt

[Dr Robert]

32. people weren't as childish back then. Human childhood is growing longer and longer.

In fact, some never emerge from it.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Yes they were so much more mature, what with segragated

everything. They were 'not childish' but they refused to share a lunch counter with those who were different in any way. Or a classroom. Or a neighborhood. You would call them evolved and adult, as they made the African Americans eat in the alley? Not me, but it is an interesting point of view to hold.

[treestar]

53. You're confusing the issues

Taking an unrelated issue and pretending it opposes the previous post.

The point was that in those days, people were probably more patient generally and expected the changes to take some time and some work.

[Vidar]

33. They would have been, had he continued as many of Hoover's doctines as

Obama has those of Bush.

[bos1]

34. please see comment #22 above. nt

[Canuckistanian]

37. Good point

FDR hadn't even HINTED at the reforms he planned at 10 months in office.

As I recall, he didn't start reforming until well into his second year.

Up until that point, he would have been called the "corporate president" by progressive pundits. No change, no reforms, no big ideas.

Obama still has time.

[mix]

42. false

FDR hit the ground running, his first hundred days in office were legendary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#The_First_Hundred_Days

[IndianaGreen]

38. The New Deal gave people hope, instead of dashing their hopes as we are seeing today

beginning with Rick Warren, continuing with imperialist policies in Latin America, and neocon wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

[izzybeans]

40. "FDR's worst rating occurred as the country was still climbing out of economic depression."

46% 1938

Link forthcoming.

on edit:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html

Four years later it had doubled.

[billh58]

43. +100 n/t

[Brickbat]

46. They WERE disappointed with him. They agitated, struck and threatened. Most of what FDR did was a

sop to keep the communists and socialists from revolting. So...

[WI_DEM]

48. but there were people on the far left disappointed with FDR--They wanted someone bolder

like Huey Long! who was for "soaking the rich."

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ieoeja]

50. They would hire a former Marine Corps general to lead a coup.

With troops for the coup supplied by the National Commander of the American Legion.


Playing "what if" is really easy when presented a scenario that really did happen. Would you like my opinion of what would have happened had Japan launched a secret attack on US Naval forces at Pearl Harbor in December of '41?

:toast: