Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: To all the right-wing anti-Purgies [View all]YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)184. Re: FDR vs. Obama: read this
While FDRs inaugural did include salvos against the unscrupulous money changers, his actual policies in his first term relied heavily on cooperation with the business community. The NRA which FDR hailed as the most important recovery measureessentially allowed businesses to form cartels, under the friendly supervision of the pro-business Hugh Johnson. Many of the signal liberal accomplishments of the New Deal were not initiated by FDR; in several cases, the president came to reluctantly embrace policies that social movements on the left and liberal advocates in Congress forced onto the agenda.
Indeed, during FDRs first three years in office, his version of the New Deal faced more serious challenges from populists and insurgents on the left than from Republicans. Far from the bold, unyielding advocate fighting off conservative resistance, the FDR of the first New Deal was navigating between competing ideological camps, attempting to build a broad, all-class alliance. Indeed, FDR was always surrounded by teams of advisers with widely divergent views of the governments role and he kept themand the publicguessing about which side he was really on.
The most famousand perhaps tellingexample of FDR siding with the conservatives came in 1937 when he agreed that it was time to retrench government spending. This policyadvocated by Treasury Secretary Morgenthauhelped plunge the country back into a deep recession. While FDR was able to partly reverse course, he had the benefit of a Congress with overwhelming Democratic majorities. Even so, it was not until the war mobilization that the level of government spending proved sufficient to pull the U.S. out of the Depression. Had it not been for the war crisis and mobilization, FDR may well have left office in 1940 with the U.S. still mired in difficult economic circumstances and with the New Deals political foundation hardly secure.
In any case, when it came to domestic politics, FDR was playing defense from the late 1930s through the end of his term. Even with nominal Democratic majorities, conservatives in Congress managed to defund several New Deal agencies that had been crucial to liberal aspirations (e.g. the National Resources Planning Board) and to launch investigations that undermined popular support for labor unions, one of the key pillars of the New Deal coalition.
Looking back, there is no question that FDR was able to accomplish far more in terms of liberal reform than Barack Obama has or will achieve. But explaining that gap in terms of the individual character of FDR and Obama is far off the mark. Few presidents moved in as many different directions, with as little concern for ideological consistency as Franklin Roosevelt. To attribute his success and Obamas limitations to FDRs clear and consistent vision may well be appealing to contemporary liberals hungry for a simple narrative that provides a clear target for their disappointments. But that does not make it a sound historical or political analysis.
Indeed, during FDRs first three years in office, his version of the New Deal faced more serious challenges from populists and insurgents on the left than from Republicans. Far from the bold, unyielding advocate fighting off conservative resistance, the FDR of the first New Deal was navigating between competing ideological camps, attempting to build a broad, all-class alliance. Indeed, FDR was always surrounded by teams of advisers with widely divergent views of the governments role and he kept themand the publicguessing about which side he was really on.
The most famousand perhaps tellingexample of FDR siding with the conservatives came in 1937 when he agreed that it was time to retrench government spending. This policyadvocated by Treasury Secretary Morgenthauhelped plunge the country back into a deep recession. While FDR was able to partly reverse course, he had the benefit of a Congress with overwhelming Democratic majorities. Even so, it was not until the war mobilization that the level of government spending proved sufficient to pull the U.S. out of the Depression. Had it not been for the war crisis and mobilization, FDR may well have left office in 1940 with the U.S. still mired in difficult economic circumstances and with the New Deals political foundation hardly secure.
In any case, when it came to domestic politics, FDR was playing defense from the late 1930s through the end of his term. Even with nominal Democratic majorities, conservatives in Congress managed to defund several New Deal agencies that had been crucial to liberal aspirations (e.g. the National Resources Planning Board) and to launch investigations that undermined popular support for labor unions, one of the key pillars of the New Deal coalition.
Looking back, there is no question that FDR was able to accomplish far more in terms of liberal reform than Barack Obama has or will achieve. But explaining that gap in terms of the individual character of FDR and Obama is far off the mark. Few presidents moved in as many different directions, with as little concern for ideological consistency as Franklin Roosevelt. To attribute his success and Obamas limitations to FDRs clear and consistent vision may well be appealing to contemporary liberals hungry for a simple narrative that provides a clear target for their disappointments. But that does not make it a sound historical or political analysis.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2011/08/mischaracterizing_fdr_to_indic031397.php
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
277 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm with ya there. It's so weird that she's being shoved on us as our only hope.
2banon
Nov 2014
#251
All Part Of A Predetermined Agenda Mapped Out For Years By The Neoconning Corporate Masters Of War
billhicks76
Nov 2014
#252
I wonder when he'll offer a solution. Most leaders either have to or people start considering them..
wyldwolf
Nov 2014
#22
There's your big problem. Manny isn't a leader, he's never claimed to be a leader
Autumn
Nov 2014
#106
Good luck, people have been asking that for days and not a one of them will answer
Rex
Nov 2014
#169
Lol, who said Manny was a leader of anything? I see him as someone who is LOOKING FOR LEADERSHIP
sabrina 1
Nov 2014
#277
Why can't it happen, they're already organized they just have to agree to vote as a block
A Simple Game
Nov 2014
#64
No, I mean the progressive electorate will never organize and go after that caucus
wyldwolf
Nov 2014
#66
he's just stroking his ego.. and as you know, from our old encounters old pal, i'm far from a "Turd
dionysus
Nov 2014
#256
What is your solution, or do you think things are just fine the way the way they are?
sabrina 1
Nov 2014
#261
Maybe one day one of them will be brave enough to try and have a coherent discussion
Rex
Nov 2014
#81
Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten me what I was voting against in the first place.
CrispyQ
Nov 2014
#131
But they are not authoritarian in nature! Oh no! Don't say that it pisses them off.
Rex
Nov 2014
#155
My advice is for the Democratic Party to quit negotiating from within the flawed right wing
myrna minx
Nov 2014
#117
When Obama won in 2008, right wing DNC got to work purging liberals and destroying all the grass
whereisjustice
Nov 2014
#21
But if you fail to envision the consequences of your vote, what good does it do?
randome
Nov 2014
#145
The DNC really doesn't care if the Left likes them. They work for the Ruling Oligarchs.
rhett o rick
Nov 2014
#58
Those of us who feel as you do will have to rip the power out of their cold hands
n2doc
Nov 2014
#36
Your reaction means they must have threatened your security. The reason they got treated so
rhett o rick
Nov 2014
#62
Still waiting for one of the cacklers to tell me again that I don't want the system to change.
randome
Nov 2014
#116
Thank you for doing the right thing and having the nurses call 911 for someone who needed help, but
myrna minx
Nov 2014
#121
The point I'm making is that I cared enough to take a second look at that car.
randome
Nov 2014
#126
Good gravy. With all due respect, you've been railing on OWS since the beginning -
myrna minx
Nov 2014
#172
Some here clearly do not want the system to change. They espouse hatred toward all that
rhett o rick
Nov 2014
#149
When people speak truth to power and get hammered for their efforts, they haven't failed.
rhett o rick
Nov 2014
#157
The Oligarchs lead the cry for OWS leaders. Their snipers needed targets.
rhett o rick
Nov 2014
#167
Why do you fear those that dare speak truth to power? Are you afraid they will upset
rhett o rick
Nov 2014
#54
I imagine we often call those simple things which we are unable to understand "senseless"
LanternWaste
Nov 2014
#182
+1 Will Marshall and his PPI was formerly known as the policy arm of the DLC.
hedda_foil
Nov 2014
#132
They just don't get it Manny, people like us that are obsessed with politics
Dragonfli
Nov 2014
#162
3. The workers are practically unable to improve their condition because these two companies, which
jtuck004
Nov 2014
#95
he's just got his parody shtick.. no reason to do anything else when you got that!
dionysus
Nov 2014
#257
"I still remember third way manny and was quite surprised by the sudden tack to the hard left"
LondonReign2
Nov 2014
#270
purging occurs when the purgers can't unseat the purgees in a legitimate way. 100% of the time
wyldwolf
Nov 2014
#230
You assume right wingers/Third Way® are the majority in the Democratic party?
AgingAmerican
Nov 2014
#193
And you're ASSUMING that every Democratic Party leader - up to and including the President -
baldguy
Nov 2014
#194
Trouble is your definition of Democrat bares no resemblance to what Democrats actually believe.
baldguy
Nov 2014
#199
And again, most of the Democrats you describe as "third way" aren't & never have been.
baldguy
Nov 2014
#211
I won't wish you "good luck" in your own quest in purging good liberal Democrats from power.
baldguy
Nov 2014
#222
i live in california, where you don't have to be to the right of nixon to win
noiretextatique
Nov 2014
#210
"Mind you, not phoney "liberals" who hate successful center-left Democrats like Obama"
AgingAmerican
Nov 2014
#264
So, you purgies pulled this desrtuctive, divisional lie of an accusation out of your ass
baldguy
Nov 2014
#268