Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Pre-FDR era would have been a no-win situation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Grover Cleveland Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 11:30 PM
Original message
The Pre-FDR era would have been a no-win situation
in mainstream politics for people like us.

I mean on one hand, you could vote for Republicans, who granted, were pretty libertarian on social issues, but (Teddy R excepted) were majorly in bed with the robber barons on economic issues or you could vote for self-righteous academics with "progressive" ideas such as eugenics, prohibition, and increased religious fundamentalism.

Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. well, Hoover was the "dry" candidate
Al Smith and many Democrats didn't support prohibition, so what you say isn't entirely correct, but substansively, much of what you said is correct. Basically, a huge chunk of the Democrats - the wing that was mostly in power - were far-right moralists and cranks from the South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. southern democrats did support prohibiton
Smith was sort of abandoned by the southern wing of the party for being a wet and a Irish Catholic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. There Was Eugene Debs! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Liberalism was an outrageous idea.
The deal before the new deal didnt have room for progressive thinkers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grover Cleveland Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well... Woody Wilson was considered a "Progressive"
and he was a pioneer on presidents championing labor issues, but his support for eugenics, his virulent racism, and his suspension of the constitution during WWI that makes the current climate seem like NPR, cancels that out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Thug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-28-04 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. Mainstream was for the petty bourgeous
people like "us" - meaning my father, his father and friends were rallying around radical unionism, socialism and other remedies to the gilded age blue blooded gunships that were mowing them down.

Strange at it may sound, the NEw Deal (as much as it is despised by repukes and corporate fascists of all sorts) is what saved capitalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
69KV Donating Member (444 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
7. Fighting Bob Lafollette
and a bunch of others like him, in both parties. They were sort of the forerunners of FDR. George Norris, Gifford Pinchot, etc. There were also third parties that came and went...Peoples Party, Greenback Party, Farmer-Labor Party, Progressive Party, Non-Partisan League. And of course Eugene Debs and the Socialists. Big agrarian populist movement in the upper Midwest, and unions were starting to stir in the cities.

You're right though, from 1900 to 1932 conservative Repukes pretty much ran the country. Well, there was Woodrow Wilson..who wasn't any better.

None of the above were enough to take control of either party from the robber barons, and all those third parties fared about like third parties do today - not very well.

The pressure was building though and something had to give. The New Deal had to happen but it took a stock market crash to bring it about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
8. I would have been a populist
and been part of the progressive movement. William Jennings Bryan was cool in many ways. Or maybe the socialist party since that was becoming a real force for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC