Refutations over eggs ...

... you wont find that on the Denny's menu. First, Jambo, I can imagine the adrenaline rush. Titus is right, they're supposed to identify themselves to avoid just such an accident. "You called us" could be an over zealous pizza delivery boy. And I would advise checking the peephole prior to racking a shell. But given your recent break in, I find your contemplation of grabbing the gun first quite a reasonable one.

Ok ... I would like to ask a few fundamental questions regarding New Deal. And let me be clear. I proceed with a calm voice, a sincere dialogue, asking real rather then rhetorical questions with a "shi**y attitude" nary in sight. As I attempted a bit of humor mixed with honest passion in my last post, and it was mistaken for something else, I felt that preface necessary to furthering this discussion.

First, for Jambo: you noted that if New Deal was so bad, "Then why did FDR get elected to 4 terms?" Now come on Jambo, and I mean this sincerely, you understand the folly in such a statement. Obama was elected in a wave of popularity. Does that justify his programs? Reelected, that the standard? I offer you Wilson. He was reelected, and if I remember correctly you see him as the absolute worst CIC in history. Get my meaning? And by the way, why the rush to limit the terms a president can serve right after Roosevelt? I mean if it was so grand why did the nation collectively say, "lets not do that again!"

So lets get to the questions. My thrust is 2 parts - numbers, then ideology/the man himself.

"The numbers"

1.) Titus ... Your chart is quite correct. I thought you meant a depression every 7 to 9 years, which must have been an incorrect assumption on my part because your chart encompasses much more then that narrow definition. There are varying versions, but lets go with yours. I counted 28 previous different "downturns" (you defined them not just as a depression or recession, but also simply "stagnate growth", so I use that phrase, downturn) to the 1929 crash. Why is it that the 29'+ event is referred to as the "Great Depression?" I mean, if we're talking duration the 1873 hit wins hands down. And please don't give me the advanced technology of news coverage either, because the Civil War predates the 29' crash by nearly 6 decades and that was covered quite adequately by the press of the day. Just consider this - is it at all possible that unlike Harding and Coolidge who dealt with the 1920 depression by cutting taxes, and spending by 50% (a staggering figure) resulting in the roaring twenties, FDR used the blunt hammer of government? The 1920 crash was big, but lasted only 18 months. Is at least "possible" that the level of spending, programs, taxation, new business regulations, etc under New Deal served to prolong a depression that should have ended much sooner? You concede lower taxes, less spending is the optimal way out, don't you? Why would the opposite not serve opposite results?

2.) It is clear that our economy suffers from "cycles." Things go up, then down. Not a mystery, that's the way business under free markets work. I counted 12 downturns, including the current one, since the 29' entry. The New Deal clearly did not dissuade this cycle. It continues on, up, down, up again. To say that we have had no serious economic downturn since the Great Depression is to not fully appreciate the economic woes of the late 70's, early 80's, nor our current "malaise." Do you get my meaning? Your chart was correct to a fault. Clearly the cycles continue. And it's nonsensical to say "well, we haven't had another Great Depression, New Deal must of worked", because there was only ONE Great Depression, in the total existence of our country. Do you see the inherent flaw in that argument? There wasn't a "Great Depression" prior either. So I could argue the absence of New Deal staved of "a/the" Great Depression for far longer then did the existence of New Deal - I have the preceding 150+ years to demonstrate that, you have but the last 70.

3.) We can argue until we are grey headed on New Deal stats. You say the marked improvements in certain sectors, within identifiable quarters shows New Deal worked. I say they happened in spite of New Deal, and the 37' Roosevelt Recession (the economy was clearly still on life support) plus unemployment demonstrates that argument. My attempt at sorting out who's right and who's wrong inevitably leads me to your conflictng (to me anyway) posit that the fastest road to national recovery in times of economic crisis is lower taxes, less spending, not its' opposite. And less spending by definition precludes an alphabet soup of programs. You also accept that simply "giving the people what they want" is not justification for policy, making the idea that FDR was simply responding to demands of government action not a reasonable defense. In addition it is clear that New Deal was not the stop gap against future economic crisis. They clearly continued, by your own chart, unabated. So with your acceptance of these points on principle and in fact, why would you maintain that New Deal was a overall success? It didn't stop future crisis; it didn't allow for a functioning economy without the government tit well into 1937; it didn't solve unemployment; and most of all, you concur on principle that lower taxes and less government is the proper road to recovery, so why in this one instance would the opposite have worked?

4.) Furthermore, if you still maintain that New Deal was the stop gap on future economic crisis (I don't know how you would given your own chart, but I'm trying to cover all bases here). Then what specifically can you point to in New Deal, that continued on past the court purges and future presidents , which you can point to and say "HERE", "this policy, this program made all the difference." Can you honestly draw a straight line from any particular surviving program to America's post 1945 economic health? And if you can is it not reasonable for me to make the same argument, yet my line ending in the one of 12 downturns? I ask sincerely.

On the ideology ...

Titus wrote: "Reform" Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Johnson and Obama are another matter, however. I can agree with Ryan that FDR (among others) saw a vision of America that was not reflected in the Constitution of the United States, even if it was shared with a majority of voting Americans (I can say much the same for Obama, too). However, a President's first duty is NOT to the people of the United States (as claimed by Obama repeatedly), but instead it is to defend and maintain the status quo as defined by the Constitution. I found this a particularly interesting comment. First, look at the company FDR falls in with when it comes to "reform" presidents. But that aside ...

1.) Responsible for continuing a predecessor's program or policy is not the point (my point anyway). At Reagan's exit the Dept of education was still in place, so a mere continuance certainly does not denote approval for said program. My point was more wide - once FDR puts in place New Deal as the activist government gold standard (ironic since he confiscated the nations gold at risk of 10 years imprisonment), this set us on a course of new expectations concerning what the govt should do on our behalf with one hand, and with the other allowed the flourishing of big government ideology within the political lexicon which unthinkable prior, paved the way for the Great Society, Obama, etc.

Allow me to further refine this point ....

2.) Let me ask a basic question. "Reform" presidents. What were they reforming? Teddy clearly was set to break up monopolies. Almost his sole domestic "reform." That's an easy one. But what of Johnson? What of FDR? Obama? What do they portend to "reform?" Is it not reasonable to access they found our Constitution, the way our society is ordered in need of "reform?" To put it another way, did they not seek to "fundamentally transform " America? Obama is more like FDR then we care to admit. Do you remember my post on the 2000 Chicago Public Radio interview with Obama? You can google it and hear the audio, read the transcript (within our own blog even). He discusses the Bill of Rights as being "inadequate." A "charter of negative liberties", is the way he put it. That it says, "what government can't do to you, but not what it must do for you, on your behalf." You remember that? How we scoffed? How head shaking maddening that was? I offer the following, from the State of The Union Address, 1944:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

See, I see this as his last ode' to what he had been trying to accomplish since the beginning. He had the flu, he perhaps knew this might be his last State address, and I feel he was summing up and giving meaning to his efforts over the course of 4 terms as president.

3.) Away from numbers, judging the man on his intent, his ideology, his vision for America, something vital to top 5 ratings and report cards in my opinion, how does this figure in? This is why I'm asking what FDR was reforming? Teddy went after monopolies, ok. What was FDR going after? What was he seeking to reshape, redo, realign? The "right" to a house? And not just a house, but a "decent" house? What if Obama were to give that speech (and we all know he would sorely love to)? What would be our reaction? If Obama is reelected, does that make his healthcare right? You see, I'm starting to get why people like "Ray" & my grandfather on my father's side (for whom I am named), viscerally hated FDR. Because it appears to me he was seeking to "reform" America herself. Reform what it meant to be an American. Reform our freedoms. Reform our individual responsibility. He sought to redefine what America was - no wonder Ray & F. Glenn were pissed. They didn't recognize this as "American." There is no question that FDR's vision was 180 degrees from the Founders. 180 degrees from prizing individual good over the good of the collective. 180 degrees from our grandfathers. THIS more than another thing is what drives my rejection of FDR - he simply did not approve of the way the Constitution was set up. He saw our experiment in democracy as fundamentally flawed. Which of course is why he, and Obama, sought fundamental transformation. Is this not a reasonable posit?

4.) From court packing, to interstate commerce perversion, to New Deal policies themselves, to his length in office, to his summarily declaring the supreme charter of our land inadequate, does FDR not strike you as the closest we ever came to despotism? What if he had not died in 45'?

In summary:

This man clearly and utterly rejects the founding principles of our nation. He unquestionably saw the Constitution as not something to be upheld, but rather molded into his own image. He seeks to garuntee happiness itself, rather then its' pursuit. And be it through programs, policy, court packing, taxes, or new law, he sought to redefine the Founders charter, into his own vision of a just society. His economic policy saw failure after failure, particularly at the kitchen table as unemployment never fully recovered and the economy still "required" government assistance. The level of spending was unprescedented, arguably a theft of my labor. During a national crisis he set his jaw to pushing money, time, programs and regulation at every problem, at every turn, attempting to fundementally reshape our nation into his vision of the proper American dream.

I purposely mixed past and present tenses ... I want you to decide for yourself whether the man I just described was FDR, or Obama. And if you're not sure, are you still prepared to list FDR in the top 5?