This is worse than Back To the Future III ...

I know I've seen this plot line before, but it's just not as enjoyable.

"Counselor, your closing arguments please."

{Deep breath ...} Not more than 5 days ago my judgement, my veracity as a pseudo historian, nay my very sanity was challenged as a response to my not placing FDR in the Top 5 on my presidential report card. Ladies and gentlemen of the court ... let us set aside the fact that FDR had more legislation over turned as un-Constitutional than any of his predecessors or successors, which in my judgment shows a pattern of behavior, guided by ideology, which regards the Constitution as more obstacle than supreme law of the land (or even a guideline). Let us set aside that as president he subverted, manipulated and attempted to corrupt a separate CO-EQUAL branch of government. Behavior befitting a Latin American tin pot despot with a pot belly, bad skin and an over starched uniform, rather then the Commander-In-Chief of these United States. Let us set aside the fact that New Deal is an economic recovery system diametrically opposed to that stated of founding Bund member Titus whom advocates, and I quote; "During those times of economic down turn we should cut taxes, regulation and spending. Then as things turn around gingerly raise taxes so as to pay the bills and stave off inflation", yet the defense still portends as an apologist for an economic model he would not offer were he afforded the power. Let us set aside that we have established as "Bund fact" that those whom IMPLEMENT an unjust status quo are more guilty of sin then those whom merely maintain it, thus the founders maintaining slavery is not an "opening" of Pandora's box, at all. Let us set aside the fact that FDR's notions of self governance were in clear conflict with our founders - one wonders how they could appear together on the same top 5 list. Let us set aside that FDR advocated a 100% tax rate on all monies within an income above $20,000 per year, a redistribution scheme that his successor Obama could only ever dream of, let alone say out loud. Let us set aside that Social Security was clearly more political than practical in its' sub par rates of return and retardation of employment; and that FDR implanted then took advantage of the inherent flaw within Social Security - the idea that government could be trusted to EVER "sit" on money it has collected. It did not. HE did not. Let us set aside that electoral popularity is a low, if not destructive, historical measuring stick less the names Nixon, Clinton, and Obama appear on a top 5 list. Let us set ALL OF THIS aside which makes me loathe this Commander-In-Chief's domestic agenda and simply focus on the the following facts surrounding the debate on New Deal within this Bund of Brothers:

This argument has never, for one moment, been about New Deal's success as a national security initiative.

This argument has never, for one moment, been about identifying specific programs within New Deal that operate in the black, or bridges that "we at least got out of the deal" versus Obama.

It has been on whether New Deal is a sound economic model and whether it was that model or WWII which brought "The Great Depression" to a close.

You see Jambo, I think, if I may be as so bold to speak for you, that you mean to say that New Deal wasn't an entire waste. That there are measurable and specific benefits we can salvage in terms of our war making ability and bridges. But for you to phrase it in the following way "New Deal wasn't a failure" is a very blunt instrument to apply. "New Deal" as debated and discussed here and throughout the decades is one about economic success and failure, about unemployment, etc. If you wish to pluck these items that helped us win the war etc out, hold them up and say "In terms of National Security historically we can not write this off as an entire failure.", then fine. But to simply say "New Deal didn't fail" is to directly imply to the listener that you mean as a sound economic model. Now, as to that economic model ...

As stated by the prosecution, the argument, in its origination, has been about whether New Deal or WWII ended "The Great Depression." And more largely, whether New Deal functions as a sound economic model. That was the original point(s) of contention. And I contend that the natural cycles of business would have saw a correction far earlier without New Deal than with it. NRA's price fixing damaged American business' ability to expand; the AAA hurt farmers and farming in general; the Air Mail Act, the FERA Camps, all fell short; FDR's manipulation of Gold and Silver, the Tariff's, the taxes, my GOD the taxes, on everything from personal income, excise, corporations, and social security - a regressive tax if there ever was one - limited economic expansion, job creation, and damaged our fiscal credibility abroad. The quagmire of social security (it immediately turned into pay as you go in and out, not saved); the unemployment causing agents such as a minimum wage - all of this represents an ideology bent on centralized power and redistribution of wealth. The recovery we did see, between the recessions and a depression, I contend was in spite of New Deal, and artificial. And there is one indicator that is glaring proof of this - UNEMPLOYMENT. In the United Sates of America there is NO such thing as a jobless recovery - and I paraphrase both FDR and Obama in that sentiment. If these recoveries you cite were not artificial in nature, propped up by government (read: unsustainable), then why did employment numbers not respond? If the accumulative effect of all the programs and their inadequacies I mentioned above, and all the spending wasn't a restraining affect on natural business cycles then why weren't businesses able to sustain hiring, expanding? That answer seems clear.

When the battle lines of the American ideological landscape are drawn there are but 2 sides. Those whom prize the individual over the collective; whom recoil at the evil inherent in the redistribution of wealth; whom champion a decentralized, limited government and state's rights. On that side stands most of the Founders - Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, in addition to Reagan, even Loche, etc. On the other side stand those whom see the Constitution of The United States as an unholy restraint on an achievable Utopia. Whom prize centralized power and planning over local control and individualism. Whom believe it is the job of government to redistribute wealth in order that things be made "fair." Whom see wealth as a zero sum game, a finite pie they must divide up among the "deserving." Who see the "worker" and not the person. Whom have invested in the collection of mankind rather then in men. Whom believe the Bill of Rights is insufficient, as is America as constituted. Why do I say these things here, now? Make no mistake that along with Obama, Carter, Johnson, and Wilson on that side of the ideological line there stands Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Of that there can be no question.

So throw your lot in with defending their side if you wish. I shall cast mine with the former. In fairness I should note that I have been on a little journey of sorts lately, as I consider making political life a reality. I was given the advice to know exactly whom I was and what I stood for before I entered even the lowest levels. That those who do stand out, for better of for ill. It is a journey that has made me see the Constitution in a more pristine light for the singular, phenomenal achievement in the history of civilization that it is. This has caused me to question even the legality of the Patriot Act, if that is any indication. And, to realize just what a cancer progressivism is. That it is the antithesis of the United States Constitution, of America as founded. Its' champions literally intend to "progress past" the Constitution and free market capitalism - the two forces which have driven the 5,000 year jump in the human condition we have made over the last 233 years. And I contend that not only did the New Deal programs themselves provide either no or artificial recovery as demonstrated by unemployment numbers, but that it was FDR whom normalized, institutionalized and codified this cancer of progressivism in the American system of governance and her psychic.

And as such, how on God's green Earth could I ever put such a man in my top 5? In my top 35?

My dual, simultaneous prosecution and defense ... rests. I just gotta get some sleep!