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: Comparing the Clintons to FDR is crazy in my book. [View all]YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)40. "FDR wasn't FDR - until his hand was forced by civil disobedience"
Similarly, (Howard) Zinn said in 2008:
The obstacles are a kind of resignation that things will go on as before. That's always the obstacle to change. The obstacle to change is not that people don't want change. People want change. But most of the time, people feel impotent. However, at certain points in history, the energy level of people, the indignation level of people rises. And at that point it becomes possible for people to organize and to agitate and to educate one another, and to create an atmosphere in which the government must do something. I'm thinking of the 1930s; I'm thinking of Franklin D. Roosevelt coming into office not really a crusader.
Roosevelt came into office, you know, with a balance-the-budgets history. It was not clear what he was going to do, and I don't think he was clear about what he was going to do, except that he was going to be different from Hoover and the Republicans. But when he came into office, he faced a country that was on strike. He faced general strikes in San Francisco in Minneapolis. He faced strikes of hundreds of thousands of textile workers in the South. He faced a tenants movement and an unemployed council movement. And he faced a country in turmoil, and he reacted to it, he was sensitive to it, he moved. That's what we will need.
We will need to see some of the scenes that we saw in the '30s.
snip:
And Peter Dreier - professor of politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College - wrote last year:
In his recent book Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days That Created Modern America, Adam Cohen [assistant editorial page editor of the New York Times] points out that when FDR was elected in November 1932, and even after he took office in March 1933, his ideas about what to do were very unclear.
He promised Americans a "New Deal," but he had very few specifics. In fact, FDR was in many ways a cautious, even conservative, politician. The one clear idea he had in mind when he took office was to cut the federal budget, and the person he hired to do that job was his budget director, a conservative Congressman from Arizona named Lewis Douglas. He was also initially reluctant to use the power of government to regulate business practices, create jobs or to support union organizing or struggling farmers. He was clear from the beginning, however, that core values were at stake--articulated in his first Inaugural Address. That is what created the ground--and support--for his pragmatic experimentation.
Cohen's book describes an ongoing battle for FDR's heart and mind that took place both inside and outside the White House.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/11/fdr-wasnt-fdr-until-his-hand-was-forced.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
88 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
Does Hillary have a better record on human rights, equality, and civil rights than FDR did?
wyldwolf
Jun 2015
#66
Had not seen the comparison made. FDR had to deal with a Depression and World War.
pampango
Jun 2015
#6
You still have yet to identify what issues you consider "pet causes" and which kinds of people you
geek tragedy
Jun 2015
#27
There was a concerted efforted by enemies of the New Deal to dismantle the coalition.
NewSystemNeeded
Jun 2015
#30
Something here is myopic. It was the Democratic party, not the socialists and communists,
geek tragedy
Jun 2015
#34
You're ignoring the 3-way split in '48 - the Cold War purge and withdrawal of the progressive Left
leveymg
Jun 2015
#36
I see things very clearly, you're playing a game of "squirrel!" in trying to debate FDR's
geek tragedy
Jun 2015
#38
Just to be clear, your position is that Democratic candidates should drop any and all
geek tragedy
Jun 2015
#46
Well, if you want to make that comparison. But then your thread subject would be moot...
NYC Liberal
Jun 2015
#29
Just like FDR was a "proud opponent" of anti-lynching legislation when he caved to Southern racists.
NYC Liberal
Jun 2015
#54
"Those who do this don't even come close to representing the Democratic Party of that time"
geek tragedy
Jun 2015
#50
Walking around believing "Bernie" can win a presidential campaign is crazy in my book.
LordGlenconner
Jun 2015
#51
It is my understanding that in her speech Hillary said the her husband tryed to emulate FDR in
jwirr
Jun 2015
#52
It's a bold faced crazy lie ...and history proves it. Now Hillary is stealing the "99%" from Occupy
L0oniX
Jun 2015
#68
Exactly. She better get away from her husbands administration now or she is going to be in big
jwirr
Jun 2015
#76
You do not seem to understand that while the 8 years was not so bad he laid the groundwork
jwirr
Jun 2015
#87