Please kick this if you think FDR was a strong Democratic President

[MannyGoldstein]

who fought for working Americans.

A few posters were going after him yesterday, one even called him a DINO.

He wasn't perfect - but damn! did he try, and try again. I believe that he moved the ball a long way forward, and saved the Middle Class.

Thanks!

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[TriMera]

3. K&R. (Still at 0. Sorry, Manny) n/t

[Lugnut]

4. K&R n/t

[SidDithers]

5. Sure. Except for that whole Japanese internment thing...

rounding up a couple hundred thousand American citizens and putting them in camps, based solely on their nationality isn't really a big deal, so sure, he's the greatest President ever.

You know, except for that one minor little thing.

Sid

[Autumn]

6. Not as bad as Gitmo

You know, that one minor little thing.

[onenote]

10. I'm sure the more than 100,000 AMERICAN citizens locked up

would agree that with your comparison.

Not.

[provis99]

15. how about the 2 million currently locked up for smoking pot?

[onenote]

20. I support changing the law. What law did Japanese Americans break

by simply breathing?

[onenote]

23. Link to that almost certainly incorrect claim?

At year end 2009, according to the statistics I've seen there were a total of 2.2 million people incarcerated in various federal and state facilities. And of the ones in state facilities, around half were imprisoned for violent crimes, not mere possession of pot.

Pot laws should be repealed, but making up numbers is hardly the way to achieve that result.

[namahage]

34. Why not stay on topic? The OP is talking about FDR,

NOT Obama or his immediate predecessors.

Seriously, one might think that it would be unnecessary to tear down another Dem president to make FDR look better.

[whathehell]

185. If someone is looking for sainthood, you won't find it in FDR or any other president

That being said, he did tremendous things for this country

and I think this one bad mistake needs to be looked at

in a broader perspective:eyes:

[Ter]

203. They smoked it and knew it was illegal

Japanese were locked up for doing nothing.

[SanchoPanza]

43. Slight correction.

110,000 people were put in concentration camps ("internment camps" for those who prefer to split hairs). Of those, approximately 68,000 were American citizens.

Little known fact: Comparatively very few Japanese Americans and nationals living in Hawaii, the territory with the highest concentration of people of Japanese descent (and the site of the attack that brought war between Japan and the United States), were put into camps. All Japanese Americans and nationals living on the West Coast were. I only mention this because it reinforces the fact that E.0. 9066 was created and implemented in an attempt to calm panicky and bigoted white people, and not address a genuinely-felt security threat.

Though the fact that there were zero espionage prosecutions among those interned should suffice.

[Ken Burch]

114. It was also about giving whites in California a chance to get the farmland

owned by Japanese Americans at bargain-basement rates.

And, it was an effort by FDR to try to stop Earl Warren, at that point California's GOP attorney general and soon to be elected governor(and not as yet the liberal icon he would become on the Supreme Court), from becoming "presidential timber" by using the "Yellow Peril" as a campaign issue.

[OnyxCollie]

180. Internment in Hawaii would have destroyed the economy.

There was no other labor force available.

[namahage]

33. We're talking about FDR here, not Obama or Bush.

Do try to keep up.

Or do you somehow need to tear down another President to defend FDR?

[Autumn]

66. Do try to read and keep up I responded to

another poster on FDR.

[mkultra]

167. Why do you hate the Japanese?

[SidDithers]

35. LOL...

Too funny.

Sid

[Starbucks Anarchist]

99. Now I've seen it all.

:puke:

Mass internment of American citizens based on ethnicity is somehow better than imprisoning a much smaller group of people based on alleged terrorist activities.

So locking up Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is a tragedy far greater than interning Japanese-Americans.

:puke:

[OnyxCollie]

181. Actually, it's the same thing.

See below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=698250&mesg_id=699274

[MannyGoldstein]

7. On the scale of potential fuckups, in that time and that place

it wasn't anywhere near the worst thing that could happen.

Does FDR get any credit for saving the economy, then saving the world? And implementing Social Security?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

100. Do his successes legitimize the internment of American citizens?

[hulka38]

108. It does not legitimize that but on balance it does make FDR a strong and good Dem President.

In fact, the second best president of all time according to historians. I'm pretty sure they took into account the Japanese-American internment camp issue. It's hard to defend Obama's record against FDRs and I understand the impulse to lash out at FDRs weaker points in order to defend Obama's less than strong actions.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

131. Defending Obama has nothing to do with going after FDR's "weaker points."

Which is an extremely understated way to refer to one of the greatest mistakes this country has ever made.

The fact that you think pointing out this atrocity must have to do with defending Obama is very telling.

[hulka38]

141. I would say that his "strong points" are winning WWII

getting the U.S. out of the GD and creating SS. Do you consider my use of the words "strong points" extremely understated as well? Do you believe that the internment camp atrocity, as you put it, negates the accomplishments of any or all of FDRs strong points?

I think Obama loyalists have a difficult time defending Obama when the FDR comparison is made. It's an impossible task which is precisely why the J-A internment issue is trotted out so frequently here. Let's be honest. Why else would his backers bring it up if not to bring down the man he's being compared to? Or is it because the issue is on your conscience 24/7 and you thought you'd mention it on this particular thread?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

155. His accomplishments shouldn't negate the atrocity of internment.

On the FDR threads posted here, he's always praised for WW2, SS, etc., yet internment is either glossed over, not mentioned at all, and in some deplorable cases (like in this thread), actively supported.

I think Obama loyalists have a difficult time defending Obama when the FDR comparison is made. It's an impossible task which is precisely why the J-A internment issue is trotted out so frequently here. Let's be honest. Why else would his backers bring it up if not to bring down the man he's being compared to? Or is it because the issue is on your conscience 24/7 and you thought you'd mention it on this particular thread?

First of all, I don't know what the hell an "Obama loyalist" is. It seems that anybody who doesn't complain about every single thing he does or doesn't do gets tagged with that insipid label. It's a bullshit term and it also insults the intelligence of the person using it.

And the issue is "trotted out" because it's an American atrocity, first of all. And why is it that people like you who gloss over this issue during your hagiographic view of FDR are also so quick to label others as "loyalists"? Extremely ironic, don't you think?

[hulka38]

156. Let's bring it all out on the table

- all of the significant things, good and bad, that FDR did during his long tenure in office. Let's not gloss over the internment. Let's bring it front and center. Putting all of the significant events during FDRs presidency on a scale, how does it balance out? Was he a good, strong president overall in your view? Was he on balance a bad president due to that issue? Or is his presidency in your view impossible to judge due to that heinous act?

Historians think he was the greatest Democratic President of all time. And as I said, I'm sure they took the internment issue into account. I don't think they ignored it or glossed over it or gave it less weight due to their hagiographic views or loyalties toward FDR. Do you? What do you think?

If you believe that the internment issue should be the thing that above all defines FDR's presidency, is the first and most significant event in his tenure and is so egregious an act that it must be held separately from the other events such as the GD and WWII, then you are at odds with historical perspective and naturally I have to wonder why.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

157. You have to wonder why?

First, I never said he never accomplished anything. Clearly, he did. What I dislike is how internment is relegated to the background when discussing his presidency here. Should we not mention it? DUers frequently complain about far less egregious events, yet one of our biggest atrocities as a nation isn't worthy of mention when discussing the person responsible for it?

And can you answer why so many people, especially in this thread, are so eager to minimize or even *support* the internment? What exactly is progressive about that? A poster upthread claimed Gitmo was worse than the internment -- in other words, imprisoning scum like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is worse than interning American citizens solely based on their ethnicity. And if you want to argue about Gitmo prisoners being denied their rights, then what about the interned Japanese-Americans? Weren't *their* rights severely violated?

Like I said, it's ironic that the people who complain about "Obama loyalists" or other similarly stupid terms have no problem with, or are uncomfortable discussing, the internment issue because it casts FDR in a bad light. But it's not about Obama, no matter what you want to believe. After all, you brought Obama up first, not me. But it is about hypocrisy and core progressive values -- you know, like not supporting depriving an entire group of people of their civil rights. Even a president like FDR should be criticized when he was wrong -- then and now.

[hulka38]

159. Hold me to task for what I say not what somebody else says

and I'll do the same for you. Here's what I've said and I'll say again: the internment was a significant and bad event in FDRs presidency which history should be critical of. But I don't believe that should be the defining issue of his presidency nor is it a legitimate justification for trashing FDR's presidency as a whole. There it is. That's what I think. I've been consistent throughout this subthread because that has always been my perspective, even before Obama became the president. What I want to know is how much weight do you give this issue relative to WWII, the GD and SS, etc. Does it trump all? Was FDR a bad president? Or do you agree with the historical view that he was the best of the Democrats when everything is considered?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

160. Your prior posts were less forceful in comparison.

Previously, you seemed content to write the issue off in light of historical analysis, as if that made it okay. To answer your question, yes, I think his presidency was a very good one overall, and yes, I do give equal weight to interment as I do to his successes, which were many. But his successes shouldn't negate the fact of the internment issue. There's no simpler way to explain it.

And before you complain about how I should be holding you to task for your own words and not others, maybe you shouldn't bring up "Obama loyalists" when you're replying to me. It had nothing to do with the issue and like I said, it's an insipid and meaningless term. Don't want to be associated with the words of others? Then don't do the same to me, unless you want to be called a hypocrite.

[hulka38]

161. I've never in prior posts

or at any other time written off or made light of the internment issue as if it was okay. You again have me confused with someone else.

"...yes,I do give equal weight to interment as I do to his successes..." To be clear, are you saying the internment camp bad balances out the combined WWII good and Great Depression good and SS good and all the other good combined? That's what it reads like.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

173. Yes, your initial response was that it was a ploy by "Obama loyalists."

As if the issue could only be mentioned in that silly context. When that's your first response, that is minimizing the issue.

And as I previously stated, FDR had many successes and was overall a great president, but the internment issue is a huge black mark on his legacy and should be acknowledged as such, and not -- as you at least initially seemed to indicate -- as a cheap trick by "Obama loyalists."

[Enthusiast]

62. That "thing" should be understood

in a historical context.

At the time, the Japanese people were united in every way, in religion, in their race and in support wars of expansion by the nation of their origin. Of course Japanese Americans were looked upon with extreme suspicion.

In fact FDR would have been subject to extreme criticism had he not taken these steps. You must understand the public sentiment of the time. After Pearl Harbor Japanese Americans were essentially seen as the enemy by a vast majority of Americans.

I'm not saying what he did was right but it hardly tarnishes FDR considering the circumstances. And it isn't as if war time Japanese Americans were permanently interred.

[Autumn]

67. The Japanese people were not interred

permanently and kept away from their families. He did what he had to do. Bush did what he wanted and it continues, to this day.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

133. Yes, it was just like Club Med.

:eyes:

[bvar22]

97. The context of Time & Place is very important.

Most of the people on the West Coast expected a Japanese invasion at any moment.
There was rampant hysteria. "Citizens" were patrolling the beaches.
Japanese subs off the west coast were "sighted" nightly.
"Japanese "infiltrators", "saboteurs", and "paratroopers" were reported.

"As these and other forces took up their defensive positions, coastal communities suffered from an “invasion fever” which first showed itself with the calling of an alert in San Francisco on 8 December. In the afternoon of the 8th, rumors of an enemy carrier off the coast led to the closing of schools in Oakland. That evening, while residents of the Bay area were having dinner, radio broadcasting suddenly ceased, and this was followed by a blackout which lasted nearly three hours. in the absence of adequate preparations, sirens on police cars were used to warn the people, and self-appointed neighborhood wardens rushed from door to door to help enforce the blackout. Reports reaching Washington of an attack, on San Francisco were regarded as credible, but news dispatches soon characterized the affair as a test and announced that California had “caught its breath again.” The Army, however, insisted that radar stations had tracked airplanes approaching the coast from a distance 100 miles at sea. The continuity of the tracking convinced officers that the planes were hostile, and Lt. Gen. John L. DeWitt of the Western Defense Command strongly denounced those who treated the alert lightly. In the San Francisco News of 10 December he was quoted as follows: “Last night there were planes over this community. They were enemy planes! I mean Japanese planes! And they were tracked out to sea. You think it was a hoax? It is damned nonsense for sensible people to assume that the Army and Navy would practice such a hoax on San Francisco.” Newspapers, impressed with these statements, carried banner headlines announcing that the “Army Warns City Danger Near.” A similar message had been carried to a national audience on 8 December when Fiorello La Guardia, head of the Office of Civilian Defense, told the radio public: “I do not want to unduly alarm my fellow citizens, but I want to be realistic. The situation is serious. We must not underestimate what happened twenty-four hours ago.”

Disturbing rumors of enemy threats continued to mount on 9 December. Early that morning unidentified planes were reported off southern California, and the Eleventh Naval District ordered preparations made to repulse a raid by sea or air. Later the Navy relayed to the AAF a “red hot tip” which announced that thirty-four enemy vessels were standing off the coast near Los Angeles, waiting for the fog to lift before stage an attack. Army planes were dispatched and found that the alarm had been occasioned by the presence of a group of American fishing boats. Later in the day a report told with convincing detail of a “Japanese cruiser 20,000 yards off the west tip of Catalina Island.” Other witnesses insisted that a cruiser and three destroyers, flying Japanese flags, had been spotted off the coast. This of course was the period when whales were mistaken for enemy submarines, and when floating logs were bombed by inexperienced and overeager aircrews."

http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/aaf1.html

The West Coast was a bomb with the fuse lit waiting to explode.
FDR may have prevented mob lynchings of Japanese citizens.

I'm NOT defending the indefensible.
I AM providing context.

[namahage]

112. So what are you trying to say? That FDR was trying to protect Japanese-Americans?

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation/

Then why were the guns pointed inward, into the camps, instead of outside them?

Or is it another case of "FDR can do no wrong"?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

158. The indefensible *shouldn't have* any context.

[bvar22]

170. Of course it does.

The World is not so Black vs White.
That is WHY in a democracy
we have Jury Trials and Sentencing Flexibility.
Circumstances DO matter.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

98. Muslims were looked upon as suspicious post-9/11.

Should we have rounded them up, too?

[OnyxCollie]

184. We did.

Around 1,600, IIRC.

[sabrina 1]

83. How important then is the internment and torture of Muslims

not just in Guantanamo Bay but in other US controlled detention centers?

And why does this DOJ refuse to hear cases of wrongfully detained and tortured Muslims during the Bush administration, denying them any kind of justice?

How about this administration allowing the trial of a tortured Child Soldier, not even in an open court but under the vile, Habeas Corpus destroying Military Commissions Act?

And how about not even wanting to investigate war crimes, making them legitimate and ensuring that in the future, there will be no restraint on any administration when it comes to War Crimes?

FDR was wrong on the detention of the Japanese. Is Obama wrong on his policies towards detainees?

[kestrel91316]

102. You preference for a Republican over FDR is duly noted.

[namahage]

119. Well then, if you don't support Obama,

you clearly must want a President Bachmann or Palin.

Same inane argument.

[rhett o rick]

104. My Republican neighbor made that same argument. nm

[namahage]

122. Ooh snap.

Maybe your Republican neighbor, in recognizing that the internment camps were wrong, is still possibly reachable.

As opposed to those who can't bring themselves to admit that their idol caved to racist pressure, including from General John "A Jap is a Jap" DeWitt.

[rhett o rick]

162. Sounds like he might be reachable to you. I am curious, are you a Hilary Clinton supporter?

[namahage]

169. Supporter of a fellow Democrat? Sure.

In her role as Secretary of State, where she serves at the pleasure of President Barack Obama.

Neither of whom would think of putting people into camps based on their ethnicity.

As for your "neighbor," I put that in the "Cheney supports same-sex marriage" column.

I suppose you agree with Cheney regarding same-sex marriage, yes? That make you a Cheney supporter?

[rhett o rick]

194. And Thomas Jefferson had slaves. I guess I missed your point. nm

[whathehell]

126. Sure...Instead, we should overlook all those other things he did like

repealing prohibition, bringing us out of the Great Depression

Creating the National Labor Relations Board and establishing

Social Security, were just minor little things, right?

[Autumn]

8. K/R

:kick: :kick:

[jaxx]

9. Obama, FDR and the Notion of Change

Understanding Your Government: Obama, FDR and the Notion of Change

Some on the left left like to compare Obama to FDR, citing his many failures to live up to FDR’s New Deal. But both FDR and Obama did/do what they can within the constraints of their respective political environments.

<..> Even if Obama did have the popular support needed to implement change, it would still be impossible for him to be like FDR, in part because of some of the changes that Roosevelt himself, and the subsequent legislative branch response to his administration’s power, have brought to our government. In 2009, Megan McCardle outlined some of the ways in which things have changed,

<..> FDR’s majority in the House was the only one since 1899 where a majority of the body was freshmen. These new members of the House were elected based on Roosevelt’s promise of a New Deal. Their political futures were directly tied to the President’s in a way that Obama’s Democratic majority was not.

<..> Franklin Roosevelt enjoyed an era where there was less media scrutiny of the President. There was no Internet, no television, and no 24 hour news cycle. If FDR’s first term faced the restrictions that Obama’s has, the New Deal would have never have come to be. These are the reasons why Obama can’t be FDR and just make Congress do what he wants to fulfill the progressive agenda.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-fdr-change

FDR was a very lucky president. Obama faces things FDR never imagined.

[inna]

11. lol! thanks for the laugh

[jaxx]

12. The truth is funny to some.

Laugh to take away the sting.

[inna]

14. what, uh, "sting"? what a totally silly comment.

[jaxx]

18. Must have stung.

Laugh it off.

[inna]

19. yawn. what a waste of broadband. good bye.

[Bobbie Jo]

28. Add the hair flip, and the schtick is complete.

Excellent post above, btw....

[MannyGoldstein]

30. "Obama faces things FDR never imagined."

I hope you mean like using a Blackberry or having a hypoallergenic dog.

FDR faced the total meltdown of America (Obama hasn't faced that *yet*), and a world war.

[neverforget]

39. Not to mention a dust bowl where the crops failed and hundreds of thousands

had to leave their homes

[boppers]

47. "Obama hasn't faced that *yet*"? What?

It (the total meltdown of America) started. It got snuffed out before people caught on as to how bad it actually was/is.... which is why so much was done in secret, or with cover, so people didn't know that the whole banking system had crashed, and all of their money had vanished. It'll take about 49 years to clear out, at the current rate, but people haven't figured that out yet.

[Dr Fate]

130. FDR only had one war, Obama has three.

But both had the far lefts breathing down their necks, scrutinizing every move.

[MannyGoldstein]

143. So Iraq + Afghanistan + Libya > World War II?

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But don't you think WWII was a wee bit larger than the others?

[Dr Fate]

146. But he also put the japansese in camps, and was weak on lynching laws.

So much for the Liberal myth. FDR was clearly a pragmatic centrist.

Liberals don't realize that we have to imitate FDRs pragmatism, not his outdated socialism (which was centrist or even conservative for it's time)

[TheKentuckian]

192. Put the Capitulator in Chief in charge during FDR's time and Grover Norquist and Dick Cheney

would be the far left of today, we'd be speaking German, Japanese Americans would be extinct, we'd all be so poor that beans and rice would be luxury eats, we'd still be fighting the Axis powers, and old people would have pictures of Herbert Hoover on their walls and cursing god for their foolishness in getting rid of such a President.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Yeah, FDR had it easy -

he only had to deal with the worst economic crisis in the nation's history, and a war tha had app. 16 million men under arms against us (not counting the Italians) and the two most powerful war machines in the world.

And he ended that war in 4 years.

Ignoring the Republican war effort, at 2 1/2 years in, where Obama is now, Roosevelt had gone on the offensive in the Pacific, and started rolling back the Japanese; he'd pushed the Nazis out of Africa; taken Sicily, and was moving up the Italian peninsula.

The US was under an existential threat during FDRs time - the only existential threat to the US today comes from the Republicans, and Obama doesn't seem to see that, with his continuation of the anti-democratic policies of his predecessor.

You are ridiculous.

[namahage]

37. Nope. Truman ended the war.

Seriously, one would think that FDR did enough on his own without having to attribute the actions of his successor to him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. Sorry, charlie, the war was won by FDR.

Truman was in office, but he did not change any of the strategy that was put in place by FDR. Even the 'Truman dropped the bomb' (which did NOT end the war) was the product of a multi year program started by FDR. By the time Truman got in office, he couldn't have lost that war if he tried.

What's the point in your revisionist history?

[Enthusiast]

64. There is a nationwide right wing

campaign to paint FDR in a negative light. This should come as no surprise as the right has always tried to denigrate FDR. They are now engaged in this effort while simultaneously trying to boost the image of President Reagan. It's little different than the Texas Republicans rewriting history in school text books.

[Enthusiast]

63. You are right on about this!

"The US was under an existential threat during FDRs time - the only existential threat to the US today comes from the Republicans, and Obama doesn't seem to see that, with his continuation of the anti-democratic policies of his predecessor."

[whathehell]

190. OMG...."lucky"?....He had polio, was called a "traitor to his class" by his peers, was almost

overthrown in a coup d'etat by industrialists like Prescott Bush and others.

I'm going to charitably assume that your only problem

is one of tenuous grasp of history.:eyes:

[patrice]

13. K&R

[Melissa G]

16. Perfect, no. Strong, yes. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

17. Oh, Manny. You can be so passive aggressive.

I'll bite. k&r

[Bobbie Jo]

21. In that time and in that place, absolutely.

Completely different era. Much has happened since then...different set of rules, different playing field.

[Dr Fate]

132. Comparing presidents to other presidents is just a useless intellectual exercise.

It's always going to be different, FDR just got lucky.

[Jakes Progress]

22. K&R

Revisionists and those with a motive other than truth and humanity will disagree.

[center rising]

24. FDR was a helluva president

Perhaps the best president of all time. Certainly in the top three.

[CakeGrrl]

25. Why does he need to be validated here?

Doesn't his record - good, bad and ugly - stand for itself?

[AnOhioan]

26. He saved the middle class as an afterthought to saving...

the monied interests of the nation....he did enough to forestall a real rebellion, just enough. The real power in the country, those with wealth and privilege...were the ones that benefited the most in that the status quo, with a few minor tweaks, was preserved.


For further reading:

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnselhel15.html

Howard Zinn - A Peoples History of the United States

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. Not exactly. The monied iterests were behind the Businessmen's Plot

and would have aligned us with Nazi Germany. He raised the top marginal tax rate to 90%. He recognized that the only way to save American democracy was to preserve and build the middle class.

He was no socialist, but neither was he an oligarchist.

He was a Democrat.

[AnOhioan]

52. The so called Businessmen's Plot

never amounted to much....a few unproven claims for which no-one was ever convicted.

He did raise taxes, but only after the war started...not during the 30's.

He acted to stabilize the system of capitalism...by giving the working class a modicum of relief, just enough to assuage them and keep the power where it had resided, and still does...in the hands of the wealthy.

from the link I posted above:

"When the New Deal was over, capitalism remained intact. The rich still controlled the nation's wealth, as well as its laws, courts, police, newspapers, churches, colleges. Enough help bad been given to enough people to make Roosevelt a hero to millions, but the same system that had brought depression and crisis-the system of waste, of inequality, of concern for profit over human need- remained."


I agree, he was a Democrat....when what we truly needed (and still do) is a socialist.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. we all know it was President Eleanor

[RoccoR5955]

29. K&R FOR FDR.... BEST.PRESIDENT.EVER!!!!! n/t

[poverlay]

31. The best! n/t

[tranche]

36. That's a beautiful portrait of white males. Was that the secret to his success?

Strong indeed.

[MannyGoldstein]

44. Frances Perkins (pictured) was the first woman to hold a cabinet post

And she was perhaps the cabinet member that FDR respected most. And she was a flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, flaming, Liberal. Definitely not a Very Serious Adult Conversation type.

[CakeGrrl]

50. Yes. He wouldn't fully endorse anti-lynching laws to appease Dixiecrats in Congress

who could block his legislation if he did.

[girl_interrupted]

58. In June 1941 FDR issued Executive Order 8802, which created FEPC

the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC). It was the most important federal move in support of the rights of African-Americans between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The President's order stated that the federal government would not hire any person based on their race, color, creed, or national origin. The FEPC enforced the order to ban discriminatory hiring within the federal government and in corporations that received federal contracts. Millions of blacks and women achieved better jobs and better pay as a result." The war brought the race issue to the forefront. The Army and Navy had been segregated since the Civil War. But by 1940 the African-American vote had largely shifted from Republican to Democrat, and African-American leaders like Walter White of the NAACP and T. Arnold Hill of the Urban League had become recognized as part of the Roosevelt coalition. In June 1941, at the urging of A. Philip Randolph, the leading African-American trade unionist, Roosevelt signed an executive order establishing the Fair Employment Practice Commission and prohibiting discrimination by any government agency, including the armed forces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_record_on_civil_rights

And its true Dixiecrats didn't want the anti-lynching laws. I think FDR did the best he could by getting FEPC through. And Truman did his best getting the military desegregated.

Hard to imagine now, the Dixiecrats were Democrats who were against passing anti-lynching laws, while Republicans favored it. Things sure have changed.

[SanchoPanza]

38. Sure, he was a strong Democratic President.

The left of the 1930s didn't like him all that much, however. The failures of NIRA and the AAA, as well as Roosevelt bringing in business insiders into his administration caused a lot of bad blood. Coughlin turned on him. Long thought there was enough resentment to challenge him at the 1936 convention, but was killed before he could carry it out (he probably would have failed miserably anyway). Populist William Lemke made a third party challenge. The Socialist Party put up perennial candidate Norman Thomas (the Ralph Nader of the era) once again. More militant groups like the Popular Front, who didn't back Roosevelt in the first place, only gave him faint praise once it was clear that fascism was taking control of Europe and they didn't have much choice.

Maybe in 60 years the left will be castigating the Democratic President of 2070, lamenting how he or she is nothing more than a tool of wealthy interests and not a fierce advocate for average Americans. Then they'll pine for the days when Democratic Presidents put working people first, and wonder why we can't have great Presidents like Barack Obama anymore.

Because that's exactly what you're doing with FDR. Who, don't get me wrong, was a great President. But there is a great deal of hagiography about the man among modern leftists.

And this phenomenon tends to repeat itself; the more radical abolitionists of the early 1860s, typified by people like Thaddeus Stevens and Henry David Thoreau, weren't terribly fond of Lincoln. In fact, the Radical Republicans split in 1864 and nominated their own candidate for President, John Fremont, who would go on to lose very badly. The left of the first decade of the 20th century didn't much care for trust-busters Theodore Roosevelt or Taft, instead opting for William Jennings Bryan again and again and again. And don't get me started on the left and Lyndon "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?" Johnson. They opted for a bright shiny toy in the form of Bobby Kennedy and ended up getting Richard Nixon instead.

Now? All those Presidents are widely considered either good or great by the rank and file of the American left.

This is all another way of saying that it is extraordinarily foolish to look at politics through an oversimplified historical narrative. The kind of narrative that allows the left to think that FDR was American progressivism given human form, and the the right to think he was a communist. Neither are true when you judiciously examine the record, an activity that usually only occurs once you get beyond high school social studies.

[SidDithers]

41. Good post...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

45. FDR's first fireside chat was on the topic of reducing veteran's pensions

He was by no means unerring. FDR often made mistakes - and he knew it. When he said:

"It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

he wasn't joking. he knew that neither he nor anyone else knew the answers. He tried left wing things, he tried right wing things. As time passed, he saw that Liberal policies worked best, and became ever more the Liberal.

But he worked worked worked for the working person. And he was candid and forthright. Do you know how many press conferences he had as President? If not, look it up, you'll be shocked. And nothing was off limits.

[SanchoPanza]

46. Wait...

Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying that FDR became a better President after six years of being in office?

I'm not disagreeing with you. But FDR backed business associationalism until his death. He thought that allowing companies to collude and establish their own rules was the way out of the Depression. This was the backbone of the National Industrial Recovery Act, his signature accomplishment in his first term and the overturning of which he lamented for the remainder of his days (and for which his court packing plan was specifically aimed at remedying). This was hardly liberal policy by the standards of the time. In fact, it was largely the policy of his predecessor, and a policy for which Roosevelt received no end of vituperative criticism. You want to know how actual leftists of the 1930s viewed the New Deal? Read Howard Zinn or Alan Brinkley.

And I'm well aware of Roosevelt's media outreach and candor. That accounted for much of the reason why he was such a popular President; not just because he talked to "the people," but because back then doing so was something of a novelty. Roosevelt was the first President that most Americans could hear in their living room or sitting around the kitchen table, in an often calm and reassuring voice during a time of extreme hardship, and his administration used that development to their great advantage.

But if you're making the argument that Roosevelt worked hard for average Americans because he made some pretty speeches to that effect... well... that's not necessarily a good argument that he's was a more effective President than the current one. Because, let's face facts, one of the most common criticisms of Obama is that all he does is make speeches.

The obvious conclusion one must draw is that FDR is largely considered a great Democratic President is because he's been dead for 60 years and most of his foes from the left (and right) have been forgotten. And those that live on in our collective memory, like Coughlin and Long, haven't exactly taken up spots of high esteem.

[Dr Fate]

135. FDR's hordes of far left detractors must have just been like today's malcontents.

People who now oppose centrist and center-right policies on going to war to protect freedom, war budgeting, off shoring, tax breaks for the risk takers, Sensible health care mandates, our even handed response to BP, etc. surely would have hated FDR's centrist New Deal just as much.

Since these far lefts from both time periods disagree with the presidents of the their time, it proves that both presidents are centrists, for their time.
(but in the future it will be far left)

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. You might recall that the reason we wound up with Nixon was because

Kennedy was DEAD.

If he hadn't been very conveniently killed, he'd have walked away with the 68 election.

And it WAS under Johnson that the phoney Gulf of Tonkin incident happened, and he increased troop levels from 25,000 to 550,000 in two years. Why would that bother anyone?

[SanchoPanza]

73. Kennedy was incredibly polarizing figure in the party.

The people who backed McCarthy hated Kennedy, accusing him of swooping in to steal the anti-war vote after McCarthy mounted his challenge in New Hampshire. The local political machines and labor unions weren't too fond of him either, and largely backed Humphrey. Even if Kennedy survived, I doubt he would have even won the nomination. After California, which turned out to be something of a Pyrrhic victory for Kennedy, Humphrey still had many more delegates than either Kennedy or McCarthy. Even Larry O'Brien, Kennedy's campaign manager, didn't think he had much of a good chance.

Combined, McCarthy and Kennedy had enough delegates. Each of them spoke to a different set of constituencies within the party. But one of the two would have to have dropped out of the race and pledged their delegates to the other, something that was not likely going to happen given the animosity between the two camps, for Humphrey to go down.

As for Johnson and deception, would you say that he was more or less honest than Nixon? More broadly, who was the better President for liberal causes?

Because splitting the Democratic Party got the country Nixon. There's really no way around that. People watched the 1968 Convention with a mixture of disgust and pity. When Americans saw police beating demonstrators on the streets of Chicago, the most common response was, "Good. Hit them harder." Nixon exploited that resentment to great effect.

[JoePhilly]

72. +100

[Dr Fate]

134. EXACTLY. FDR was a CENTRIST. The far left will one day pretend they agree w/ the DLC and Blue Dogs.

The far left disagrees with FDRs relatviely conservative New Deal (for the day) and the Far left now disagrees with Obama's centrist positions.

This proves that both were centrists, for their time.

In the future, the people who are considered liberals, for their time and place, will pretend to agree with him and try to take all the credit for centrist successes.

The far lefts of FDRs day are just like all the people who oppose centrist and conservative economic policies- but one day they will say they were always for it.

[boppers]

48. Best president for changing the lives of white males EVER!

Uhm.... Yay?

[girl_interrupted]

49. Don't think this white male agrees

Franklin Delano Roosevelt inacted a war tax to pay for the war that fought the nazis. He upped the rich's taxes, saying that they had to pay to help out with the war effort. The CEO of Montgomery Ward Department store refused to pay the tax, so FDR sent in the National Guard and arrested his ass. Doesnt look to happy to me!




I don't think white bankers were too crazy about him either, when he came right out and blamed them for the mess the country had gotten into and instituted new laws not favoring them... just sayin'

"Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit" FDR March 1933

[Starbucks Anarchist]

101. Social Security initially covered only white men.

Women and minorities weren't included until later.

[Dr Fate]

139. FDR's racism PROVES he was a centrist, not some unpragmatic , socialist liberal.

When will the liberals learn that we have to imitate the bad things before we can imitate all the good things.

[dflprincess]

152. The original Social Security law did not explicitly cover only white men

though the way the law was written women and minorities tended to be excluded as it covered jobs most apt to be held by white males.

It excluded agricultural & domestic workers and government employees (the exclusion of government employees would have left out teachers, nurses & other public hospital employees, librarians and social workers - all female domintated professions). At the time the bill was passed over 60% of employed black women worked in domestic service. It also excluded people who did not work steadily - again a category that might affect more women and minorities in the 1930s.

Overall, about half of the entire workforce was not covered by the bill. Nearly 2/3 (higher in the south) of all African Americans were not covered and just over half of all working women were not covered.

Also, at the time the bill was passed there were no survivor (added 1939) or disability (1954) benefits in the bill. At least the Social Security program was able to expand coverage unlike Medicare which LBJ intended to extend in increments to all Americans.

(BTW I pulled this out of an old text book I have from the class on Social Security the University's School of Social Work required we take.)

[whathehell]

188. That's only because it initially covered only certain occupations, not because there

was some independent clause limiting it to white men

Government workers are STILL not covered by Social Security.

[Ice Number Nine]

51. you're living in the past, manny

[boppers]

54. Attack the post, not the poster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Ice Number Nine]

55. It's not an attack, it is pity.

[girl_interrupted]

57. It's never a pity to review American History

In fact, it is very important, and very interesting. We can learn a lot from the past. The philosopher George Santayana once said: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it". It can help steer us in the right direction, take what's good and avoid what's bad.

I often wonder why Democrats shy away from talking about FDR and giving him credit, while republicans salivate over a twit like Reagan.

[boppers]

61. Using language which targets ideas, not people, is preferred.

Insulting people directly leads to a virtual tombstone.

[Donnachaidh]

78. and some would be smarter if they learned the lessons of the past

Thanks for using the same marginalization this admin uses as an excuse to give cover to war criminals... :sarcasm:

[Dr Fate]

140. Comparing presidents to other presidents is an elitist intellectual exercise.

swing voters and center right voters don't care what FDR did- can we move on?

[girl_interrupted]

53. K&R Very Strong! With the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War 2

Makes my head spin just thinking of everything he had to deal with. I don't know how he did, he wasn't a well man either, a fact he had to hide from the public, on top of everything else. Was he perfect? No. But he was damn good for this country!

That the people chose to elect him 4 times, shows the confidence they had in him. I can remember some of the really older members of my family speaking about him with great love and affection. He made a positive difference in their lives, and anytime a president can do that, it's something people never forget. "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" I think he inspired the best in people, because they felt he had their backs, and they stood strong through very tumultuous times.

It often makes me sad that Republicans act as if Reagan was some kind of God. Compared to what FDR had to deal with, Reagan's watch was a day at the beach. Yet they name everything and anything after him. If they could bring him back from the dead..they would. Ever watch one of their debates? Its "Reagan this, Reagan that". Enough to make you barf. Yet the Democrats rarely speak of FDR, and never give him credit for handling what had to be an overwhelming set of circumstances during his presidency. That's a shame.

[craigmatic]

59. Economically he was the best president ever but he had failures too.

Especially in the race area.

[toddwv]

74. FDR wasn't perfect. He definately had some flaws.

Racism is one obvious one.

He was paranoid about deficit spending so cut fed spending at the wrong time creating a pretty serious recession.

However, the New Deal allowed us all to enjoy growth and prosperity. It was this prosperity that helped point out that there were still segments of the population who were considered second-class citizens.

Great economic despair does not create an environment for positive social change, in fact, it usually sets the stage for rampant racism and xenophobia as immigrants are scapegoated because they "take all the jobs".

[RoryK]

60. Pretty much self-evident, isn't it?

[MissDeeds]

65. K&R

[tweeternik]

68. Kicked and Rec'd! n/t

[Daphne08]

69. K & R!

:kick:

[BlueIris]

70. Awww. That's great art. nt

[COLGATE4]

71. K&R X1000!

[Jim Lane]

75. No harm in noting his flaws, but the whole picture adds up to greatness.

Today, with the Republicans again trying to impair Social Security, the Democrats have more reason than ever to invoke the legacy of FDR's achievements.

[LetTimmySmoke]

76. K&R

He was the best we ever had. Got us out of the Great Depression and led us through WWII.

[Donnachaidh]

77. revisionist history is not perpetrated just by republicans

There are some in our own party who would re-write history with a sense of glee in order to downplay the glaring differences between presidents who actually did bring change and those who just like to use the promise in campaigns....

[Carolina]

79. K&R

[VeryConfused]

80. Well he faught for WHITE working Americans

if your skin was brown, not so much.

[brentspeak]

84. June 25, 1941: FDR signs Executive Order 8802, creating the Fair Employment Practices Committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Employment_Practice_Commission

The Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) implemented US Executive Order 8802, requiring that companies with government contracts not to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. It was intended to help African Americans and other minorities obtain jobs in the homefront industry. On June 25, 1941, President Roosevelt created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) by signing Executive Order 8802, which stated, "there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin." This was due in large part to the urging of A. Philip Randolph, who had the support of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.

In 1943, Roosevelt greatly strengthened the FEPC with a new executive order, Executive Order 9346. It required that all government contracts have a non-discrimination clause. During the World War II the federal government operated airfields, shipyards, supply centers, ammunition plants and other facilities that employed millions. FEPC rules applied and guaranteed equality of employment rights. Of course, these facilities shut down when the war ended. In the private sector the FEPC was generally successful in enforcing non-discrimination in the North, it did not attempt to challenge segregation in the South, and in the border region its intervention led to hate strikes by angry white workers.

But Congress had never enacted FEPC into law. In 1948, President Truman called for a permanent FEPC, anti-lynching legislation, and the abolishment of the poll tax. The conservative coalition in Democratic-controlled Congress prevented this. In 1950, the House approved a permanent FEPC bill. However, southern senators filibustered; the bill failed. Five states enacted and enforced their own FEPC laws: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Washington.

[McCamy Taylor]

89. Not true. Look at the policies of previous presidents. Look at how the feds tolerated lynching,

how Hoover sold out Black Americans, and then compare that to the FDR administration.

[Kermitt Gribble]

81. Absolutely! K&R!

[MineralMan]

82. FDR's record on civil rights issues leaves a lot to be desired.

He caved to Southern Democrats on several issues relating to racial segregation.

Nobody's perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt's_record_on_civil_rights

[Fire1]

85. +1 n/t

[Wait Wut]

86. Got it.

We've decided that FDR is "our" Reagan.

Great way to make us look at the man's imperfections. We should do this with every lefty "saint". I just hope that "we" are more tolerant of the faults and failings of a good former president than the right is with their St. Ronnie. When we compare the man to our current President, I hope that everyone is humble enough to acknowledge the different era along with the general atmosphere of our country compared to today.

History is something to learn from, not worship. This is not FDRs time. If we painted him black and stuck him in today's White House, do you honestly think he'd be as accepted and productive as he was then? If anyone says "yes", you're either delusional or a liar.

[Number23]

87. Unrec because I am sick as hell of the pining here for a person who never existed

Please, come join us in the 21st century.

[McCamy Taylor]

88. What kind of person does not think FDR was a strong Democratic president?

The only person who has come close to him is LBJ---who would have have existed if not for FDR, his mentor. And the LBJ administration and the changes it brought to America nurtured the present generation of politicians including the Clintons and the Obamas.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[CakeGrrl]

91. We can't have Obama besting his record?

No one can dare say that Obama is the best Democratic President at...ANYTHING because it would be an affront to people who don't consider him a Democrat while they hold other presidents in higher esteem on that score.

Tell me if I'm warm.

[MannyGoldstein]

124. I don't think many would compare FDR and Obama

in the sense that one's actions were in any way comparable to the others.

[CakeGrrl]

150. He's long dead. Why do you feel such a strong need to defend his legacy?

People will study history and draw their own conclusions, as always.

[TheKentuckian]

187. You can dare but it is idiotic to do so. FDR was far from perfect but he is the best we've ever had.

[MannyGoldstein]

123. Because I believe that his administration saved America, then saved the world

Both the US and Germany hit economic bottom in the early 1930s. The US flirted with all kinds of stuff - Communism, the KKK, the American Nazi Party - things were getting pretty bleak. Then FDR came to power and showed Americans how quickly Liberal policies could turn things around for working Americans. The US became a Liberal nation for the next 50 years.

Germany flirted with all kinds of stuff too. They ended up with Hitler. The rest is history.

I believe we are in a similar situation as the US and Germany we were in at that time. We need a good example to guide us out of this morass.

[harris8]

92. Enthusiastic K & R! nt

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[jefferson_dem]

94. Not respecting FDR's accomplishments is as inane as not respecting Obama's.

No president is perfect...

But what is it with Democrats... who refuse to acknowledge the realities of REAL political progress?! :shrug:

I love them both...

[hifiguy]

95. Kick, kick, kick

:kick:

[ProfessionalLeftist]

96. K & R n/t

[Deep13]

103. What, really?

The guy who took on the depression, polio and fascism?

Yeah, he made some mistakes, the biggest being authorizing the internment of Japanese-Americans, but on the whole: best POTUS ever! He is the benchmark for D. presidents. The reason so many recent D. presidents draw such ambivalence is because they do not measure up to FDR.

[bvar22]

171. !!! +1000

:patriot:
he won a World War on 2 fronts
in 1/2 the time that we have now been in Afghanistan.

FDR is, by far, the best president of the 20th century, and so far the 21st century.
And Teddy, the Trust Buster was pretty good too.

"The reason so many recent D. presidents draw such ambivalence is because they do not measure up to FDR."

[Overseas]

105. And I thought our Democrats would push for his 2nd Bill of Rights in 2009 after the Bush Crash.

And they didn't.

Very very sad.

FDR understood Demand Side Economics. I thought that was the Democratic Way.

[Omaha Steve]

106. Called him a dino?

Best friend organized labor ever had.

"If I were a worker in a factory, the first thing I would do would be to join a union" ----President Franklin D. Roosevelt

K&R!

[MannyGoldstein]

121. Which is why I posted this.

Blew my mind.

[myrna minx]

107. K&R n/t

[defendandprotect]

109. Of course -- give me 6 more FDR's ...!!

[Dr Fate]

110. FDR was CENTRIST and he would have hated the professional left.

Gather 'round me people, and I'll tell you a tale about how FDR was a centrist.

The far left of his day hated him. For it's day, the New Deal was a moderate, even conservative policy.

Yet the far left wants to revise history and say FDR would have agreed with all this socialist stuff.

I also read that FDR was for lynching, which PROVES he was a centrist.

Liberals will never understand that We have to imitate the bad things FDR did before we can get to the "good" things he did.

[MannyGoldstein]

115. The WPA and Social Security were centrist?

The second Bill of rights was centrist?

His first inaugural address was centrist?

I think most would disagree.

[Dr Fate]

118. Centrist in the context of the time, just like Obama.

Did you not hear the part where I said that the far left hated FDR and said the New Deal was not far left enough?

They are just like the far lefts now, who oppose centrist/conservative economic policies, funding our freedom wars, etc.

If we compare Obama to FDR, you will see that since the far left hates them both, they both must be centrists.

[MannyGoldstein]

120. I think the polling numbers indicate that there's no comparison

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=32&sort=time&direct=DESC&Submit=DISPLAY

FDR had very few detractors on the left - which is how he remained so popular, and won four terms in office.

Hint: he sure didn't win four terms by campaigning on "I believe the same stuff as the Republicans, only a little less so"

[Dr Fate]

129. that is a myth from the professional left. Obama has different times to deal with than did FDR.

For instance, FDR only had one war, Obama has three.

FDR would not be agreeing with the socialists- he would understand that what was pragmatic and moderate in the 40's might not be so with today's center-right electorate.

Times change, and it is best that we just move on from those dark days of the great depression.

[hulka38]

144. Clarify this please. When you say

"he would have hated the professional left", the professional left of what era; present day or FDRs? Saying "he would have" sounds like you're saying he would have hated today's left.

[Dr Fate]

148. FDR was a pragmatist. Yes-he would have hated the professional left.

He would realize that Obama's detractors are too Liberal for *their* time, and He would soon figure out that todays malcontents are EXACTLY like the leftists who opposed him as being to conservative for *his* time period.

Remember, the new deal was conservative (in the context of that time and space) and all the leftists opposed it, a lot.

[hulka38]

153. The guy took on the elite, wealthy power brokers

and welcomed their hatred. He shifted the balance of power toward the middle class so significantly that conservatives and centrists (guess who) are only now reversing his accomplishments. He would not have hated today's left and been a centrist - that is kaka. If he were alive today FDR would be primarying Obama's ass in 2012 after what he's seen the past three years.

Today's left are the defenders of FDR's programs against the centrists who want to undermine FDRs programs. It's irrational to expect FDR to undermine his own programs.

"Remember, the new deal was conservative (in the context of that time and space).." - that's just complete bullshit.

"...and all the leftists opposed it, a lot." - only if you define the left as communists which there were never very many of unless you were a McCarthyite.

[Dr Fate]

206. Socialism was centrist or conservative for it's time, now it is too far left.

Which explains why we should bhave been fo it then, and why we should not be for it now.

We need gain inspiration from FDR's PRAGMATISM, not his outdated socialism.

[Somawas]

111. Kicked.

He was the greatest democratic president. And pretty much created the middle class.

[Melinda]

113. Anyone claiming FDR to have been a DINO needs to put down the pipe. K&R n/t

[Chorophyll]

116. Kick. nt

[Downwinder]

117. He had a lot of help from Sam Rayburn.

[The Wizard]

125. K&R

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Sparkly]

127. He saved the country -- by INVESTING in the people when it had to be done.

That means borrowing and spending. I hate the idea of it, but SOMEtimes, it must be done.

The problem is, it didn't need to be done during Reagan's term.

It didn't need to be done during Bush I's term.

(Clinton reversed it, raising taxes on the rich and spending wisely on people, like lower-level FDR -- inner cities, middle class, small businesses -- in ways that paid back.)

It didn't need to be done during Bush II's term at ALL - but that cabal leveraged FEAR so effectively, more was wasted in less time than ever. "Tax relief" my ass.

What FDR faced required "borrow and spend" in ways that invested in THE PEOPLE -- it not only saved our country, what he did, and how that generation of people responded, really built the strength that made us great.

Now Obama faces a similar predicament, thanks to BushCo. Even with both houses of Congress, and tremendous evidence that the rightwing takeover took us to (or past) the brink of fascism, what did our leadership DO??

"We'd really love to help, but the votes aren't there."

Yeah.

I still contend that 2004 was our last best chance. That election is our historical turning point, when people gained unprecedented access to the truth, but approximately half turned willingly toward stupidity.

I'd love to see some hope here, but we are the United Corporations of America, as far as I can see. There isn't an FDR in sight.

Yup, FDR gave this country a great period of time.

And that's that.

[bertman]

128. Rec and kick. nt

[OnyxCollie]

136. Except if you were Japanese and lived on the west coast.

Then you could have the farm that you had been managing taken from you and handed off to Fruit Farms, Inc. while you got shuffled off to somewhere else.

[Dr Fate]

142. FDR's pragmatic racism proves that he must have been a centrist.

Not some far leftist like the revisonists claim.

This is why it is silly to only concentrate only on the "good" things FDR did-it's important to focus on the pragmatic things FDR did too.

We need to imitate the pragmatic things FDR did before we can get to any of socialist stuff.

[hulka38]

147. We need to pragmatically weaken FDRs social programs

because he was a racist. I see.

[Dr Fate]

149. Even FDR would agree that we should progress to centrism.

after all, he WAS a centrist.

[hulka38]

151. "FDR WAS a centrist

...FDR WAS a centrist...." How many times did you have to say that before you started to believe?

[OnyxCollie]

154. Absolutely!

As FDR bestowed great power unto Lt. General DeWitt, President Obama has bestowed great power unto General David H. Patreus.

[CrazyBob]

137. Kick

Kick

[silverweb]

138. K&R

:kick:

[Mimosa]

145. K&R!!! n/t

[Enthusiast]

163. FDR, along with Washington and Lincoln,

was one of the very greatest American Presidents. The others, why they don't even make the front page.

This criticism of FDR over Japanese American war-time internment is completely misplaced and GOP generated. I am immediately suspicious of anyone that goes out of their way to say, "But FDR put the Japanese Americans in prison camps!" Why would a REAL Democrat do this when we already have a huge Republican effort to rewrite history?

My father was drafted after the Pearl Harbor attack. At that time the American People were unanimous in their hatred and suspicion of the Japanese. My parents hated the Japanese to their dying day. Older Americans were suspicious of Asians in general -they didn't even restrict their hatred to the Japanese.

FDR's actions were perfectly understandable in the context of the time. To single out this one action as an excuse to say FDR was not a great president is the action of someone that is, for all intents and purposes, spiritually Republican. You might as well wear a Reagan button.

[OnyxCollie]

168. I disagree.

The American People were unanimous in their hatred and suspicion of the Japanese since their arrival in the late 1800's.

Read up on the 1907 Gentleman's Agreement between the US and Japan. It limited immigration of male Japanese laborers.

Or the 1913 California Alien Land Act that forbid ownership of land by aliens "ineligible to citizenship."

Followed the second California Alien Land Act in 1920 that forbid land leasing by aliens "ineligible to citizenship."

In 1922, Ozawa v United States found Japanese ineligible for naturalization by reason of race.

The Immigration Act of 1924 abrogated the Gentleman's Agreement and forbid immigration by aliens "ineligible to citizenship." If the Japanese had been allowed a quota, like the European countries were, they would have been permitted 100 Japanese a year.

These were ways to get the Japanese to jump through hoops, to make their lives difficult and to control them.

It's a domination model of government- one group rules and the other is ruled.

The domination is on a continuum; at one end is exclusion, at the other end is expulsion.

The group boundaries are defined by prejudice, discrimination, and segregation, and achieved through coercion, legislative and judicial action, and stereotypes.

This has the effect of avoidance, disadvantage, and isolation, forcing the weak group to adapt to "realities."

The maintenance of immigrant workers was done through exclusion.

-Regulate influx and movement

-Limit reproduction

-Control economic activities

-Encourage repatriation once usefulness passes

Here are a couple theories:

"{C}lass exploitation can be understood as a social relation in which (1) the material well-being of exploiters occurs at the expense of the well-being of the exploited, (2) this inverse relation depends upon the exclusion of the exploited from access to material resources, and (3) this exclusion from access to resources enables exploiters to appropriate of the labor effort of the exploited."

-Wright, E.O. (1979). Class structure and income determination. p. 4-17.

"{Action that is motivated by self-interest can still be} substantively heteronomously determined... {in} a market economy, though in a formally voluntary way. This is true whenever the unequal distribution of wealth, and particularly of capital goods, forces the non-owning group to comply with the authority of others in order to obtain any return at all for the utilities they can offer on the market... In a purely capitalist organization of production this is the fate of the entire working class."

-Weber, M. (1922). Economy and society. p. 110.

Despite these harsh conditions, the Japanese farms flourished.

Japanese labor became more expensive and began to compete with white labor. Mexican and Filipino labor was preferred. This was the start of the domestic colonialism model.

Then Pearl Harbor happened.

On February 19, 1942, FDR issued E.O. 9066. It gave military commanders (that would be Lt. General DeWitt) the power to determine military zones and kick out any persons undesirable. These military zones included all the Japanese farms.

What's sickening is that the racist rationale to excuse the actions of the government (that the Japanese were an unassimilated, tight-knit group, bound by culture to an enemy land) was due to the domination form of government they were forced to endure.

Now, all the crops needed to be harvested. Failure to do so could harm the war effort. The landowners who had provided the equipment and given loans to the Japanese were concerned about their investments. They were unwilling to take the risk, however, and successfully petitioned the government to subsidize dummy corporations.

The landowners

-held a monopoly on Japanese farms

-sold to themselves, so they got everything cheap

-charged the difference to the Japanese to ensure profit

It worked out so well for them, that they began to threaten the government if the subsidies did not continue. To the government's credit, they slapped down the landowners.

This is the subject of my Master's thesis. I could continue, but I gotta replace the muffler on my car.

[Enthusiast]

174. Thanks for all that interesting information.

However, I still consider FDR one of the very best presidents.

[OnyxCollie]

176. I agree with you.

But taking advantage of minorities, be they Native Americans, or Japanese, or Iraqis for that matter, through the use of laws and stereotypes is a characteristic of all governments.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

183. Why would a real Democrat attempt to ignore that chapter in our history?

My father was drafted after the Pearl Harbor attack. At that time the American People were unanimous in their hatred and suspicion of the Japanese. My parents hated the Japanese to their dying day. Older Americans were suspicious of Asians in general -they didn't even restrict their hatred to the Japanese.

So blind hatred is an excuse to send American citizens to internment camps solely based on their ethnicity? Would you have been okay with rounding up Muslim-Americans after 9/11? Public sentiment against Muslims was quite strong then, too.

[Enthusiast]

195. You got me wrong.

I just do not understand making the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII a point of emphasis. Especially in light of the massive effort already underway by the right wing to tear down FDR's legacy. Of course I don't agree with rounding up Muslims or Japanese. East Indians in my community suffered abuses after 911 and they aren't even Muslim. I abhor ignorance and intolerance but even more I abhor Republicans and their attempt to rewrite history.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

197. No, it seems I heard you correctly.

To you, whitewashing FDR's legacy is more important than intolerance and the abuse of human rights. You even brought up public sentiment at the time to rationalize the whole issue and refuse to even discuss the issue because it doesn't cast FDR in a perfect light.

Pointing out this atrocity does not make anybody a Republican. It simply makes them cognizant of history.

[Enthusiast]

198. No whitewash here.

Just an understanding of the time and the MASSIVE modern day misinformation campaign being waged by the enemies of my nation.

[Jakes Progress]

164. Kick. Because

it will help drive the four or five centrists here crazy.

[Stoic]

165. The man knew how to fight. n/t

[WI_DEM]

166. of course he was, but then again I wonder how he would have fared with the kind of GOP we have today

(which is much more extreme than the GOP of his day) and the kind of congressional margins that Obama has (especially in the house) compared to the overwhelming dem majorities FDR had for most of his terms.

[bvar22]

172. He would have "Welcomed their Hatred."

!

[WI_DEM]

177. probably, but would he have accomplished all the things he did?

After all a lot could be done if you have a majority of 334-88 in the House and 76-16 in the Senate--as FDR had after the 1936 election.

[bvar22]

178. Someone who is NOT afraid to take a STAND has a way...

...of attracting support,
especially if they are unambiguously fighting for Americans who Work for a Living.
No telling what would have happened in 2010 if we had had a president who STOOD UP against Wall Street, Oil Corps, The Republicans, and the RICH.
Americans DO like Presidents who STAND for something.

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010

[Dr Fate]

208. Truman was putting down the Professional Left who HATED the centrist (for its day)New Deal.

Once again, DU misquotes Truman (Who was a CENTRIST)and tyakes him totally out of context.

When he was talking about Democrats who acted like Republicans, he is merely comparing the profesional left to the same Republicans who also opposed Truman and FDR.

This would not have been lost on the voters of the day, it is only now that the professional left has revised history to make this quote seem pro-socialism.

It's just like today- the professional left and the Republians always joining forces to attack the centrists.

THAT is the REAL context of Truman's quote.

[Peacetrain]

175. Hey Manny... You have to put things in time perspective and what was REALLY happening

at the time.

Roosevelt was beloved in a way no President has been since. He was able to use a bully pulpit to push things not seen again till Reagan.

And not seen since.

He did amazing things.. and he also did some hideous things with the Japanese internments.

I think he was an awesome President given time and place. Eleanor was the true activist.

He started rolling a ball, that future Presidents were able to build on that gave us the Social Safety net we have today.

The safety net then is not what it is now..

And he had to fight WW 2 on top of that with a republican party who were totally opposed to going to war with Hitler.

People tend to forget the Republicans were the appeasers of WW2..

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/06/george-w-bushs-revisionist-history-of-wwii/

"n 1919, Borah (R) joined with a majority of other Republicans in the Senate to defeat the Versailles Treaty that would have committed the U.S. to joining the League of Nations. America’s disengagement from the world during the interwar years contributed to the rise of Nazi aggression under Adolf Hitler. After Germany’s invasion of Poland, Borah again joined with a majority of Republicans in Congress to oppose revision of the Neutrality Act to permit trade with the allies. In 1940, Borah and most congressional Republicans opposed the draft and in 1941 they also opposed the provision of Lend Lease aid to the allies. Without these measures, the Nazis would almost certainly have conquered Great Britain and possibly Russia as well."

They have an awful time standing up when needed most. That has not changed one iota.

[Jakes Progress]

179. Kick because

too many of the centrist "conventional wisdom" posts are seeping into the thread.

[boxman15]

182. Absolutely. He's possibly the greatest president of all-time

He essentially saved the middle class, preserved and made better American society, and saved democracy in the Western world. Sure, he wasn't perfect, but he did a hell of a lot more good than bad.

Comparing him to Obama or Obama to FDR is ridiculous, though. Completely different times, problems, and, most importantly, Congresses. FDR had a Congress out of the gate that was more or less elected on the idea of the New Deal. Obama was handed a bunch of conservative Democrats and a GOP that was still powerful and extremely obstructionist.

[TheKentuckian]

189. FDR campaigned for an agenda and earned support for it.

Shit like that makes a difference and when he was opposed he sought to have that opposition replaced rather than tickling their balls and appointing their hacks.

[whathehell]

191. The best in living memor...Hisotorians rank him third after only Washington and Lincoln. n/t

[vroomvroom]

186. K&R - The last REAL Democratic President.

[Raine]

193. ABSOLUTELY he was a TRUE DEMOCRAT. nt

:thumbsup: :patriot:

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[burning rain]

199. There was a time when the Democratic Party had a liberal economic agenda.

Imagine that.

[vroomvroom]

200. K&R

[sakabatou]

201. He was good, but could've been better.

[21st Century FDR]

202. The Greatest President of the 20th Century

And we need another one like him, now more than ever.


Consider these words.....

We... 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.

If President Obama made a speech like that today, and then followed up with policies that agreed with those ideals, do you honestly believe that the American People would not support him?

[girl_interrupted]

204. +1000

[democrat2thecore]

205. AB-So-LUTELY! - n/t

[Dr Fate]

207. Socialism may have been a good idea back when it was centrist.

But now it is too far left.

This explains why we should have been for it a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago, back in history, but it also explains why we should reject it today.

Different place, different time, different people, different space.

As explained above- FDR was a centrist as socialism used to be centrist. This is proven by the fact that the far left hated FDR at the time- just like they hate Obama now.

FDR's far left detractors are just like today's malconents- they dont see that PRAGMATISM, not liberlaism is what always wins the day.

[pettypace]

209. How old would you have to be to remember?

In office from '33-'45...so if you were say college aged his last few years in office, then you'd be born circa 1925.

That would put you at in your late 80's right now.

The only other folks that could be queried would be those who studied his career, AND remember the information.

I'd say liberally 5 to 10% of the posters on here fall into either of those categories.

[onestepforward]

210. K&R