We're Not Living in 1937

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/8/9/94014/17203

We're Not Living in 1937

by BooMan
Tue Aug 9th, 2011 at 09:40:14 AM EST


We hear people compare Barack Obama to Franklin Delano Roosevelt quite a lot, usually in an unfavorable manner. We also hear people talk about 1937 as an object lesson on what not to repeat about the latter Roosevelt administration. In 1937, FDR embraced budget-balancing and stalled the recovery the country had been enjoying from the Great Depression. I just want to put things in some context. The 75th Congress, which served from 1937-1939 had 76 Democrats and 16 Republicans serving in the Senate. It also had two members of Minnesota's Farmer-Labor Party, one member of the Wisconsin Progressive Party (Robert M. La Follette, Jr.), and one progressive independent (George W. Norris of Nebraska). In other words, the U.S. Senate had an 80-16 margin against the Republicans. The House of Representatives was similarly stacked 347-88 against the GOP.

These numbers can be very deceptive. The Democratic Party of the 1930's was dominated by Jim Crow-supporting Southern segregationists. And they were even more culturally conservative than their modern-day Republican counterparts. In the 75th Congress, the only Republican senator serving anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line was John Townsend of Delaware. Still, President Roosevelt could count on his party members to support him in most things. He had immense power. You simply cannot compare the kind of power he had to any other president in history.

Imagine if Barack Obama was operating with more than 80 Democrats in the Senate, more than 340 seats in the House, and that his party controlled the entire South and all of Appalachia. Do you think he might behave a little differently than he is behaving now? Why, he might even try to stack the Supreme Court!!

[abelenkpe]

1. K

So we should get ourselves together and motivated and concentrate on getting more dems elected yeah?

[Hawkowl]

2. It wouldn't matter if Obama had 100 Senators

He just would not wield power for the poor or even the middle class. He is not a leader. He is conflict averse, appeaser of the wealthy. He is the worst negotiator the Democratic party has.

He can't even muster the Democrats he has. It has nothing to do with numbers. Look at the Republicans!! They control one House numerically and the Senate through sheer willpower. That is leadership. Evil leadership to be sure, but leadership nonetheless.

Obama is not a leader.

[girl gone mad]

3. ^ This.

[ProSense]

5. This

"It wouldn't matter if Obama had 100 Senators...He is the worst negotiator the Democratic party has."

...makes no sense.

If he had 100 Senators, there would be no one to negotiate with.

"Look at the Republicans!! They control one House numberically and the Senate through sheer willpower."

What does that have to do with Obama? There is a Democratic majority in the Senate.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

14. No, it's a strategy called "wearing you down"

Resistance is futile.

[ProSense]

15. And

"Look at the Republicans!! They control one House numberically and the Senate through sheer willpower."

this still has nothing to do with Obama.

"I take the position that Obama couldn't organize a troop of Girlscouts to sell a dozen box of cookies."

He organized a win!

[Hawkowl]

19. Better

I'd certainly agree that he organized a win--his own election-which was no small feat. If you are talking about congressional victories, then his win means he's on the wrong team: the corporate team.

[izquierdista]

13. He'd find someone to fold to

[MessiahRp]

51. You're right there would be nobody to negotiate with..

He doesn't negotiate with Democrats at all which is why he backstabbed them during the debt deal and worked exclusively with Boehner and McConnell and didn't call Reid or Pelosi in until he had made his deal. This also allowed McConnell to rudely stiff the Senate Majority Leader and render him powerless to the media.

Obama doesn't negotiate with Democrats or Progressives... you're right. He throws us under a bus for his wishlist friends, The Republicans.

Rp

[MADem]

8. That's the job of the SENATORS.

And the House.

Presidents don't make law. It's in the Constitution.

Also, back then, there was such a thing as party discipline. That does not exist nowadays--all politics is very, very local. And none of that is Obama's "fault."

Minus one for you.

[Hawkowl]

11. Tell the Republicans party discipline doesn't exist

And I disagree further. Party discipline DOES exist in the Democratic Party. It is just that Obama and the DLC insist on fealty to Wall Street, Big Oil and the war machine. By that standard, they are a complete success. This is the truth that drives so many to despair and disgust.

[MADem]

21. Well, that's not entirely true either.

We have at least four political parties nowadays, they're just not called that. We have the far right party, the far left party, the "I Will Fall On My Sword For Ideology" party, and the pragmatists.

Unless and until we have some sort of campaign finance reform that is "for real," corporations and institutions are going to hold politicians hostage. So long as the Supreme Court says that money equals speech, the poor will be mute. That's NOT Obama's fault--he's part and parcel of the system, the same way Dennis Kucinich is. Wait, you say--Kucinich? Yes, Roman Catholic Kucinich, who changed his deeply held views on abortion when he saw the handwriting on the wall. His happy band of liberal, pro-choice donors were not going to back him anymore if he kept that deeply held view, so he pragmatically jettisoned it.

Everyone's 'beholden' to someone or something if they want to hang on to power. EVERYONE. We can only disconnect politicians from Wall Street and donors, large and small, waving cash in exchange for influence, access, what-have-you, with campaign finance reform.

[alsame]

10. He just doesn't have a liberal agenda. He doesn't even

pretend to fight.

[Hawkowl]

12. +1000 .nt

[babylonsister]

16. You obviously don't speak for me. nt

[Hawkowl]

18. Glad we understand each other. nt

[CakeGrrl]

26. "He would just not" - translation:

I'm just making shit up 'cause I don't like the guy.

[BklnDem75]

45. +1

Much clearer and with less words.

[emilyg]

33. Agree. My sig line says it all.

[area51]

49. +1 n/t

[mochajava666]

55. Well said

[killbotfactory]

56. You and anyone who agrees with you, has lost their goddamned mind. n/t

[Armstead]

4. I suspect he'd find other excuses to whip those Democrats into agreement with the GOP

[killbotfactory]

58. This kind of crap is why I can't take any of you Obama "critics" seriously

How sour are those grapes you got?

[MADem]

6. Damn right!! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Gee, I thought it was 1937! Wow, in that case....

who needs leadership, clearly spoken intentions and desires, or trust in government. I guess I need a new calendar.

[AndyTiedye]

17. Very Very Kicked and Recommended

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Obama could have 100 Dem Senators

He would still find a way to fuck it up and give Republicans what they want.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. YES!!!! Thank you so much! I'm so sick of this false comparison!!

Bookmarked! :toast:

[jeff47]

23. If he had that many seats, he'd still compromise

You don't get "grand bargains" without screwing over your side.

[babylonsister]

24. How can you possibly know what he'd do? nt

[Cali_Democrat]

29. By looking at past actions

Of course you would have to be paying attention.

[babylonsister]

34. Bullshit. If the make-up of the Congress was different, his

past actions wouldn't matter. :boring: Nice try though.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. Even if he had overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress,

he would still be reaching out to the GOP in the name of bipartisanship and compromise.

Bipartisanship, compromise and preemptive capitulation is what he believes in and and overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress will not change his core beliefs.

[babylonsister]

39. He wouldn't NEED compromise. Duh. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

41. I know

He would still reach across the aisle and make sure many Republican demands are satisfied.

He'd still do it anyways.

[jeff47]

46. It's not about need. It's about what he believes in.

He believes in the cult of centrism. So even if he didn't literally need Republican votes, the policy is bad unless he can get Republican votes.

[jeff47]

32. Because Obama's statements and actions indicate he wants a grand bargain more than anything else.

If it destroys the democratic party, if it means he's thrown out of office, if it means destroying his daughter's future, he'll do it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. As many of us have also asserted, the Republicans back then were a lot

more liberal. They were commonly referred to as "coastal Republicans," like Teddy Roosevelt, for instance. They were not the same brand of wingnut Teabagging Republicans that we have now. There were also more moderate Republicans, which when the time came to pass important legislation, created "winning coalitions" with liberal Democrats. Obama does not enjoy that luxury these days, and seldom did Bill Clinton.

For those of us who are political junkies and are up on our history, it's going to require a lot more education, even for those so-called pundits who continue to make the false, idiotic comparison.

[jwirr]

27. K&R So true. This is what we need to try to get in the House and

Senate in 2012.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[alpha9161]

30. oh yeah, unreced nt

[jefferson_dem]

31. Thank goodness...

Someone put to print the obvious.

This fixation with FDR has become rather creepy. Zombie Reagan lovers on the Right have nothing on Zombie FDR lovers on the Left.

[Dr Fate]

36. Besides- Obama copies FDR's economics more than he copies Reaganomics.

Nt

[jefferson_dem]

38. Hey there...

More likely that my avatar idol copied yours...

Check out Blind Willie McTell: http://grooveshark.com/s/Blind+Willie+Mctell+outtake+/3ASBo1?src=5

and

St. James Infirmary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzcpUdBw7gs

[Dr Fate]

40. It has been said that you are only as good as who you try to imitate. Nt

Nt

[MADem]

42. They always bring up FDR when the shit hits the fan.

FDR is one of those guys who has been dead long enough that he can be all things to all people, so long as they haven't studied their history very closely. Hell, people used to try to compare Reagan to FDR to prove their points.

I don't understand the Obama bashing here. It's way worse than the Clinton bashing during the last election, and that was pretty bad. These same people who are dissing Obama are many of the same people who were shitting on Clinton supporters and accusing them of being PUMAs because they were reluctant Democratic voters and a bit less than enthused about the contest winner. I'd say the Obama detractors here are the biggest "PUMAs" going, and if they don't want to support the Democratic incumbent for reelection (and there will not be a challenger, so they can kiss that shit goodbye) I don't understand why they don't stick to the forum guidelines and cut the pathetic attempts at Divide and Conquer. It's not going to work, all they're doing is motivating people even more. Hell, he wasn't my first choice last time around, but I've got his back this time, and I'll drive a double shift to the polls next election just because this shit irritates me.

[Dr Fate]

48. Shit is NOT hitting the fan Obama has GOT THIS.

I agree with you that it is silly to expect Obama to be inspired by FDR- that was so long ago, and it is impossible to incorporate his attitude or general philosphy.

Besdies, Obama has already said that the more modern presidencies of Lincoln & Reagan are better models for centrism.

[SidDithers]

54. Great point...

Zombie FDR lovers!! :rofl:

Sid

[Dr Fate]

35. FDR did not win majorities by being far left either- he won them by being centrist.

FDR did not win his majorities by fighting Republicans and rocking the boat, and neither did Obama.

[boston bean]

44. yeah, right....

“Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth. . . . I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people. This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.”

[jeff47]

47. Obama won majorities?

Funny, I thought we were stomped in 2010. Guess there's a lot of typos on the lists of members of Congress.

FDR literally enacted socialism. To call that centrist is delusional.

[GillesDeleuze]

52. winning 4 pres elections

isn't centrist?

somebody tell the american people.

[Dr Fate]

53. A lot of people dont realize that socialism used to be centrist back then.

Plus, FDR clearly hated the Japanese- what kind of Liberal is that?

[boston bean]

43. Don't know, because he is full of bi-partisanshit. if he was talking and walking like FDR

maybe I could believe it.

And maybe, just maybe he could get those majorities. The way he's working it now, he can forget it.

[Fuddnik]

50. Sometimes I feel like it's 1984.

War is peace.

[Armstead]

57. Well it does feel like the real 1984 sometimes