Defending Roosevelt (Sort of)

[weslinder]

I was thinking of a conversation I had recently with some friends who are proud members of the Obama Nation, as well as the poll on here about worst President. I was defending my assertion that LBJ has done more damage to the country than any other President, when they asked me, "You must really hate FDR, then right?" My initial response was just that I thought his job as Commander-in-Chief softened my problems with his socialism, but that answer really didn't satisfy me. I couldn't get over the fact that unlike Wilson and LBJ, FDR was a very popular President when he served.

This isn't a ringing endorsement, but it is my reasoning why FDR wasn't among our worst Presidents.

1. He was a great Commander-in-Chief, and led the United States at war as well as virtually anyone. I don't think this is debatable, but if you can logically defeat it, please try.

2. His social programs accomplished their objectives. Conservatives and Libertarians like to point out that the New Deal didn't get the US out of Depression, and may have exacerbated it.

But we're missing the point. The point of the New Deal wasn't to get the United States out of the Depression, it was to get us to feel better about ourselves despite it. Hoover had used central planning techniques (that never work) to attempt to get us out of the Depression. Roosevelt gave up on trying to get us out of the Depression and used social programs to treat the symptoms.

People are starving? Let's give them some food.

No jobs? Let's create huge public works projects to employ people and make laws restricting how much people can work so companies have to hire more.

Too many older people taking jobs that young people need? Let's pay older people to not work so the young people can replace them.

And generally, it worked as planned. Bankers and businessmen hated the New Deal, because it did impose suffocating regulation, tax them heavily, and stifle growth. But for the large swath of the country who had been hammered by the Depression, it kept them from starving, gave them something, and gave them faith that it would get better.

3. FDR didn't intend for the New Deal to be a permanent thing. Most of the New Deal programs had sunset clauses, and some were allowed to die. The lasting effects of the New Deal are as much the fault of Eisenhower as Roosevelt.

 

[MS0453]

These are the things that jumped out at me as being wrong.

1. He was a great Commander-in-Chief, and led the United States at war as well as virtually anyone. I don't think this is debatable, but if you can logically defeat it, please try.

You'd have to clarify this big time, as it doesn't really mean anything.

But we're missing the point. The point of the New Deal wasn't to get the United States out of the Depression, it was to get us to feel better about ourselves despite it. Hoover had used central planning techniques (that never work) to attempt to get us out of the Depression. Roosevelt gave up on trying to get us out of the Depression and used social programs to treat the symptoms.

Hmm,...Department of Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream Cones?

People are starving? Let's give them some food.

The Federal government paid farmers to destroy crops, in order to drive up prices. Nothing humanitarian about that.

3. FDR didn't intend for the New Deal to be a permanent thing. Most of the New Deal programs had sunset clauses, and some were allowed to die. The lasting effects of the New Deal are as much the fault of Eisenhower as Roosevelt.

Roosevelt threatened to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court (ie, fill it up with lackies) when it ruled against him. They, of course, backed down.

 

[rp08orbust]

1. He was a great Commander-in-Chief, and led the United States at war as well as virtually anyone. I don't think this is debatable, but if you can logically defeat it, please try.

I don't think a "great" commander in chief crams the entire Pacific navy into one harbor and then declares economic warfare on its imperial rival in the region.

 

[weslinder]

You'd have to clarify this big time, as it doesn't really mean anything.

We defeated the two most powerful enemies that we've ever faced as a nation, and soundly. FDR's leadership was a huge part of that.

Hmm,...Department of Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream Cones?

That ignores the horrible conditions in the country at the time. It was awful, thousands were starving, thousands were unemployed, and feeling better made a difference. FDR sacrificed growth to give the destitute a chance.

The Federal government paid farmers to destroy crops, in order to drive up prices. Nothing humanitarian about that.

Agreed. It was horrible, but the Federal Government under Roosevelt did feed people who were going hungry under Hoover.

Roosevelt threatened to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court (ie, fill it up with lackies) when it ruled against him. They, of course, backed down.

That's really irrelevant to my point that he intended the programs to go away when their perceived necessity was gone . I make no claims about his Constitutionality. (Actually I do, but I'm defending some of what he did, and that takes away from my point.)


I'm not pretending that Roosevelt was a good President. But when you compare him to the truly awful Presidents of the 20th Century like Wilson, Hoover, Truman, Johnson, and Carter, he rates out ahead of them. There were few redeaming values of those, and some of Roosevelt.

 

[weslinder]

I don't think a "great" commander in chief crams the entire Pacific navy into one harbor and then declares economic warfare on its imperial rival in the region.

I should say that he did a great job as C-in-C from 1941 to his death.

 

[rp08orbust]

I should say that he did a great job as C-in-C from 1941 to his death.

I once saw a documentary on pyromaniacs who become fireman so they can put out the fires they start. In the sense that such individuals are often great fireman, I guess I can agree with the above statement.

 

[WRellim]

Seems there is a LOT you don't know about FDR (other than the remnants of his "cult of personality" propaganda... which persists in government schooling to this day)... Go digging:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_5_39/ai_n21053010

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/fdr.html

I was thinking of a conversation I had recently with some friends who are proud members of the Obama Nation, as well as the poll on here about worst President. I was defending my assertion that LBJ has done more damage to the country than any other President, when they asked me, "You must really hate FDR, then right?" My initial response was just that I thought his job as Commander-in-Chief softened my problems with his socialism, but that answer really didn't satisfy me. I couldn't get over the fact that unlike Wilson and LBJ, FDR was a very popular President when he served.

This isn't a ringing endorsement, but it is my reasoning why FDR wasn't among our worst Presidents.

Actually, I would say he was THE WORST pResident ...by a LONG SHOT... (worse even than Lincoln, and MUCH worse then GWB or Clinton... they are pikers and rank amateurs by comparison).

Before we get into your specific points (or ANY of his specific policies or actions)... for starters, let's start with his blatant disregard for George Washington's precedent of TWO TERMS and that's all. Was 8 years good enough for FDR? Nope... nor was 3, he had to go for 4 terms (and had he not *croaked* I'm certain he wouldn't have stopped there... were it up to him (provided someone else didn't "exit" him via a lead vote) FDR would STILL be President.)

The whole "Constitution as a piece of paper" is because of FDR -- prior to that *(&%(*&$#@ rat b_ _ _ _ _ d, the government might *occasionally* have violated aspects of the Constitution, but never so blatantly, and never in such a wholesale "rough-shod" fashion as he did.

Every problem we have in regards to our government today stem from FDR's administrations.

Now on to the specifics:

1. He was a great Commander-in-Chief, and led the United States at war as well as virtually anyone. I don't think this is debatable, but if you can logically defeat it, please try.

Bullshit, he was nothing of the kind. It certainly IS debatable if you take your head out of the government-created propaganda textbooks. To begin with, there should have been NO World War II.

Had it NOT been for FDR and his various policies: isolation and embargo of the Japanese (causing the Pearl Harbor attack), and blatant support of and "admiration" for Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin (essentially "feeding" the Eurpopean war)... there probably would NOT have been such a war -- certainly there was NO NEED for American involvement in it. And had Americans NOT been involved, the Holocaust against the Jews would probably NOT have happened (among the things you are UNaware of is the actions and policies of FDR and Churchill to PREVENT Jews from leaving Germany prior to the war... I have testimony on that from published writings of David Ben Gurion {zionist founder of modern state of Israel} !)

(And BTW, he ran on a "keep us out of war" platform in 1940... the lying sack of _ _ _ _.)

None of that was really surprising though, as he had also been a KEY individual (Asst Sec of Navy from 1914--1920) in getting us INTO World War I, among other wars -- also an unnecessary act with BAD consequences). In short the man (like many) was a sociopath who actually LIKED killing.

2. His social programs accomplished their objectives. Conservatives and Libertarians like to point out that the New Deal didn't get the US out of Depression, and may have exacerbated it.

But we're missing the point. The point of the New Deal wasn't to get the United States out of the Depression, it was to get us to feel better about ourselves despite it. Hoover had used central planning techniques (that never work) to attempt to get us out of the Depression. Roosevelt gave up on trying to get us out of the Depression and used social programs to treat the symptoms.

People are starving? Let's give them some food.

No jobs? Let's create huge public works projects to employ people and make laws restricting how much people can work so companies have to hire more.

Too many older people taking jobs that young people need? Let's pay older people to not work so the young people can replace them.

And generally, it worked as planned. Bankers and businessmen hated the New Deal, because it did impose suffocating regulation, tax them heavily, and stifle growth. But for the large swath of the country who had been hammered by the Depression, it kept them from starving, gave them something, and gave them faith that it would get better.

BZZZT... WRONG on all counts. Absolutely NONE of FDR's *fascist* programs worked as "planned" indeed, most of them didn't "work" at all.

Had it NOT been for FDR's various *crackpot* schemes (including the confiscation of gold, the blatant DEVALUATION of the dollar {by 69% in a single whack} etc) then the depression most probably would have been OVER and done with in 1934, as the economy had been on the way back to recovery when he was first elected.

3. FDR didn't intend for the New Deal to be a permanent thing. Most of the New Deal programs had sunset clauses, and some were allowed to die. The lasting effects of the New Deal are as much the fault of Eisenhower as Roosevelt.

Actually FDR most certainly *DID* intend for his whacko *fascist* ideas to be a permanent thing. According to written works by his horse-faced wifoid, "Eleanor" -- he did NOT even intend on letting the GI's out of the Army when they returned from Europe -- intending on "redeploying" them as a "national service" for a variety of ADDITIONAL government run tasks (along with a permanent rotating "draft" of young people into that "national service"). We were only {partially} saved from that kind of insane "total fascist" society by the man's demise... Truman attempted to implement only PART of what FDR (and Elanor) had planned (for example, unlike FDR, Truman was not racist, and so he integrated the military, something FDR would NEVER have done).

FDR wanted a completely "centrally planned" economy. No manufacturer would produce anything unless "approved" by the government. No housing developments would occur w/o involvement and oversight via centrally approved "planning commissions" etc. America would have looked much more like some weird combination of Nazi-Germany crossed with the central planning of the Soviet Union, and the "Apartheid" aspects of South Africa (keep in mind the "internment" of Japanese Americans, as well as the creation of the whole "segregated military" were under his direction -- and despite what the government-sanctioned textbooks have to say, he and his wife were rather blatant racists and were SIGNIFICANTLY INVOLVED in the various schemes that led to segregated neighborhoods and housing {cf here http://www.phila-tribune.com/channel/inthenews/020407/neighbors.asp }).

 

[WRellim]

Here's a good summary of aspects of American history that are NOT going to be found in your "revisionist/whitewashed" government-approved textbooks:

http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

Guys, doing what is necessary in times of war is part of the American tradition, dating all the way back to our founding. When push comes to shove, we are sometimes willing to compromise our ideals, and that isn't a bad thing so long as its only temporary
(unlike the current regime that wants to create a permanent national security state).


FDR was faced with a crippling depression and two super-enemies coming down our throats, so yes, he overreacted a bit with his New Deal policies. But you have to understand, these simply were not good times for a small-government libertarian. People wanted the nanny state to save them. The OP is correct when it points out that he was very popular at the time, the people genuinely loved him. I think if we are going to rate this man, that is how we should look at it.

The problem is that his predecessors continued many of these policies in times where they were no longer needed and did more harm than good.

 

[PeterWellington]

I see where you're coming from, but it's kind of like saying that Enron wasn't such a bad company because they were so good at duping people for so long.

The fact that so many people bought into FDR's policies only acted to validate and further socialism in this country.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Before we get into your specific points (or ANY of his specific policies or actions)... for starters, let's start with his blatant disregard for George Washington's precedent of TWO TERMS and that's all. Was 8 years good enough for FDR? Nope... nor was 3, he had to go for 4 terms (and had he not *croaked* I'm certain he wouldn't have stopped there... were it up to him (provided someone else didn't "exit" him via a lead vote) FDR would STILL be President.)

I was interested in further reading, so I checked out the link you posted.

http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm

It says:

Though much is made about the fact that FDR served an amazing four terms in office, what is often overlooked is that FDR was ready to retire after his second term, in fact he nearly declined the 1940 Democratic Party nomination. It was at first said that FDR would not run for office again, but at the Democratic National Convention he received a standing ovation and chants of "We want Roosevelt, We want Roosevelt," and indeed he did finally accept by saying "If nominated and elected, I could not in these times refuse to take the inaugural oath, even if I knew I would be dead in thirty days." (a reference to his poor health)

His four terms were served at public request because he was very popular; he inspired people, and the same can be said of the European fascists; they all had developed a "cult of personality." They were inspiring people...

Isn't that kind of a big something for that author to get wrong?


You also stated:

And had Americans NOT been involved, the Holocaust against the Jews would probably NOT have happened (among the things you are UNaware of is the actions and policies of FDR and Churchill to PREVENT Jews from leaving Germany prior to the war... I have testimony on that from published writings of David Ben Gurion {zionist founder of modern state of Israel} !)

I'd like to hear/read more about that if you're in the mood or could point me in the right direction.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Free the slave; bind the master.

I was thinking of a conversation I had recently with some friends who are proud members of the Obama Nation, as well as the poll on here about worst President. I was defending my assertion that LBJ has done more damage to the country than any other President, when they asked me, "You must really hate FDR, then right?" My initial response was just that I thought his job as Commander-in-Chief softened my problems with his socialism, but that answer really didn't satisfy me. I couldn't get over the fact that unlike Wilson and LBJ, FDR was a very popular President when he served.

This isn't a ringing endorsement, but it is my reasoning why FDR wasn't among our worst Presidents.

1. He was a great Commander-in-Chief, and led the United States at war as well as virtually anyone. I don't think this is debatable, but if you can logically defeat it, please try.

2. His social programs accomplished their objectives. Conservatives and Libertarians like to point out that the New Deal didn't get the US out of Depression, and may have exacerbated it.

But we're missing the point. The point of the New Deal wasn't to get the United States out of the Depression, it was to get us to feel better about ourselves despite it. Hoover had used central planning techniques (that never work) to attempt to get us out of the Depression. Roosevelt gave up on trying to get us out of the Depression and used social programs to treat the symptoms.

People are starving? Let's give them some food.

No jobs? Let's create huge public works projects to employ people and make laws restricting how much people can work so companies have to hire more.

Too many older people taking jobs that young people need? Let's pay older people to not work so the young people can replace them.

And generally, it worked as planned. Bankers and businessmen hated the New Deal, because it did impose suffocating regulation, tax them heavily, and stifle growth. But for the large swath of the country who had been hammered by the Depression, it kept them from starving, gave them something, and gave them faith that it would get better.

3. FDR didn't intend for the New Deal to be a permanent thing. Most of the New Deal programs had sunset clauses, and some were allowed to die. The lasting effects of the New Deal are as much the fault of Eisenhower as Roosevelt.

The Robber Baron master class, not corporations or companies, were the ones taking FDR's administration to the Supreme court because the bold bastard was shrewdly creating government programs that directly competed with them or robbed them of a perpetually trapped labor force. This "New Deal" scheme did work fabulously for a time even to the point that most Universities in this nation were created at the end of WW2 in an attempt to educate soldiers rather than have them disruptively enter back into the labor force.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Let me guess... public education, recently, right?

This isn't a ringing endorsement, but it is my reasoning why FDR wasn't among our worst Presidents.

1. He was a great Commander-in-Chief, and led the United States at war as well as virtually anyone.
2. His social programs accomplished their objectives.
3. FDR didn't intend for the New Deal to be a permanent thing.