Why I can’t support FDR

[HughMoran]

Why I can’t support FDR

I know President Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed many progressive policies during his term as President, but he has also supported many policies to which I am vehemently opposed. I made a list of these offending policies below:

1. His refusal to push for anti-lynching legislation - simply because it might have threatened his ability to pass his highest priority programs. What?? What kind of pandering President would allow these killings to continue simply based on political calculation? Oh, he ‘condemned’ them – and how did that work out? Nah, FDR didn’t want to ‘upset’ his Southern Democratic cronies so he ‘looked the other way’ while the killing continued. What’s the word that’s commonly thrown around to describe this sort of political calculation? - ah yes, ‘shameful’.
2. He ignored evidence that the Holocaust was happening. Why didn’t he act decisively to prevent or stop the Holocaust? Why, in 1939, were 936 Jewish refugees on board the SS St. Louis denied asylum and not allowed into the United States? These are not the actions of a true progressive.
3. He was unwilling to desegregate the armed forces. 'Nuff said.
4. In 1942, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 that applied to everyone, including U.S. citizens, residing in the United States classified as an "enemy alien". Under the order, thousands of Japanese, Italians, and Germans residing in the United States were arrested. Internment camps were created all over the United States. For 3 years 120,000 Japanese Americans lived in internment prison camps. Progressive? Hardly.
5. Why did he appoint right-wing justice Felix Frankfurter & moderates like Reed & Jackson? Unacceptable - I expect nothing less than full-fledged liberals from a liberal President. Stacking the court my arse.
6. Why did it take FDR 10 years to lower the unemployment rate to 5%? New Deal? Hah! It was old by the time it had the desired effect.


I’ve heard it said that it doesn’t matter how good the ingredients are for the punch, if there is one turd floating in it, the rest is meaningless. Well, this punchbowl is full of floating turds. Heck, even George W. Bush didn’t round up and intern “Muslins” during his “War on Terra”. Oh, I’ve heard all the “political climate of the day” arguments. They didn’t work for Clinton or Bush or Obama, so let’s not make excuses for FDR either. Imprisonment is imprisonment and racism is racism – please don’t ask me to “set aside” my ideals for political ‘expediency’. I’ve heard those arguments repeatedly and I’m not buying them. It’s all or nothing with me – compromise is for ‘DLCers’ & corpratists – it’s not happening here.

So in conclusion, I cannot support the policies of FDR since he was not a true progressive. He pandered and compromised with the enemy, and for this he cannot be forgiven.

[NJmaverick]

1. K & R!

[stevenleser]

129. Yes, one of the greatest OPs EVER

K&R

[tekisui]

2. Wow.You use some of the most shameful moments in US history

as a defense? :wow:

[depakid]

6. Impressive, eh?

Sometimes, the screen name says it all.

[avaistheone1]

28. Truth in advertising

as they say.

[phleshdef]

40. You know damn well that some here use FDR as a standard to criticize the current President.

If you don't feel you are guilty of that, then the OP wasn't written for you.

[HughMoran]

45. The O/P was written for everybody

My attempt at 'perspective' with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Ahhhh - I unrec'ed when I meant to rec.

:(

[racaulk]

8. That's OK. I rec'ed when I mean to unrec.

We cancel each other out. :hi:

[Pirate Smile]

43. Perfect.

:hi:

[kenfrequed]

4. Flamebait

And not terribly interesting flamebait either.

[tekisui]

7. To be fair. The poster, like many others, cannot distinguish

support of policy from support of person.

They are incapable of recognizing that one can criticize policy yet, still support the President.

[zipplewrath]

19. What does that mean?

"support the president"? In this context I mean. How does one "disagree with policy" but "support the person"? It's not like he's getting a phone call from me every day. He wouldn't notice if I did.

[HughMoran]

17. Constructive criticism

[kenfrequed]

108. Was that a statement or a question?

I'm afraid I don't understand.

[Mabus]

150. I interpreted it as a statement.

In other words, your comment was conclusory and qualitative. I found the OP provocative but interesting. I'm guessing it is a defense of Obama, but not sure.

[kenfrequed]

151. I find it difficult to believe...

That you would think that someone has to provide absolute data to identify and isolate tone, tenor, and intent, when it is so painfully obvious to anyone that happens to read this post.

[HughMoran]

154. It is constructive criticism

It seemed obvious to me when I wrote it and many also 'get' it...

[kenfrequed]

157. Uh sure.

Because you merely call it 'constructive criticism' does not make it so. Nor does it mean there is anything to 'get' within your post. Nor, in fact, does it free you from having to elaborate or explain this snark.

[treestar]

109. Sorry but it is well deserved

If FDR were subjected to the same standards Obama is here, that's exactly what would happen.

[kenfrequed]

112. There are a number of problems with that argument

Roosevelt actually stood up to corporate power to the point where he practically inspired the beginings of a facistic coup against him.

Roosevelt created entitlement programs that were entirely public and still in existence today.

Yes, he was flawed and yes he did some things wrong but he was a responsive leader that actually considered what his supporters said.

There were a hell of a lot of people to the left of Roosevelt that were occasionally critical of him, particularly DURING those times where he acted and enacted those serious and aggregious mistakes described above.

Interestingly enough it seems that the posters intent is to use his honest and truly unfortunate flaws, flaws that all of us agree were wrong and policies and executive orders that we all agree he should not have enacted, to flaggellate the very people trying to hold Obama to a decent standard.

The irony is wild.

[bvar22]

124. The irony is wild ?

"Hypocrisy" would be more accurate.

[treestar]

131. Do you not get that you would be doing the same to FDR

And would have been trashing him the same way?

It's easy to idealize from long ago. But had you lived at that time you'd be doing your version of holding people's feet to the fire and all that crap.

[kenfrequed]

147. Obviously that was the posters intent

And I don't know how I could explain it more clearly that, Yes, I admire FDR despite his failings and flaws. But FDR accomplished a few things in his time didn't he?

My point is the OP was trying to castigate those of us that critically try to push President Obama in a more progressive direction by sarchastically pulling out some of FDR's flaws and projecting our dissent back in time to him. (while making a cheap shot on a president who was a progressive for his time)

It never seemed to have occured to the OP that had there not been a large progressive movementssd that had been pushing for reform and to help out those least amongst us.

My point was that maybe, just maybe, those of us that wanted at LEAST a public option in terms of healthcare and who want equal rights for everyone and who want a more progressive tax system and real financial reform have something in common with the people that pushed for minimum wage, social security, the Wagner act, the WPA, the soil conservation act, and fair Labor standards.

[zipplewrath]

5. Big smile

Nice job. One tiny little detail. You have to measure his "progressiveness" by the standards of his day, not ours.

FDR made alot of mistakes. These are mistakes we can clearly see through the eyes of history. One has to "go back" to that time and judge him by what was known then. On balance, he was a very successful progressive president.

The current presidents progressive record won't be fully known for 7 more years. He ain't off to a good start though. FDR had a rocky start too. Murky finish as well.

You can move on to LBJ next if you want. You'll find more fertile ground there. You'll also find that he was rejected, ultimately, by the progressives of his day.

[HughMoran]

"You'll also find that he was rejected, ultimately, by the progressives of his day."

Why do progressives do this, yet conservatives do the exact opposite and cling to seeping shit?

[tekisui]

11. Conservatives lack principles.

[HughMoran]

13. agreed

[zipplewrath]

18. Intellectual consistency

Progressives aren't "faith based" but require an intellectual consistency in their thoughts and actions. The "purety" of this consistency is a constant struggle amongst them. But they need to see a correlation between what they advocate and the outcome.

Conservatism is based upon a form of "faith" or an understanding of things "should be", whether it is consistent with the world as it is. If there is any disconnect between what they advocate, and what is really happening, the cause is always that the attempts are imperfect. It is never possible that their advocacy can be wrong.

[HughMoran]

21. Can one be intellectually honest, criticize the President, yet also acknowledge the historical

perspective without having to wait 10 years? You know - a "well rounded" critic...

[zipplewrath]

27. Is there a "historical perspective"

I don't think there can be a "historical perspective" on presidency that is only 16 months old.

[HughMoran]

33. I try to step back and estimate what will be remembered when we look back

It's one of the tools I use when deciding how to weigh certain issues in my mind. I try to allow for a logical progression in the President's thinking as to how he sets his priorities. If I didn't try to put myself in his shoes, I might be more angry that he hasn't done everything I wanted by now. I could get much more detailed in my explanation, but I need to get some work done now.

[zipplewrath]

34. That's called extrapolation

It is always a risky analysis technique. In this case, considering you are trying to extrapolate forward 6 times the data sample, it is VERY risky. We typically don't like to extrapolate more than 10%, if at all. You're trying to do it 600%.

[HughMoran]

35. I'm a human, not a statistical sample

I have something called 'intuition' that I believe is exceedingly good compared to many people in my social circle.

I'll forward your post to my Statistician GF :)

[zipplewrath]

37. fine line

there's a fine line between intuition and a WAG.

[HughMoran]

41. I'll be the judge of that

;)

Isn't that what this forum is all about?

[zipplewrath]

44. Heisenberg uncertainty principal

By the by. You might wanna consider the principal that there is an interactivity between viewing something, and the future of that object. What he decides will DEFINE the history that will later judge him.

[HughMoran]

47. I do judge based on his decisions

I hope everybody does. My point may have been more about political climate of the times versus absolute good/bad. :think:

[rainy]

39. Because right wing presidents give their followers what they want

Pregressive presidents can't because of the corporate control over campaign financing and the media. That is why pregressive always get the short end of the stick.

[Yavin4]

23. But, Obama Is Not Judged by "standards of his day"

He's trying to be progressive in a corporate dominated political system that can easily manipulate and tap into White tribalism.

And some folks still won't cut him any slack.

[zipplewrath]

30. No, he's not

He will tell you he is NOT trying to "be progressive". Those are not his words and he goes out of his way to avoid being labeled as such. He is trying to be a centrist and trying to "balance" corporate and individual needs. He advocates centrism, not progressivism.

[stevenleser]

117. + sideways eight

You really put that well. I may steal that.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

80. And Japanese Internment.

[Captain Hilts]

83. Yep. He also interned Italians and wanted to intern Germans, whom he hated far more

than the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor.

Francis Biddle told him it wasn't possible to figure out which Germans were and were not loyal.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[harun]

9. I wouldn't apply the realizations of today with the age FDR was in.

He did extraordinary for the time.

Of course some of the actions he did were wrong, but I never put any of the Presidents or founders of the country on a pedestal. They were people.

Another thing, FDR is dead. Why do you need to either support or not support him?

[HughMoran]

10. Why are people taking this in a literal sense?

Smile! We're criticizing ourselves in this one! :hi:

[geek tragedy]

24. Racist lynchings were considered wrong in FDR's day. nt

[Captain Hilts]

78. And public opinion surveys - which skewed conservative- overwhelmingly supporting ANTI-lynching law.

But FDR wouldn't lift a finger on it.

[zipplewrath]

106. All true

But the public perception about the extent of the federal governments role in such things was much different than it is today. Heck, it would be much different by the end of WWII than it was at the beginning.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

12. I can't support him, cause he died like

oh, what? 65 years ago?

wtf?

[HughMoran]

15. Tongue-in-cheek

Are you missing the point?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

16. lol

I hope you were also being humorous!

[dionysus]

72. i guess that OP hit a bit too close to home huh?

:rofl:

[VMI Dem]

20. IBTL.

[Yavin4]

Thank You. This Should Be Sent To Thom Hartmann Pronto!

FDR was very unprogressive in many areas. African Americans were being terrorized in the South, and he did NOTHING about it.

Yet, some extall him as a hero to progressivism, and they bash Obama in comparison.

Why didn't he switch us to single payer when he had the chance?

[depakid]

26. Wow- that wins for perhaps the second lamest comment I've seen today

Here's a clue from American History 101:

One looks at historical events in the context of the times -not with the rose colored glasses of present hindsight.

[Yavin4]

29. Hmmm, Yet You Don't Extend "Context" To Obama's Times

Obama is a progressive in a corporate dominated political system that taps into White tribalism and a nostalgia for the "good ole days". You have credible candidates for the senate that believe that you can pay for health care with chickens, and another one that believes that the Civil Rights act was wrong.

This is what Obama has to deal with.

[depakid]

31. I take all that into account- though I disagree with the assessment

The evidence shows rather clearly and convincingly that Obama's essentially a Rockefeller Republican-a species which no longer exists in the 21st Century version of the party.

That's a different animal than a progressive, but one that often times we can find agreement with.

Nevertheless, point taken.

[Yavin4]

51. Obama Is As Progressive As Our Political Climate Will Allow

He has to navigate entrenched corporate interests that have massive media power, and an electorate that has strong regressive political sensibilities.

Just like FDR and LBJ, he has to make compromises in order to get anything accomplished, and yes, sometimes those compromises are wrong and can have awful consequences. FDR was great on the New Deal, but he was horrible on Civil Rights and the Civil Liberties of the Japense people. LBJ was great on Civil Rights and the Great Society, but he was horrible on Vietnam.

Bottom line is this, we don't live an strongly progressive society, and change is incremental and often looks bad from afar.

[Captain Hilts]

82. 62% of Republicans and 80% of Dems supported a Public Option. A progressive moment lost.

I know he's got pressures on him. But, like Bill Clinton, he's not always grasping those that he could grasp.

[stevenleser]

121. 41 or 100% of Republican senators did not support it. Unfortunately, that is what mattered

the percentage of people that you mention did not agitate sufficiently for what they wanted. To be frank, I do not believe that 62% of Republicans wanted a public option and that is why the Republican senators did not fear opposing it.

[kenfrequed]

152. That is among the most absurd defences I have ever heard.

As a person living in this time I think I can judge him rather effectively according to my hopes, dreams, and desires for the time I live in.

Taken to the extreme, your statement seems to direct energy away from doing anything or saying anything against the polices currently in place since we live in a corporate dominated society.

[Cha]

107. [phone]!!

[tranche]

22. Why would this be locked? It's history, it's real. DU would shit on FDRs White House steps today.

[CBR]

53. Yup. nt

[Captain Hilts]

81. On the lynching and Holocaust issues FDR deserved it. I won't defend him because he was a cool guy.

And folks around him - Eleanor, Ickes, etc. were coming unglued about the anti-lynching bill. It had HUGE support nationally. FDR wouldn't lift a finger.

Eleanor, Morgenthau, and Ickes, again were freaking out about the plight of the Jews. FDR appointed a flagrant anti-semite as head of the refugee board in '1941. Shamefull.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. I can't support anyone. Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha, King, Jefferson, Washington...

Princess Di, Mother Theresa, Elvis...

And so many others.

I mean, besides being dead and all, they were mistakenly deified in life and even more so after death.

No matter what good they might have done or been, they were not perfect and there's always some little thing they did or thought that would damn them to hell in a just universe.

Destroy the good in search of the perfect-- that's the only way.

[Dappleganger]

32. Yeah, but he had a kick-ass wife...

No, he wasn't perfect and could have done more. But he did do a LOT, most of which greatly changed the course of this nation.

And his wife was probably the most active presidential spouse, ever.

[HughMoran]

36. I think FDR was one of the best Presidents in US history

...that goes without saying and is a major aspect of my post.

[Captain Hilts]

84. Truly one of THE Greatest Americans ever. Top ten, she is.

[Dappleganger]

93. Awesome smile!

She truly cared about everyone around her and never had an idle moment.

Like my avatar? ;)

[Teaser]

38. worse.than.hitler.

.

[HughMoran]

42. .

:rofl:

Very funny!

[Jennicut]

46. No heroric figure in history is ever perfect. The people who pretend lie to themselves.

I have loved history my whole life and almost though of being a history teacher. But all Presidents have their good sides and bad sides, because they are human. Some are better or worse then others.

[HughMoran]

49. Yes, that is the 'larger' perspective

...that I'm getting at here.

[Jennicut]

50. I got it, good post.

[Captain Hilts]

73. But it's another thing entirely to mindlessly DEFEND FDR's not favoring anti-lynching legislation.

Folks here would DEFEND all that you mentioned in the OP.

[stevenleser]

126. No, they wouldn't. I've seen mindless attacks aplenty. Almost all defenses were pretty well reasoned

Just calling it as I see it.

[POAS]

163. Not only based on reason

but also most have been focused on the issue at hand, not expanded to other issues or the Presidency at large.

I consider myself a hard bitten socialist who realizes that anything any "progressive" President does or accomplishes will fall short of my ideal and yet I support moves that take us in a positive direction and try to judge each on a case by case basis, always with an eye for how the next step will continue forward movement.

[freddie mertz]

48. Worthless, flame-bait bullshit. Meanwhile the oil slick grows.nt.

[amborin]

68. +1000

[Faygo Kid]

134. +1001

[CakeGrrl]

52. k/r

If it's so damned easy to get a true progressive elected, then everyone get off their ass and git 'er done. Don't whine about staying home or holding one's nose when they cast their vote because the choices are two sides of the same coin.

If I didn't have to suffer another Republican administration alongside those who can't abide by this administration, I'd wish it for them as a reminder of what wasn't being done and what had no hope of being accomplished, because some people seem to have really indulged in the luxury of forgetting.

:eyes:

[dionysus]

54. notice who you offend with this post... what a coincidence...

[freddie mertz]

85. It's no coincidence, it's the transparent intent of the flamebait.

[dionysus]

87. because, using satire, he duplicated your act perfectly.

[freddie mertz]

89. Bullshit. You guys seem to have lost your collective minds this week.

I think the oil spill finally did it.

[dionysus]

91. funny, you guys are the ones who soil yourselves in rage on a daily basis, yet it is US who have

lost our minds. funny that.

although, most of the time the rage seems manufactured, because it's not based in reality.

:rofl:

[freddie mertz]

92. It's not an uncommon observation.

Your stuff this week, as a group, placing the president's poll numbers before the safety of the nation and the planet, has been noted by many.

I am amazed, frankly, at how thoroughly unconcerned you all to seem to be by what is going on.

[dionysus]

94. see fred, you've got quite a few misconceptions going on here.

"placing the president's poll numbers before the safety of the nation and the planet"

that's entirely made up. strawman #1

"I am amazed, frankly, at how thoroughly unconcerned you all to seem to be by what is going on. "

that's entirely made up. strawman #2.

in your zest to blame the president for this leak, and frankly, anything you can come up with, you jump to amazing, and comically false conclusions.

why, if we don't blame the president for this leak, that MUST mean we want it to flow unchecked!11!

you, are a card.

[freddie mertz]

103. I know what I read, dionysus.

And it is as I have characterized it:

Obama first, last, and only seems to be the only position too many of you have.

But the issue is not "Obama" at all. It is the response of the government in general.

Maybe you think this thing in the Gulf is going well, but most people with eyes to see do not see it that way at all.

We are 35 days into this thing. And there is no end, no solution in sight.

I think that gives us all the right to ask some disturbing questions, about government action and policy, about the quality of the information we are receiving, about the leadership we seem to not be getting.

But you an others remain in the same obnoxious, aggressive attack mode, posting nonsense like this post whose only purpose is to fan useless flames.

At some point, the politics of personality, of partisanship (cf. the pointless attacks on Bobby Jindall) and yes, even internet forum rivalries, should take a back seat to what we are facing here.

OK. I have tried to address you as a fellow-citizen and an adult.

Let's see if it matters.

[freddie mertz]

145. It didn't matter. nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. This is amusing.

Some people can't distinguish between "flamebait" and a valid argument that they can't counter.

[AllentownJake]

57. Yes mildly amusing

I'd give a rebuttal, but it would be a waste of time for two reasons

1) Half the people I'd be rebutting aren't smart enough to understand it, I'd have to find someway to include stick figures.

2) The people that could understand the words would be too busy gnashing their teeth it was me beating up on them again to read and understand what I was saying.

[HughMoran]

60. Insulting people

Why bring that anger here?

[AllentownJake]

62. Wasn't really anger

More self important snobbery snark wouldn't you say.

[HughMoran]

64. self-important snark

perhaps, but the stick figures thing is a broad-brush

[AllentownJake]

65. I said half

and I didn't identify.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Uh huh.

Sure you would.

[AllentownJake]

63. I have in the past

and you all act like I kicked a puppy.

[AllentownJake]

56. That was mildly amusing

Mildly.

Please don't soil Eleanor and Franklin's legacy with your filth.

[HughMoran]

58. Your filth is my apropos

It's all about perspective...

[AllentownJake]

59. Perception is reality kind of a deal

Like we can talk down an economy and get people in too much debt to spend more money they don't have to stimulate it.

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

66. take three steps backward

widen the window a bit, you may start to see a pattern...

[AllentownJake]

67. In all respect

Watching this BP thing and Europe implode makes me terribly sad...the only consolation I get is knowing my view of the world situation is a little bit more fundamentally based in reality than a lot of others.

Now I'm going to pour myself a drink because I wanted to be wrong.

[HughMoran]

71. Please be wrong. BTW, your perspective on Sestak vs. Specter

was not only unexpected, it was thoughtful in a way that, even though I often disagree with you, gave me new found respect for you. Please continue to post contrary positions - I don't care for consistency!

[AllentownJake]

75. This is payback for snark on another thread of mine

;-)

Hugh, we enjoy our tit for tat.

My rebutt for this you'd probably read, but not be happy with.

[AllentownJake]

79. BTW

On Sestak I took a hard look on him and took an even harder look at his operations, past positions, and a few other things.

Arlen is what Arlen is. We don't have Cheif Justice Bork because of him, and we had nonsense with Anita Hill.

He pulled up obscure Scottish law for the impeachment trial and he has been the biggest fighters for Medical Research in the Senate.

He also was a Bush buddy whenever Bush needed him.

30 years of being pro-choice in a GOP dominated by dominionist Christians is kind of an impressive thing to accomplish.

Sestak is the democratic nominee for Senate against Pat Toomey. I will not post my opinion of him till after November 2nd.

[HughMoran]

88. There it is! Weighing contrary positions to see the whole person.

In a place where rigid ideological thought is king, I find this refreshing. I leaned toward Sestak, even though he's a bit of an unknown. Perhaps me giving him money in the "50 state strategy" and him winning, even though I didn't know him from Adam has biased my view - I don't know - but neither of these men should be considered a progressive, yet we weigh in pragmatically. It's all one could ask for.

[AllentownJake]

90. Trust me I've weighed the President

He seems to like to take easy quick fix routes to situations knowing full well that it will just be a finger plugged in a damn.

Maybe he has to and it is the only option but even moderate term thinking and planning seems to be lacking with this administration which is kind of odd, because it is the opposite way they ran a campaign.

[HughMoran]

95. I see a different person when I step back

If he's elected for a second term, I predict that he will easily be considered the most accomplished progressive president in over 40 years. While it can be argued that Carter was more progressive, I think Obama's legacy WILL be considered more successful because of long-term thinking, not due to a lack of it. I think he's spending his political capitol wisely. You can disagree, you may also be proved wrong. We'll see.

[AllentownJake]

97. Being the most progressive President in 40 years

Well his competition was Bill Clinton one of the founders of the DLC.

Don't know, however watching the contagion spread over in Europe, shit is about to get "interesting"

See if he figured it out when the next ball is pitched across the plate. This one is a slider.

[AllentownJake]

98. With Jimmy

The Jimmy Carter of 1978 the year I was born is a vastly different man than the one I like reading in 2010.

[CTLawGuy]

122. let's asked those interned Japanese

about FDR's legacy...

[Captain Hilts]

69. Like you many folks here would be making excuses for FDR's not supporting anti-lynching legisltation

[AllentownJake]

74. Which is where I would have gone with this OP

FDR was a great and flawed President, and frankly I have not seen a thimble full of the political courage from the current occupier of 1600 Pennslyvania Ave he exhibited.

That being said, people who wanted civil rights continued to fight and fight and fight and in 1965 they started to get their victories.

The record on the Internment was awful, but we as a nation looked back on that and said what we did was wrong we did not cover up the shitty thing we did.

I could go further.

It is as much a cultural problem as it is the occupier of the office currently...that being said I do not find the President to be a strong leader.

[Captain Hilts]

76. BINGO. Greatest prez, but ultimately still a politician. You got it. nt

[Captain Hilts]

77. I want to see someone coming unglued about the Gulf. I thought that was what Biden was for. nt

[AllentownJake]

86. They can't

They are far too complicit initially and since.

[stevenleser]

128. No, I don't think any current DUer would defend or make excuses for that

Please name a defense of any issue that you think is tantamount to allowing killing of American citizens by race, creed, etc.

[AllentownJake]

137. I think some of the talk to the GLBT community on here

border on support for some horrible things by some posters.

[county worker]

96. There's one in every crowd I guess.

Please let me know when the perfect president happens along.

You look at a person's life in totality if you have any sense at all. But then I'm falling for the bate aren't I?

[HughMoran]

99. bait

The O/P is not about FDR, if that's what you mean.

[AllentownJake]

105. If the President turns out to be great

he won't be compared to FDR, other Presidents will be compared to him.

You don't really hear people comparing FDR to Lincoln or to Teddy Roosevelt that much.

[HughMoran]

111. The point concerning the political climate of the times

...still stands, however.

This post is neither about FDR or Obama, it's about how we debate in the moment.

[AllentownJake]

114. Have you researched the time and the political discourse?

You want to discuss 1930s American politics.

Huey Long, Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazi movement, the American Communist movement, Charles Lindberg, Father Coughlin, Prescott Bush, Smedley Butler.

Do you want to talk history with me and have some fun in comparison on who had it worse as far as diverse discourse and crazy political enemies?

I think we are headed to hell, more so out of moral bankruptcy but honestly you want to compare political opponents and what they had to say about the President?

My Grandmother witnessed a Bund meeting taking place in her neighbors house. Nazi flags the whole deal prior to the war and that family spent 5 years interned when she called the FBI after Pearl Harbor.

[HughMoran]

115. Right, FDR had his critics too

...and people couldn't see the forest for the trees - no different than today.

[AllentownJake]

120. Some were right

Some were way off base. Everyone in power has critics. It is part of the deal of being in power.

[proteus_lives]

100. Plus he helped win WWII. That asshole.

:eyes:

[Political Tiger]

101. K & R!

I totally get it, I see many people don't, but I do and thank you.

[uponit7771]

102. FUCK FACTS!!!!!! /sarcasm

[uponit7771]

104. *********AND FDR HAD AN 83% DEM CONGRESS*******

[treestar]

110. Bravo!

DU on the 1930s and 1940s! That's exactly how it would have been.

[AllentownJake]

113. I think during the 40s

People were more concerned about Nazis

As for the 30s...it was worse.

FDR had actual Nazis...not make believe, german funded Nazis operating in America.

FDR had Stalinist..not coffee shope communist, actual Russian funded Communist causing trouble.

FDR had a plethora of Radio personalities one even nastier than Glen Beck, who ironically enough was once a supporter.

Look up Governor Long and find the equivalent within the party in 2010 and get back to me ;-)

Do you think FDR had a cake walk politically, come on we talk about the Prescott Bush attempted coup on here all the time. I'm still mad he wasn't tried for treason...a lot of damage could have been prevented from disgraced progeny.

:rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

127. You miss the premise of the OP.

Obama is the greatest, most bestest, prettiest, most special human ever. No other president or human could ever be better. Oh. and the OP is his really, really, really close friend.

[treestar]

130. Baloney. OP created exactly what you would be saying during FDRs

presidency. Cutting at everything.

[AllentownJake]

132. FDR made some big mistakes

I'm sure seeing Papa Bush and Jr. the not pursuing treason against Prescott is something he would regret.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[HughMoran]

146. No, you missed it.

The O/P is about missing the forest for the trees (perspective). It's about the use of unforgiving/uncompromising language (the punchbowl comment is a direct quote.) It's about parallels (desegregate the military = DADT, internment = Gitmo/Bagram, SCJ nominees "not liberal enough" etc.). Your pre-conceived notions have blinded you.

[Jakes Progress]

156. So you do think Obama is being too conservative?

You think he is being like the FDR that you mention in your lists.

Oh. I got it. You just don't know what your own subtext is.

[Dr Fate]

116. I'd prefer for Obama to imitate FDR where he got it right.

Not in areas where he failed, made unfortunate compromises or got it wrong.

Interesting historical comparison, but I'm not sure if this argument would fire up anyone to go out and camapign for DEMS, etc...

[CTLawGuy]

118. FDR =

Hoover.

JFK? Cut taxes for the top 1% by more than 20%.
LBJ? Escalated Vietnam into a full fledged war.

Have we ever had a "progressive" president?

[Karenina]

119. He's DEAD! Been DEAD a L-O-N-G time!

:rofl::eyes::rofl:

[AllentownJake]

123. Remember you are mortal

The words whispered into the ears of the recipient of a Roman triumph.

[Jakes Progress]

125. I guess you can't support your icon either.

[Zynx]

133. I'm willing to spot you the first four. The last two are stupid.

Frankfurter originally was largely opposed to halting the New Deal programs because he believed the courts had no right to strike them down. As for Reed and Jackson, grow up. The court was not viewed as an ideological play-thing at the time. Many appointments were made as political favors. Republican presidents prior to Roosevelt nominated moderates and even liberals (Hughes and Cardozo for example). It was a different time.

As for your criticism of the New Deal, did it go far enough? No, but it was a tremendous ideological break with our response to previous economic crises and it did have a meaningful effect.

You find me one great leader in history without a plethora of faults. I dare you. I know my history well enough to know that they do not come along. Anyone who has made the hard decisions has made poor ones.

On Edit: I think that your post was satire to some extent, but I'll leave my criticisms regardless.

[HughMoran]

135. Your points are well taken and I agree

I think FDR was one of the most productive and progressive Presidents we've ever had & I realize that the political climate was different at that time.

As you later deduced, this was not written as a critique of FDR at all, he was simply a convenient vehicle I used to make my point.

[boppers]

138. I want to see similar on Jefferson and JFK.

For a bonus, go for Clinton.

The font of complaints is endless.

[AllentownJake]

139. Generally the critics were right

I don't dispute what the OP has to say about things FDR did not get done, and I find nothing wrong with people in the 1930s objecting to them.

However, what some on here seem not to realize is the people that were sick of lynching didn't just shut the fuck up till they got rid of lynching...they fought complained, cajoled, through rhetorical bombs at politicians, marched, were beaten in the streets, had their churches bombed etc till they got their way.

Probably held their nose and voted for FDR in 1936 as well.

On the Japanese internment, we did not cover it up to save a legacy, we let our crime out in the open apologized for it and compensated the victims in some manner.

On the holocaust, I think as a nation we have done our fair share to make sure every American understands what happened there.

During FDR's time the complaining helped us to learn lessons of history and move forward with progress. Now We have a crowd who is afraid of everything.

The democratic party has evolved from "Nothing to fear but fear itself" to "Quiet, do you know what the Republicans will say"

COWARDICE is the issue, not cherry picked issues.

[boppers]

140. Hence, me asking for Clinton and JFK.

Lets be honest about our history, not fearful of "what people might say".

[AllentownJake]

141. Kennedy

Stole the election in 1960 and was buddies with Joe McCarthy. Joe Sr. was a strong supporter of McCarthy and helped get the catholic vote behind him in his Senate races in Wisconsin.

Ran as a hawk on defense, not as a dove. Bashed Nixon over the head on the Missile gap (Kennedy is the reason the GOP took a rightward stance on defense, historically they were focus on what happens here party).

Clinton started the deregulatory gravy train that led to the financial crisis in 2008.

[boppers]

143. Lets not forget the Vietnam ramp-up, and Cuba.

JFK would be totally excoriated by DU's keyboard commandos.

[AllentownJake]

144. On Vietnam

I think Kennedy as a former naval officer who had seen combat was re-evaluating our mission there and our goals when he was assasinated...I don't think that is why he was assasinated but I think that war would have been different if it wasn't for Dallas.

On Cuba, everyone was crazy about Cuba. It was where our rich went to gamble and fuck prostitutes away from the American public and we imported a lot of agricultural products from there.

Neither political party was happy with the money and good times they lost in the Cuban revolution. At the end of the day, both parties are dominated by rich people who like to gamble and fuck prostitutes.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

142. One of the best posts I've read on DU. K&R

Sadly the point of this post will probably be lost on those who most need to hear it

[downeyr]

148. It's a bit late, you know...he was elected 4 times.

And now he's dead.

[Unvanguard]

149. Beyond that, the "New Deal" was clearly an attempt to prop up the unsustainable capitalist system.

We don't need more tinkering that just ultimately reinforces the system it "reforms": we need REAL change.

[CTLawGuy]

161. exactly

it was a step backwards, because it left the capitalists in charge... of everything. Yeah, it gave people more money, but they ended up paying that money to the capitalists. The New Deal was a giant taxpayer subsidy of business. It was the New Deal Herbert Hoover would have supported.

If FDR were a real progressive he would have instituted full fledged socialism! His party had over 80% of congress. Instead he took it off the table like the coward that he was and wouldn't let anyone consider it. His refusal to end capitalism in America made him a Rockefeller Republican.

And now Obama continued FDRs tradition of cowardice with the health care bill! WTH?

:rofl:

[Uzybone]

153. Bookmarked....great OP

100% purity is for the naive and/or stupid.

[cliffordu]

155. Posts like this are why I like ya, Hugh. K&R.

Fookin' perfect.

[TheKentuckian]

158. Error: you can only unrecommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

Lame. You look at FDR in hindsight and with the sensitivities of today rather than in reasonable historical context.

[HughMoran]

164. Point missed

[Radical Activist]

159. He gave in on Social Security!

He compromised BEHIND CLOSED DOORS to make the age of coverage 65 instead of 60 and for less money than originally proposed. What a complete waste and betrayal! Howard Dean never would have made that compromise!

[CTLawGuy]

162. and he took socialism off the table,

no different than Herbert Hoover....

:crazy:

[happyslug]

160. FDR had to compromise to get elected

Form the 1880s to the 1960s (and the re-alignment of the Parties to reflect the South's embrace of the GOP) for a Democrat to win the White House, the Democrat needed to maintain their base in the South (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virgina, Kentucky, Missouri and South including Texas) and then try to win California or New York and a few other Northern States.

Cleveland in 1884 was the first to do this, he won New York, New Jersey and Indiana in addition to the Solid South (He Lost California). Cleveland lost those three Northern States in 1888 AND the election, but won them back AND California, Connecticut, Illinois, Wisconsin in 1892. No Democrat won New York or California till 1912 (and then only New York, but most of the Nation given the three way nature of that race). In 1916 Wilson won re-election with the Solid South, California, and most of the West (Oregon and South Dakota were the only Western States to go GOP in 1916). After the 1916 win, till 1932 the Democrats had a hard time holding onto the South and won nothing outside the South. In 1932 FDR won every state in the Union, EXCEPT, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire. In 1932 FDR expanded his victory to include every state EXCEPT Maine and New Hampshire, but in 1940 the GOP finally put up a decent candidate and FDR's election was reduced, he still won most states but the GOP was building its base.

The GOP thought they would win in 1948, but Truman held onto most the South (Four deep south states went to the Dixiecrats instead of the Democrats AND Delaware and Maryland went GOP) but Truman won California AND all of the States West of Pennsylvania EXCEPT North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas, Michigan and Indiana. Also for the first time in a CLOSE election Massachusetts went Democratic (It has gone Democratic for FDR, and Wilson in 1912, but NOT in 1916).

In 1952, the Democrats could NOT even hold onto the Solid South, every state outside the South went GOP as did Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Maryland Virginia and Delaware. It was worse in 1956, the Democrats lost every state EXCEPT Seven AND all of those were in the South (North Caroline, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and Missouri). In 1960, Nixon won EVERY state West of the Mississippi River EXCEPT, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri and Minnesota. The South still went Democratic EXCEPT for Florida, Texas and Kentucky (Mississippi decided NOT to give its electors to either candidate). The Midwest went to Nixon, except for Illinois and Michigan (i.e. Ohio Indiana and Wisconsin went GOP). What put Kennedy over was the Switch in the Mid-Atlantic State, Pennsylvania a long time GOP stronghold (Even going GOP in 1932) went for Kennedy in 1960, as did West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York Massachusetts and Connecticut.

In many ways 1960s shows how each party was changing. The Democrats were growing in Strength in the former GOP Stronghold of New England AND the Mid-Atlantic states (Excluding New York, which separates these two region and has its own history, which also shows greater tendency to Democrats after 1960). The South was feeling left out by the Democrats, mostly as the Democrats embraced Blacks north of the Mason-Dixon Line. The GOP went with the movement of money to the South and West. The South would revolt against the Democrats in the 1964 election which was held AFTER LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Acts (LBJ won every state EXCEPT, got Goldwater's home state of Arizona AND Five Southern States, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina). Except for Louisiana, these states had NOT even voted for Eisenhower in the 1956 election.

The Democrats would lose the next two election, 1968 and 1972. Nixon would win almost every state in the Union in 1968 EXCEPT For Washington, Minnesota, Michigan and West Virginia outside of the Northeast and the South. The Northeast would stay on its Democratic Tendency, going Democratic in 1968 Except for Delaware (Maryland went Democratic) New Jersey, Vermont and New Hampshire. The South would split, Texas going Democratic, and except for North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Arkansas (All of whom went for Wallace) would go GOP. The 1972 election was a Democratic disaster, with McGovern only winning Massachusetts.

On the other hand the 1976 was the last Hurrah for the Solid Democratic South. Every Southern State EXCEPT Virginia and Oklahoma went Democratic. Hawaii, Minnesota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts all went Democratic. Reagan would outdo this winning every state EXCEPT Georgia, West Virgina, Maryland and Minnesota in 1980. The Democrats would only win Minnesota in 1984 and Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, New York and Massachusetts in 1988. In 1992 every state Including and north of Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri went Democratic. The rest of the South went GOP EXCEPT for Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Georgia. The line of States from North Dakota to Texas went GOP, as did Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Alaska, but the rest of the west went Democratic (Including California). In 1996, the Solid South Started to be seen again, but this time as a Solid GOP base along with the West (But NOT the West Coast).

This had been building up since the 1960s but was clear in the 1996 election. The parties had REVERSED as to regions. In the 1800s New England was was a Solid GOP bastion, followed by the Mid-West. The GOP plan was to secure these two areas and then fight over the battlefield states of New York, California and some of the Border states. The Democratic plan was to solidify its hold on the South and then look for allies up north (This the Democrats refused to nominate a Southern for President Till Carter, Truman and LBJ had won the nomination as a Sitting President and Wilson had been elected as Governor of NEW JERSEY not his home state of Virginia. By the end of the 20th century both parties had SWITCH they base and you can see this in the 2000 election. The Democrats won their base in the North East (Except for New Hampshire) as far south as Maryland and Delaware. The Democrats also won the West Coast AND Hawaii. The GOP won the South and West (except for New Mexico). Leaving the Mid West up for grabs. Here the Democrats were weak, wining Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Illinois. The GOP won the rest including West Virginia (Yes Florida was a debacle, but had the Democrats won another Midwestern State, Florida would NOT have been Important). The 2004 election was almost a duplicate, with New Hampshire going Democratic while New Mexico and Iowa going GOP. The 2008 is a third tried on this system, with the Democrats willing all of the states it won in 2000 and 2004 AND NEVADA, Florida, Virginia and Maryland.

I go into the above to show that the election map facing FDR was completely opposite of what it is today. FDR to get elected AND to have a Democratic congress he could lead had to secure the South, New York and California (if Possible) and as many other Northern States as possible. Thus FDR never had the opportunity to do more then say he was against segregation. FDR NEEDED the Support of the segregationist to get elected and to get his program through. FDR needed the support of California and thus agreed to the internment of the Japanese in California (But NOT in Hawaii, shows you how much of a threat the Japanese American were, NOT interned in a war zone, Hawaii, but interned in an area with very little enemy activities were expected or even done). FDR did the interments to get Democratic Party support in California, nothing else.

Truman election in 1948 was a shocker, everyone thought given the opposition to his racial policies in the South he would lose. The problem was the GOP did NOT pick up those votes in 1948, thus most of the South went with Truman and those that did not he made up in the North. Kennedy, Johnson and Carter all won with the south Voting for them. Clinton won for he won the new base for the Democrats the North East AND was able to get enough southern support to get elected. Obama also had to win some Southern States to win. If the GOP would have been able to keep the Solid South GOP, Obama would have lost. This points out the GOP needs the South almost as badly as FDR needed it in the 1930s and 1940s. It is the base you build your campaign on and as such you have to accept them as they are. The Democratic Party made a conscience decision in 1964 to support the Civil Rights Act KNOWING it would kill the Democratic Party in the South for a Generation (And the GOP took advantage of this by making the South its base).

My point is no one is an island and neither were FDR and Obama. Where is they political base? FDR was New York State and the US South. Obama's is the North East and the West Coast. The West is hostile territory to the Democrats at the present time, but it is the area with the least votes. The Fight between the parties is between these two bases of support, with the states in between as the Battleground states. (i.e. The American South and West are GOP strongholds, the Northeast and West Coast Democratic strongholds).

What this means when looking at FDR, is he could NOT push through anything the South OR New York did NOT want. In Obama's case he can NOT push through anything the Northeast or West Coasts do NOT want. When the GOP is in control the GOP can NOT push through anything the South or West do NOT want. These are the bases for each party and that base MUST be maintained even at the cost of losing an election.

Given this situation what you lost as FDR failures were NOT Failure in the sense he did NOT get them done, they are failure for HE COULD NOT GET THEM DONE. Remember to do things, you must be elected. To be elected you must maintain your base AND keep the swing voters on your side. Whatever you may say FDR knew how to keep his base happy AND get swing voters to support him. He could not pass anything his base would oppose. Most of the items you mentioned his base would oppose so they were NEVER proposed (or went anywhere in Congress, remember Congress was also Democratic under FDR and as such had the same political outlook as FDR).

What is amazing is what FDR did pass that we would now think would be opposed by his base in the South, for example the National Labor Relations Board and its support for Unions and Unionization. The South seems to have looked at it as something that did not affect the Rural South (Where most southerns lived at that time) BUT would get support for the Democrats among Urban Workers (With the urbanization of the South Since the Great Depression, it has become the most anti-union area of the Country, but that is one of the reason the South slowly defected to the GOP starting in the 1960s along with Race).

As to FDR's lowing of the unemployment rate, he first had to solve the problem of declining economy. Doctrine at his time (and you are hearing it again today) is that deficients are bad. He did some deficient spending but not enough to stop the decline in the economy till the 1938 recession when he finally rejected the idea that deficients are bad. He was still attacked for it and he lost Democratic Congressmen in the 1938 election over it, but it worked and the US economy was roaring by 1939 (It is common belief that WWII brought the US out of WWII, but the US was out by 1939, we had bottomed out and on an upgrade, so noticeable by 1940 that FDR easily won a third term, in many ways FDR acceptance that the deficients were NOT bad by 1938 permitted him to go wild on deficients during WWII, but also to impose restrictions on that boom do to how it was screwing the economy).

In many ways FDR grew in the office, hopefully Obama will also, but right now Obama is doing more then what Hoover did in the 1930s but less then FDR but that is the result of the congress each President had. FDR's found his main role was to keep the Democratic Congress in line so they do NOT do things he opposed. Obama has a much less radical Congress then FDR had. This Congress is NOT willing to push thing over and through the GOP. No one took up Byrd's call to force the GOP to do a Real Filibuster i.e. tie up congress till it is passed and if the GOP oppose it by use of a Filibuster force them to keep talking about why they oppose it, even having them arrested if they are NOT in Congress when a role call is made. That is what LBJ did to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed and they was no reason for the Democratic Leadership of the Senate NOT to do the same when it came to health care. The GOP after the 1932 election dare NOT do a filibuster for the Democrats were willing to do a filibuster (i.e. endless debate, if you no longer want to talk then someone else has to, if no one wants to talk call a voe to end the debate, when it fails, force the GOP to re-start the debate. Keep them talking, if necessary for 24-48 hours. Sooner or later they would crack and the Filibuster would be voted down. The GOP in the 1930s knew the Democrats in the Senate were willing to do that, something our Senators do NOT want to do. This is the main difference between FDR and Obama, the Democratic Congress of the 1930s were Radical compared to the Democrats today and the GOP of the 1930s and today know the difference. Thus it is CONGRESS and mostly the Senate that is the problem, not enough Politicians committed to reform and progressive legislature in today's Congress compared to the Congress of the 1930s. Obama has to get the whip out (and he is reluctant to do so) to get Congress to pass any progressive legislature, FDR had to threaten to Veto what his more radical congress was passing when he was President.

[kiranon]

165. Sarcasm alert. n/t