Will We Ever See Another Kennedy or FDR...?

[WiffenPoof]

Will we ever see another Kennedy or FDR lead the Democratic Party or be a transformational President in our future?

There are others I could mention but these are the two names that first come to mind.

Have we reached a point where this kind of dynamic leadership is no longer possible...that it has been bred out of our DNA?

Paige

[bigwillq]

1. So, you don't think Obama is?

[cascadiance]

3. Maybe if he vetoes a bill for the TPP by the Republicans...

But I'm not holding my breath. FDR or other progressives wouldn't be pushing that legislation behind closed doors!

[pampango]

38. Actually FDR initiated fast track and presidential negotiation of trade agreements and

republicans ran against that in 1936.

From the republican party platform of 1936:

It (the FDR administration) secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29639

[cascadiance]

44. But we did have tariffs in those days protecting American industry and workers then...

"Free Trade" now just lets the UnAmerican companies to locate wherever they want and keep sapping down the American marketplace that is funded by heavy consumer debt when jobs leave this country before it crashes when there's no more debt that can be sustained by individuals without losing their houses, etc.

[pampango]

49. You're right. Republicans raised tariffs in 1921, 1924 and 1930. FDR lowered them and

republicans campaigned against that in 1936.

BTW, those republican high tariffs hammered the middle class and coincided with the most unequal incomes the U.S. has ever had by the time FDR took office in 1933.

[unblock]

4. the time is not yet for a transformation.

he certainly could have been the man to symbolize it. circumstances were unusual enough to get him elected, but not enough to genuinely transform. we're just not there as a country. scary as it sounds given the "great recession", but we haven't actually "hit bottom" yet.

[RKP5637]

27. Those are my thoughts too. Sometimes, it takes rock-bottom before a recovery can begin. I know it's

horrible to say, but enough people did not suffer the pain of the recession. Americans IMO tend to be delusional, that somehow everything is really OK and it's the fault of the people that fall through the cracks.

[WiffenPoof]

5. Ooops

I certainly do not want to start a flame war here. I love President Obama...I clearly support him. However, I do not see him as a dynamic leader. Sorry. I wish I did.

[Maedhros]

23. Obama is far too timid to be transformational. [n/t]

[RKP5637]

28. Something like that. He believes strongly IMO that people really want to bond together

and create mutually beneficial solutions. That is laudable, but IMO not reality. There are some really hard core sociopaths to deal with and their concept of working together is a fake smile. LBJ, for example, knew how to play hardball. Obama does not and is very intellectual in his decisions is why I like him ... but that said, it makes it difficult for one to kick people in the ass.

[brush]

51. Obama's legacy is still coming into focus . . .

IMO, Kennedy didn't have enough time to be equated with FDR, no even close.

LBJ, on the other hand, even though a lot of people can't get past the war record, pushed through the most social programs ever besides FDR.

[unblock]

2. yes, i think the demographic shifts make it inevitable that someone will lead the transition.

it may take 20 or 30 years but eventually the country will be sufficiently minority and sufficiently democratic that someone will be able to win by appealing to the masses while largely ignoring the moneyed interests.

[Ampersand Unicode]

11. If "democracy" lasts that long.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer (I don't usually watch SNL and just recently learned that's where the term comes from) but I'm not too optimistic about the future of our republic. I don't think millennials are going to have a lot of power. The first millennial president will probably be a RW Xchan jarhead who was home schooled and hates women and gays. A Dylan Klebold-type who faps to gun magazines (periodicals, although who knows what he uses actual "magazines" for...) and likes to troll women on the Internet.

A millennial woman president probably won't happen. Not with the scores of young MRAs getting their ammo from PUA forums and Reddit. Not with the groundwork being set now for women to lose reproductive rights by a thousand cuts, landing women back in the '50s being barefoot, pregnant and illiterate. Not with the way rapes are being treated on college campuses, eventually making young women think twice about even going to higher education, let alone K-12 where they get bullied by morons online. A millennial gay president is even less likely because the trolling just gets worse for LGBT people.

The first of the gen-Xers, born in 1965, turns 50 next year. (Yes, Charlie Sheen is officially worthy of a scientific study on longevity.) The first millennial, born in 1980, will be eligible in the 2016 election (they'll be 36). Seriously doubt there'll be someone running for president in the next election who just hit the mark and was born the same year MTV hit the airwaves (a 35-year-old born in 1981). I think that the Democrats were too willing to put faith in the goodness of the voting populace anyway in '08 and '12, and honestly didn't believe that we could still be such a racist POS country. Obama failed only because the GOP set him up to fail. Voters turned en masse against the Democrats because they turned against Obama. Like it or not, there are a lot of people still very uncomfortable with the notion of an "other" being in the highest office of the land, and who won't vote for Hillary either because she's not a dude (no matter what locker-room insults Rash Limburger hurls her way). There are a lot of them who blame the "others" for coming out in droves to vote Obama in twice, who will work their damnedest to ensure another precedent never gets set again. No woman, no Latino, no gay, no trans*, no handicapped, no Asian, no Jew, no Muslim, no atheist. Not even another Catholic. Just middle-aged heterosexual, conservative, rich WASP guys from here on in.

And we can thank Nixon, Reagan, and Bushes I and II -- the Mount Rushmore of American hate -- for it.

[AverageJoe90]

25. This scenario is more than a bit farfetched, to be truthful.

There are a lot of them who blame the "others" for coming out in droves to vote Obama in twice, who will work their damnedest to ensure another precedent never gets set again. No woman, no Latino, no gay, no trans*, no handicapped, no Asian, no Jew, no Muslim, no atheist. Not even another Catholic.

I don't think that will work, to be realistic. The demographics alone would make that highly problematic.....not to mention it would take some kind of proverbial time warp taking us back to 1920-something.....which is highly unlikely in this country anyway.

[New Deal Dave]

6. I would have said Obama is another FDR

But now I'm not so sure.

My greatest fear is that we have reached the limits of Progressivism. Americans seemed to be afraid of government more than seeing it as their ally. They are more worried about debt instead of the benefits of spending.

[arcane1]

10. That's because some are brainwashed idiots. Progressive values won in 2014.

[New Deal Dave]

12. Progressive values WON?

Please tell me how electing a bunch of Republicans is a Progressive thing. I would love to be convinced of your statement.

[arcane1]

13. I'm refering to ballot initiatives, not politicians.

Brain-deads idiots vote for the lying repubs because they fall for the lies, while voting "yes" on progressive ideas when they are spelled out in non-slogan form.

Progressive ideals are just getting started.

[aikoaiko]

7. Sure, but remember FDR developed the tech and plan to drop atomic bombs on cities.

And JFK started sending advisory troops into Vietnam and almost set off a nuclear exchange with the Soviet over Cuba.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Germany and Japan were also working on atomic bombs

Heisenburg, a physics luminary, headed the German program.

Should we have let them win the race?

[aikoaiko]

42. I'm just saying that if youre a FDR Democrat, you're down with civilian casualties for miliary goals

I can live with that.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Do you think it would have been better to not pursue the atomic bomb?

[aikoaiko]

46. I already answered that. I'm good with FDR, but too many forget his warrior side.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. I'm not quite understanding what you mean by "warrior side"

Do you feel that he engaged in uneccesary military action?

[truebluegreen]

21. Um, Truman sent the first advisors and aid to Vietnam, and Eisenhower continued the practice.

It is true that Kennedy continued the trend and I doubt if he would have ended US involvement had he lived. But as for almost setting off a nuclear exchange with the Soviets over Cuba--we're damn lucky he wouldn't listen to his generals.

[aikoaiko]

41. True enough about Kennedy not sending the first, but he did send many more than Truman/Eisenhower

Thank you for correcting.

[Historic NY]

37. Actually Eisenhower sent the first advisors to help the French...

in the beginnning it was aid and then more aid. Eisenhower also order US Advisors to accompany the supplies sent to vietnam. The proxy CIA army was helping Oct. 23, 1955 Col. Lansdale US Air Force (ala CIA) was deep in advising Diem in the hostile take over of Bio Dai the former prime minister. While he didn't send ground troops there were plenty of missions flying in supplies to the French in US aircraft.

July 8, 1959 the first two U.S. military advisors, Maj. Dale Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, are killed by Viet Minh guerrillas at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. They are the first American deaths in the Second Indochina War which Americans will come to know simply as The Vietnam War.

So American were there well before Kennedy took his oath of office.


Trumans man on the ground was killed by the Viet Minh was Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey of the OSS, it was his report that was sent to Washington advising no American involvement in Southeast Asis. He was killed in Sept 1945.

[aikoaiko]

40. I concede that Kennedy didn't send the first military personnel to Vietnam

but he did send an awful lot compared to Eisenhower although many many more would be sent by later presidents.

http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm

[JCMach1]

8. Will the Democratic party ever get over the need for an uberleader to carry out progressive change?

i.e. start at the BOTTOM!

[LadyHawkAZ]

9. Doubtful

I'm sure they're out there and one or two will probably run, but they will never win. The media will convince half the population that they're too tax-and-spend liberal, another quarter of the population that they're not liberal enough, and the remainder that the person cheated on their spouse. People have more faith in what mass media tells them to like/dislike than in what's really there.

Things have changed a bit since 1960. Sorry.

[Ampersand Unicode]

16. FOX will destroy them if they're of minority background

Never underestimate the power of the angry white vote. I sadly think it's only a minority of people who see Faux for the steaming pile of bullshit it is. People who hang out on DU, Kos, Crooks & Liars (the "Internet progressives&quot , and the approximately 4 doctors' offices nationwide that still have MSNBC on in the lobby.

The M$M -- CBS, NBC, ABC -- is corporate BS masquerading as "liberal media." About the only thing Middle America watches more often than Fox is professional wrestling and reality-TV. The only difference is that the latter two admit they're fake.

JFK was a liberal Catholic. FDR was in a wheelchair. Obama was black. The chances of another legitimate progressive winning the White House -- let alone one who isn't "mainstream" (heterosexual, able-bodied, WASP male, 50+, regular churchgoer, and with substantial monies in his bank account) -- is slim to none. Americans treat their presidency like a dating profile. Post-op transgender Buddhists with dyslexia and a Tiger Woods racial background, who grew up in the projects and currently live in a communal kibbutz in a polyamorous non-exclusive relationship, need not apply.

We have a better chance of seeing an atheistic Jew elected as pope.

[B Calm]

14. BERNIE, BERNIE, BERNIE, BERNIE, BERNIE!

[wyldwolf]

15. We should resist the urge to lionize our leaders

Good presidents, yes. Shining examples of anything? No, not really.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. "When the student is ready, the teacher appears"

That kind of leadership only happens when we're ready for it - but it doesn't always happen then, either.

[JonLP24]

18. I think the better question is will we see another Truman

Both of those politicians moved where the political winds blew.

The second New Deal appears to be move to address growing liberal criticisms. Truman's fair deal addressed discrimination where the new deal racist exclusion policies were an appeal to get Southern Democratic support.

Thus far, he had followed his predecessor's policies, but he soon developed his own. He presented to Congress a 21-point program, proposing the expansion of Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing and slum clearance. The program, Truman wrote, "symbolizes for me my assumption of the office of President in my own right." It became known as the Fair Deal.

[wyldwolf]

22. The Fair Deal wasn't successful

You're right - much of the New Deal had racist exclusion policies. But only small parts of the Fair Deal passed the Republican controlled congress. The meat of the Fair Deal - aid to education, universal health insurance, the Fair Employment Practices Commission, and repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act - were voted down.

I have no doubt Truman believed in his Fair Deal policies but he knew they'd never pass. It's very much like how today's progressives fall in love with candidates who say the right things but will never admit those things will never actually succeed (Warren, Sanders, etc.)

His major successes were guiding the American economy through a post-war recession and the racial integration of the military.
He Forced Japanese surrender in 1945 through the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Assisted in the founding of the United Nations
Issued the Truman Doctrine to contain communism
Passed the $13 billion Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, including the Axis Powers of both World Wars
Supported and recognized the state of Israel when it declared itself a nation
Oversaw the Berlin Airlift in 1948 and the creation of NATO in 1949
Sent U.S. troops into Korea after the communist North invaded the South and while gaining UN approval for the war.

One wonders how he's become a hero to the left with that mixed record.

[JonLP24]

35. My favoritism in how it relates to Truman is based on honesty and integrity

more than anything else including his mixed record. Take Israel into consideration. While I oppose current second class citizens & discrimination practices. Truman said his interests would be based on justice rather than oil when advised that his position could anger Arab countries & oil, especially Saudi oil in the event of another war.

Though Harry Truman's policies on civil rights is where I support him the most. Take a look at his statement to congress http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/972.htm He famously made the statement regarding "How far would Moses have gone if he'd taken a poll..." in response to reports of 80% of the public opposed his Civil Rights Committee. Consider this all took place during an election year.

He also integrated the federal workplace at the very same time he issued the executive order that desegregated the military.

His justice department also filed amicus briefs Shelley v. Kraemer, Sweatt v. Painter, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, Hendersen v. United States, and the five school desegregation cases later decided as Brown v. Board of Education. Taken together, these decisions outlawed Plessy's "separate but equal doctrine" in education and declared restrictive covenants unconstitutional.

On the subject of the Fair deal, he did manage to nearly double the minimum wage. Housing Act fell short but he was critical behind the landmark Supreme Court case regarding housing covenants and the origins to fair housing policy originates with Truman.

As to Warren, he populist policies are politically popular. Sanders is actually a successful legislator.

A lot of liberal support of Trumad revolves his statements regarding Republicans, including debunking trickle down in 1948.

Since they won't tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.

They approve of the American farmer — but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand four-square for the American home — but not for
housing.

They are strong for labor — but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights.

They favor a minimum wage — the smaller the minimum the better.

They indorse educational opportunity for all — but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine — for people who can afford them.

They approve of Social Security benefits — so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

They believe in international trade — so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.

They favor the admission of displaced persons — but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.

They consider electric power a great blessing — but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

They say TVA is wonderful — but we ought never to try it again.

They condemn "cruelly high prices" — but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

They think the American standard of living is a fine thing — so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.

And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

Now, my friends, that is the Wall Street Republican way of life. But there is another way — there is another way — the Democratic way, the way of the Democratic Party.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/trumangop.asp#k8O6lWSjoCLlLTX8.99

[wyldwolf]

36. Honesty and integrity are good words for him

A lot of liberal support of Trumad revolves his statements regarding Republicans, including debunking trickle down in 1948.

I'll let Trumad know you love him. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=105176

[AverageJoe90]

20. There is a good chance we will eventually, realistically speaking.....

Maybe as soon as 2024, perhaps; the demographics are certainly in favor of that, and the social reactionaries continue to fall by the wayside. But I'm afraid it's going to be rough for a while. And if a woman, and/or another Person of Color wins in 2016, we may possibly have to deal with not only more extreme GOP nuttiness, but possibly even domestic terrorism which might be exceeding that of what we had to deal with in the '90s by a good bit; I realize this sounds a tad pessimistic, but believe me, we've actually been quite lucky so far, that we haven't had many more incidents like the Eric Frein case in PA, or those two jackasses who shot up a Wal-Mart in Nevada.

[JoePhilly]

24. DU would have crucified FDR for interment camps.

They'd have been demanding a primary challenge.

[NOLALady]

26. I have to wonder if

we will ever see another Obama.

[LeftInTX]

29. I've always felt that Obama and JFK are very similar

JFK had more support from congress and the public. But that's the main difference to me.

[RKP5637]

31. I feel much the same! It's been a hard road for Obama. IMO he has tremendous guts and stamina to

endure all of the unfair abuse. Plus, he is a black man. I think given all of the obstacles, it is amazing what he has done. What strikes me as extremely ignorant is the failure of many democrats to support him, much as in the recent election. What utterly stupid strategic reasoning that one was, and hence the results.

[craigmatic]

33. I agree with the comparison but Obama has had more congressional support for his agenda than JFK.

JFK couldn't get a budget or a civil rights bill but at least Obama got a stimulus and Obamacare.

[Orangepeel]

30. Kennedy and FDR weren't Kennedy and FDR

Both were very flawed men in a different age. There is no way that either would be elected today, with their health issues and philandering, and if they were, they wouldn't be effective.

It isn't the people that are different, it is the times.

So, short answer... No

[craigmatic]

32. The nature of politics has changed so much that it's probably not possible. FDR and JFK to a lesser

extent didn't really have to deal with race. But now we have to deal with race, sexual orientation and hot button social issues. Things were easier when FDR was president. All he had to deal with was the depression and voters of FDR's generation had longer attention spans and were more engaged. There were no news cycles and all the other modern bullshit we have today.

[One_Life_To_Give]

34. Not if Exxon and Goldman get their way nt

[L0oniX]

39. I wouldn't put them in the same box. I have a very low opinion of JFK.

[GeorgeGist]

43. Not in the USA.

[WiffenPoof]

52. Great Video...

When I first heard the beginning I was disappointed it wasn't the original. But by the end I was weeping.

However, I thought the inclusion of President Obama at the end took away from the impact of the meaning of the song.

P

[Hekate]

47. FDR got almost 4 terms to work with, and public support. JFK was assassinated 3 years in....

I don't know who exactly has Obama's back anymore, but the man just keeps rolling that rock uphill like a latter-day Sysiphus, and if he gets out of here alive it will be a miracle.

I think we DO have a POTUS who could be transformational, and we don't know what to do with him except hold his feet to the fire until he's got 3rd degree burns.

[TheKentuckian]

48. Not until we in serious numbers, doesn't have to be a majority but we need a fair chunk 20%

at least to once again allow themselves to unabashedly aspire to conditions that demand transformation and relentlessly pursue them.

I also tend to believe that an old fashioned thing that we all get to be familiar with but the rich and powerful have become too disconnected from called consequences or at bare minimum, a plausible threat of them.

[dawg]

53. Both of those men had severe physical ailments, but it would have been ungentlemanly ...

of the Republicans to have exploited their conditions for crass political gains. So, by and large, the Republicans argued against them based on their ideas, not throwing mud and dragging skeletons out of closets.

Consider someone like Eliot Spitzer. Imagine what that guy could have accomplished in a different sort of world.

[Recursion]

54. No, we are the people we have been waiting for

The solutions from the past are not templates for the future. We will move forward.