I just want to say Ive never been an Ike apologist, and Id have to review his tenure as CiC much more then I have to engage in that discussion.
Happy birthday by the way! Are you getting discounts at the movies yet or what?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Happy Birthday Titus!
42 today.
Man he's old.
I know you already had your party, living the hedonistic life in PA that you do... But I hope today is good for you.
Man he's old.
I know you already had your party, living the hedonistic life in PA that you do... But I hope today is good for you.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Good thing I like Escher, huh?
No, I don't think FDR was the closest we have come to a despot. Despots, by their historical definition, hold absolute and unlimited power and authority over their nations, answering to no one but God and themselves. Thus, I feel like your question was comparing FDR to other, contemporary "despots" like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc. and I answered accordingly. FDR was chosen by the popular voting majority and our established electoral process as the chief executive of our republic, who would work within his established enumerated powers in conjunction with the legislative branch and under the watchful eye of the judicial branch to help guide, promote and protect the nation against all threats, foreign and domestic.
I find it unfortunate that you feel that the only time government has the authority to intervene in American economic affairs is when the nation has military personnel committed in combat situations, whether the situations are declared wars or not. There was very little shooting going on during the Reagan years, yet he deficit spent quite happily to help fix the economic crisis that the previous three Presidents had left him.
I have made the point quite clearly and loudly in the past that Reagan had the "formula" right, where FDR and the New Deal Congress had it wrong: Reagan cut taxes, but continued to spend into the red. FDR did raise taxes, substantially too (especially after 1938) and spent more money than he was taking in. This was a FLAW in the New Deal planning and execution that I have recognized and admitted to from the very beginning. It is why I can call myself (and Reagan) REAL Keynesian economic advocates, and why I don't think FDR was. So, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop saying that my opinions concerning New Deal's success or failure is contrary to my stated economic and fiscal opinions, because they are NOT. I have said all along that FDR should have spent the money to provide the relief, recovery and reform... but he should have lowered (or left unchanged) the marginal tax rates to better keep money earned in the hands of people that would put it to the best use. Like the NRA, it is simply a facet of the New Deal that didn't work, as history has shown us quite clearly.
Why are you so quick to point to FDR's policies, but you've never responded to my questions about how you felt about Eisenhower's public works projects, 91% tax rates, and 17% GDP deficits when he WASN'T a war-time President? Was Ike's Presidency as much a failure as Roosevelt's? How much better would the American economy have been had he championed a top marginal rate of even 54% rather than 91%? Why should we all vilify FDR's New Deal programs when Ike increased SSI regulation and created the Cabinet seat for Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, which would oversee and promote every single surviving New Deal program still running (few though they were)? To suggest that he was simply "following his predecessor's lead" in continuing and promoting New Deal policies, and signing some very "New Deal-like" programs into law himself, would then mean that Reagan's refusal to continue the paradigm is far less meaningful than even I have credited him with, wouldn't it?
If Ike could see the benefit that the Interstate Highway System would have to the nation's economy and chose to okay the projects as Federal works to be funded, directed, and managed by the Federal government (meaning more money and bigger government), shouldn't I read your follow up post telling me how wrong he was for doing that? How is the money spent on the Interstates better than what was spent on the TVA, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate, or the national electric power grid? Ike had no more insight into the Soviet's plans to drop nukes on American cities than FDR did with the needs that the TVA would fulfill during WWII, so surely that isn't your response, right?
You know what, though? As much fun as I have sparring with you over this sort of debate, as long as you accuse me of contradictory logic while I accuse you of maintaining your double standard, we aren't going to get anywhere. So, whenever you feel you've had enough, we can let this go until such time as it rears its ugly head again and needs to get flogged into the dirt once more.
I find it unfortunate that you feel that the only time government has the authority to intervene in American economic affairs is when the nation has military personnel committed in combat situations, whether the situations are declared wars or not. There was very little shooting going on during the Reagan years, yet he deficit spent quite happily to help fix the economic crisis that the previous three Presidents had left him.
I have made the point quite clearly and loudly in the past that Reagan had the "formula" right, where FDR and the New Deal Congress had it wrong: Reagan cut taxes, but continued to spend into the red. FDR did raise taxes, substantially too (especially after 1938) and spent more money than he was taking in. This was a FLAW in the New Deal planning and execution that I have recognized and admitted to from the very beginning. It is why I can call myself (and Reagan) REAL Keynesian economic advocates, and why I don't think FDR was. So, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop saying that my opinions concerning New Deal's success or failure is contrary to my stated economic and fiscal opinions, because they are NOT. I have said all along that FDR should have spent the money to provide the relief, recovery and reform... but he should have lowered (or left unchanged) the marginal tax rates to better keep money earned in the hands of people that would put it to the best use. Like the NRA, it is simply a facet of the New Deal that didn't work, as history has shown us quite clearly.
Why are you so quick to point to FDR's policies, but you've never responded to my questions about how you felt about Eisenhower's public works projects, 91% tax rates, and 17% GDP deficits when he WASN'T a war-time President? Was Ike's Presidency as much a failure as Roosevelt's? How much better would the American economy have been had he championed a top marginal rate of even 54% rather than 91%? Why should we all vilify FDR's New Deal programs when Ike increased SSI regulation and created the Cabinet seat for Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, which would oversee and promote every single surviving New Deal program still running (few though they were)? To suggest that he was simply "following his predecessor's lead" in continuing and promoting New Deal policies, and signing some very "New Deal-like" programs into law himself, would then mean that Reagan's refusal to continue the paradigm is far less meaningful than even I have credited him with, wouldn't it?
If Ike could see the benefit that the Interstate Highway System would have to the nation's economy and chose to okay the projects as Federal works to be funded, directed, and managed by the Federal government (meaning more money and bigger government), shouldn't I read your follow up post telling me how wrong he was for doing that? How is the money spent on the Interstates better than what was spent on the TVA, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate, or the national electric power grid? Ike had no more insight into the Soviet's plans to drop nukes on American cities than FDR did with the needs that the TVA would fulfill during WWII, so surely that isn't your response, right?
You know what, though? As much fun as I have sparring with you over this sort of debate, as long as you accuse me of contradictory logic while I accuse you of maintaining your double standard, we aren't going to get anywhere. So, whenever you feel you've had enough, we can let this go until such time as it rears its ugly head again and needs to get flogged into the dirt once more.
Like an MC Escher painting ...
... this discussion is. You can get lost in it and not realize you've been at it for hours..
I'm going to make just a few points.
1.)If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?
Clearly had you read my last without prior consumption of copious amounts of Guinness you would have noted that I never made the claim, "FDR was a despot." In fact I went painfully out of my way to put forth the interrogative without saying such. Reread the last few paragraphs of my last post if you doubt this (preferably with a clear head, ahem). I simply asked if FDR was the "closest" we ever got to seeing despotism in the US presidency, especially had he lived for years more. Lincoln's actions were a good example, but I am willing to make all kinds of exemptions (historically especially) during times of war. Lincoln's actions, were you to compare them to FDR at all, were more akin to the Japanese internment camps of the 40's, not New Deal.
At any rate, my point for asking is not in a vacuum and this was not some ideological, Glenn Beck informed monologue (by the way, do I accuse you guys of parroting a talking head when your points or ideology happen to sync up or parallel? I'll stop claiming you're simply nostalgic for the WPA as soon as you stop doing that buddy). FDR sought what none of his 30 predecessors sought. He believed what none of his 30 predecessors believed. He refused to honor the example set by George Washington - 2 terms and turn power over. And don't give me "crisis." Washington turned over power when they were begging him, literally, to stay, thinking he the only man possible to Shepard our new yet fledgling nation. It was thought, not in theory, but true fear, that the Republic would not survive were he to step down. Since then no matter the crisis or popularity, every single two term president (obviously, not assassinated) stepped down ... until FDR. So between FDR's clear antagonist view towards the constitution's "inadequacies" (read: it didn't include HIS view of inherent rights, the arrogance is staggering) AND the fact that he was the only THIRD TERM, and the only FOUR TERM president (whom was stopped from seeking a 5th term only by his own poor health) means I don't think it's "willy nilly" to ask, AND I STRESS ASK, if he was as close as this Republic ever saw to a despot? Jumping to Hitler and Stalin is rhetorical bomb throwing. I remember Jambo asking if a certain (her name escapes me) author claiming Bush met "the 10 criteria" for despotism had a point, and you didn't bat an eye. Sheeeesh.
2.) If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making?
Yes. And here's my answer. The Constitution specifically provides "limited and enumerated powers" to the federal government, among them are national defense. In other words the need for government interventionism during times of war is clearly within the scope of of these powers - federal deficit spending in times of economic hardship is not.
And please, with the "official declaration of war", I never stated that, it's a silly point, we all know when we are "at war" whether congress has the spine to declare it or not.
You can say (as you did) that The Great Depression "was every bit as much" a threat, or a problem to the American people as WWII, but you'd be wrong (and I'm curious if after finishing The Pacific if Jambo agrees with you). You just are, Titus. Both in the direct comparisons (which I found surprising and smacked of a mind well hung over - sorry, but drought was not as lethal as the Japanese Imperial Fleet and their aims) and wrong in the "clear" responsibility of the government to interdict during times of economic hardship. One is clearly a power reserved to the federal government while the other is debatable (at best, in my opinion).
You will undoubtedly counter with "promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility." At which point you and I are entering into an argument as old as the Republic herself. And I am completely comfortable with simply leaving it at diverging personal philosophies on what that phrase means and what government's responsibility to the citizenry during times of economic crisis is (although if you feel New Deal justified under the premise of government's inherent responsibility to intercede during economic crisis, on the level of war making, then I'm less likely to listen to you bitch about the bail outs).
I will note this however: the federal government's interdiction & deficit spending in order to properly wage war is not something that is in question. That's not something any of us within this nation question or squabble over. The justification of the wars themselves are fought over to be sure, but whose responsibility it is to wage them is not at issue, even by Obama accolades. Whereas your assertion that the feds have every bit the duty to intercede (in New Deal fashion or otherwise) as a response to economic crisis is very much in question. It is hottly debated, as it is here. Of the two posits, mine is not the one with room for ambiguity.
Which leads me finally to this ...
I have looked at your cyclical chart. I have read your posts. Investigated New Deal policy and the economic indicators of the time period. If I remember correctly from that chart only one of all the downturns lasted as long, (in fact longer) as the Great Depression. And as you can not identify what about New Deal staved off future depressions, or if it was New Deal at all, then I find it reasonable to posit that were an opposite course plotted we would have recovered quicker. And you're right, I'm arguing a negative. I will hasten to add though that we all here seem to be of the mindset that lower taxes and less government interdiction are the fastest, clearest, most obvious path to boom times, and out of national economic hardship. So I can only assume this was as true in 1930 as it was in 1962 (Kennedy cuts); 1983 (Reagan); and 2000 (Bush cuts). I just don't see justification for the opposite working "this one time", as if the 30's were some special bubble in time that required activist public solutions to save the private sector (no more then I saw it necessary or justified under the Bush/Obama bailouts). I do think that FDR, as with Bush (and perhaps Obama), truly wanted to lessen people's pain. And as such decided upon a "pain killer course." They applied their version of a topical analgesic to the economy in hopes that it would soften the blow, ease the fall, and tied people over until a real, full (read: not artificial/government propped) recovery could be had. I'm not questioning their motives. I'm simply saying such a course is doomed to hinder such a recovery rather then speed it along. Rather then take a horrific 2 to 3 years they are opting (meaning to or not) for a very bad 10. In these cycles I submit we should take our lumps, and rip the bandaid off. Rather then have government give us a Loritab at each centimeter's pull of the strip. I submit this both on principle regarding the proper role of government in the individuals life, and in real world, practical results - it just works better. And even while agreeing with me on principle, you still contend that New Deal was not just an attempt at a pain killer, that it was in fact sound, effective economic policy towards aiding our national recovery. That high taxes and government interdiction in this one special moment in economic suspended animation did not slow the private recovery, but aided it (rather then seeing New Deal for what it was - an earnest but misguided attempt at "pain relief" whose inherent nature is prohibitive to a free market recovery). That it "somehow", some way prevented a depression for the next 75 years. Holding those 2 positions simultaneously (agreeing on basic economic principle with me yet championing New Deal as sound economic recovery policy) is simply untenable in my opinion.
I'm going to make just a few points.
1.)If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?
Clearly had you read my last without prior consumption of copious amounts of Guinness you would have noted that I never made the claim, "FDR was a despot." In fact I went painfully out of my way to put forth the interrogative without saying such. Reread the last few paragraphs of my last post if you doubt this (preferably with a clear head, ahem). I simply asked if FDR was the "closest" we ever got to seeing despotism in the US presidency, especially had he lived for years more. Lincoln's actions were a good example, but I am willing to make all kinds of exemptions (historically especially) during times of war. Lincoln's actions, were you to compare them to FDR at all, were more akin to the Japanese internment camps of the 40's, not New Deal.
At any rate, my point for asking is not in a vacuum and this was not some ideological, Glenn Beck informed monologue (by the way, do I accuse you guys of parroting a talking head when your points or ideology happen to sync up or parallel? I'll stop claiming you're simply nostalgic for the WPA as soon as you stop doing that buddy). FDR sought what none of his 30 predecessors sought. He believed what none of his 30 predecessors believed. He refused to honor the example set by George Washington - 2 terms and turn power over. And don't give me "crisis." Washington turned over power when they were begging him, literally, to stay, thinking he the only man possible to Shepard our new yet fledgling nation. It was thought, not in theory, but true fear, that the Republic would not survive were he to step down. Since then no matter the crisis or popularity, every single two term president (obviously, not assassinated) stepped down ... until FDR. So between FDR's clear antagonist view towards the constitution's "inadequacies" (read: it didn't include HIS view of inherent rights, the arrogance is staggering) AND the fact that he was the only THIRD TERM, and the only FOUR TERM president (whom was stopped from seeking a 5th term only by his own poor health) means I don't think it's "willy nilly" to ask, AND I STRESS ASK, if he was as close as this Republic ever saw to a despot? Jumping to Hitler and Stalin is rhetorical bomb throwing. I remember Jambo asking if a certain (her name escapes me) author claiming Bush met "the 10 criteria" for despotism had a point, and you didn't bat an eye. Sheeeesh.
2.) If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making?
Yes. And here's my answer. The Constitution specifically provides "limited and enumerated powers" to the federal government, among them are national defense. In other words the need for government interventionism during times of war is clearly within the scope of of these powers - federal deficit spending in times of economic hardship is not.
And please, with the "official declaration of war", I never stated that, it's a silly point, we all know when we are "at war" whether congress has the spine to declare it or not.
You can say (as you did) that The Great Depression "was every bit as much" a threat, or a problem to the American people as WWII, but you'd be wrong (and I'm curious if after finishing The Pacific if Jambo agrees with you). You just are, Titus. Both in the direct comparisons (which I found surprising and smacked of a mind well hung over - sorry, but drought was not as lethal as the Japanese Imperial Fleet and their aims) and wrong in the "clear" responsibility of the government to interdict during times of economic hardship. One is clearly a power reserved to the federal government while the other is debatable (at best, in my opinion).
You will undoubtedly counter with "promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility." At which point you and I are entering into an argument as old as the Republic herself. And I am completely comfortable with simply leaving it at diverging personal philosophies on what that phrase means and what government's responsibility to the citizenry during times of economic crisis is (although if you feel New Deal justified under the premise of government's inherent responsibility to intercede during economic crisis, on the level of war making, then I'm less likely to listen to you bitch about the bail outs).
I will note this however: the federal government's interdiction & deficit spending in order to properly wage war is not something that is in question. That's not something any of us within this nation question or squabble over. The justification of the wars themselves are fought over to be sure, but whose responsibility it is to wage them is not at issue, even by Obama accolades. Whereas your assertion that the feds have every bit the duty to intercede (in New Deal fashion or otherwise) as a response to economic crisis is very much in question. It is hottly debated, as it is here. Of the two posits, mine is not the one with room for ambiguity.
Which leads me finally to this ...
I have looked at your cyclical chart. I have read your posts. Investigated New Deal policy and the economic indicators of the time period. If I remember correctly from that chart only one of all the downturns lasted as long, (in fact longer) as the Great Depression. And as you can not identify what about New Deal staved off future depressions, or if it was New Deal at all, then I find it reasonable to posit that were an opposite course plotted we would have recovered quicker. And you're right, I'm arguing a negative. I will hasten to add though that we all here seem to be of the mindset that lower taxes and less government interdiction are the fastest, clearest, most obvious path to boom times, and out of national economic hardship. So I can only assume this was as true in 1930 as it was in 1962 (Kennedy cuts); 1983 (Reagan); and 2000 (Bush cuts). I just don't see justification for the opposite working "this one time", as if the 30's were some special bubble in time that required activist public solutions to save the private sector (no more then I saw it necessary or justified under the Bush/Obama bailouts). I do think that FDR, as with Bush (and perhaps Obama), truly wanted to lessen people's pain. And as such decided upon a "pain killer course." They applied their version of a topical analgesic to the economy in hopes that it would soften the blow, ease the fall, and tied people over until a real, full (read: not artificial/government propped) recovery could be had. I'm not questioning their motives. I'm simply saying such a course is doomed to hinder such a recovery rather then speed it along. Rather then take a horrific 2 to 3 years they are opting (meaning to or not) for a very bad 10. In these cycles I submit we should take our lumps, and rip the bandaid off. Rather then have government give us a Loritab at each centimeter's pull of the strip. I submit this both on principle regarding the proper role of government in the individuals life, and in real world, practical results - it just works better. And even while agreeing with me on principle, you still contend that New Deal was not just an attempt at a pain killer, that it was in fact sound, effective economic policy towards aiding our national recovery. That high taxes and government interdiction in this one special moment in economic suspended animation did not slow the private recovery, but aided it (rather then seeing New Deal for what it was - an earnest but misguided attempt at "pain relief" whose inherent nature is prohibitive to a free market recovery). That it "somehow", some way prevented a depression for the next 75 years. Holding those 2 positions simultaneously (agreeing on basic economic principle with me yet championing New Deal as sound economic recovery policy) is simply untenable in my opinion.
I'm feeling better now...
So I thought I'd make one or two clarifications about the current discussion.
Ryan keeps saying that reduced spending (smaller government) is a must EXCEPT in times of war. He uses our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, and also includes the Cold War (at least from 1981 to 1989) as another... yet none of these are declared "wars" as defined by the Constitution, are they? So, the last time the US could deficit spend, according to the letter of "Ryan's Rules" for sound fiscal policy was prior to Aug, 1945... because that was the last time we were actually fighting a declared war.
I agree with Ryan that the wars being fought now, and including the Cold War and all its "hot" issues like Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Beirut, etc, are legitimate crisis points in American history and needed to be confronted with the full weight of what the American society could bring to bear to resolve them. I do NOT feel that a formal declaration of war is the ONLY means by which America should be able to defend her interests abroad.
"Defending her interests abroad" is, however, only part of the problem. We are also expected to defend and protect the interests of the United States "at home", which I take to mean domestically. Not every domestic threat is a bomb-throwing terrorist... ensuring that our society continues to be able to function in times of natural disaster, plague, or economic crisis is every bit as important as being able to repel invaders from our shores and frontiers... and I would expect the same level of commitment and effort be expended to successfully conclude such a crisis.
Ryan maintains that the level of intervention taken by the New Deal policies of FDR were unprecedented and unnecessary. I agree 100% that they were unprecedented, because the crisis was more than anything we had ever seen before... but if THAT is true, then the claim that they efforts were "unnecessary" must be false, right? If the crisis constituted a threat to American society as a whole, and the lives and safety of Americans were at risk, how can that not constitute a threat that could (at the very least) warrant some unprecedented action by the Federal government?
The unprecedented actions taken by Thomas Jefferson in 1803 when he spent, without authorization from Congress, the equivalent of three years of domestic budgetary expenses to purchase all French Imperial territory in North America... does that constitute a "despotic" act by Jefferson? Or was he acting outside his enumerated powers as President, in the best interests of the country as he saw them AT THE TIME?
When Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus after the commencement of hostilities in 1861 and imprisoned most of the Maryland legislative assembly to prevent them from voting for secession, was he following Constitutional authority? Where was the precedent he was following when he imprisoned 12,000 "suspects" of treason with no formal charges or trials? Was this "despotism" or was this the actions of a President doing whatever he felt necessary to protect and defend the United States in the time of a national crisis?
Let's pretend that the 22nd Amendment is never written, and Ronald Wilson Reagan faces the prospect of running for a third term in 1988... I am convinced he could have won (rather easily, too). Would the Ryan-of-today take that to mean he was hoping to achieve "despotic authority" and to rewrite our governmental norms, or could he have only wanted to finish what he felt still needed to be done to set the country on the path away from "New Deal" policies and back to "real conservatism"?
My point is simply that you have chosen to look at FDR as a "singular" instance in American history, and I say that is something that doesn't actually exist. No President worth the time to study hasn't made some precedent-setting policy or action while in office, and all that have faced a national crisis have had to make tough choices or take tough actions. This does not mean they are anti-American tyrants... they were only doing the job they felt they were elected to do.
If we can't demonize Jefferson or Lincoln for what they did as President, and we admit that we might have supported a three-term Presidency for someone we like but oppose it for someone we don't, doesn't that indicate that there might just be a touch of hypocrisy in our attitudes about FDR and the New Deal effort?
Ryan keeps saying that reduced spending (smaller government) is a must EXCEPT in times of war. He uses our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, and also includes the Cold War (at least from 1981 to 1989) as another... yet none of these are declared "wars" as defined by the Constitution, are they? So, the last time the US could deficit spend, according to the letter of "Ryan's Rules" for sound fiscal policy was prior to Aug, 1945... because that was the last time we were actually fighting a declared war.
I agree with Ryan that the wars being fought now, and including the Cold War and all its "hot" issues like Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Beirut, etc, are legitimate crisis points in American history and needed to be confronted with the full weight of what the American society could bring to bear to resolve them. I do NOT feel that a formal declaration of war is the ONLY means by which America should be able to defend her interests abroad.
"Defending her interests abroad" is, however, only part of the problem. We are also expected to defend and protect the interests of the United States "at home", which I take to mean domestically. Not every domestic threat is a bomb-throwing terrorist... ensuring that our society continues to be able to function in times of natural disaster, plague, or economic crisis is every bit as important as being able to repel invaders from our shores and frontiers... and I would expect the same level of commitment and effort be expended to successfully conclude such a crisis.
Ryan maintains that the level of intervention taken by the New Deal policies of FDR were unprecedented and unnecessary. I agree 100% that they were unprecedented, because the crisis was more than anything we had ever seen before... but if THAT is true, then the claim that they efforts were "unnecessary" must be false, right? If the crisis constituted a threat to American society as a whole, and the lives and safety of Americans were at risk, how can that not constitute a threat that could (at the very least) warrant some unprecedented action by the Federal government?
The unprecedented actions taken by Thomas Jefferson in 1803 when he spent, without authorization from Congress, the equivalent of three years of domestic budgetary expenses to purchase all French Imperial territory in North America... does that constitute a "despotic" act by Jefferson? Or was he acting outside his enumerated powers as President, in the best interests of the country as he saw them AT THE TIME?
When Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus after the commencement of hostilities in 1861 and imprisoned most of the Maryland legislative assembly to prevent them from voting for secession, was he following Constitutional authority? Where was the precedent he was following when he imprisoned 12,000 "suspects" of treason with no formal charges or trials? Was this "despotism" or was this the actions of a President doing whatever he felt necessary to protect and defend the United States in the time of a national crisis?
Let's pretend that the 22nd Amendment is never written, and Ronald Wilson Reagan faces the prospect of running for a third term in 1988... I am convinced he could have won (rather easily, too). Would the Ryan-of-today take that to mean he was hoping to achieve "despotic authority" and to rewrite our governmental norms, or could he have only wanted to finish what he felt still needed to be done to set the country on the path away from "New Deal" policies and back to "real conservatism"?
My point is simply that you have chosen to look at FDR as a "singular" instance in American history, and I say that is something that doesn't actually exist. No President worth the time to study hasn't made some precedent-setting policy or action while in office, and all that have faced a national crisis have had to make tough choices or take tough actions. This does not mean they are anti-American tyrants... they were only doing the job they felt they were elected to do.
If we can't demonize Jefferson or Lincoln for what they did as President, and we admit that we might have supported a three-term Presidency for someone we like but oppose it for someone we don't, doesn't that indicate that there might just be a touch of hypocrisy in our attitudes about FDR and the New Deal effort?
I'll have to go slow here...
... and that isn't a slam on Ryan. I'm grossly hung over and sleep-deprived, with a 7-year-old chattering away next to me and the rest of the house sleeping peacefully. In other words, I'm not at my best right this minute.
First of all, to address the "Bund Fact" (I like that tag... very nice) concerning my link to Harding's tariff mistakes. I was NOT referring to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, I was referring to the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922, which Harding championed and signed into law as a means to maintain revenue after his 1921 tax cuts to the top marginal rates (which isn't entirely fair... he did cut taxes across the board, but the biggest cuts went to the top 20% of earners, but I digress). The GOP as a whole was very tariff-happy in those days, and it is another good indicator that Reagan understood what WORKED from that period and what didn't in that he was a supporter of free trade over protectionist tariffs. Had you followed the provided link, you'd have seen exactly what I was referring to. So, Bund Fact established, yes?
You claim I have reversed or altered my argument, and I assert clearly and loudly that I have not. You base your claim on your assumptions that I am making my case a priori or without empirical evidence. I say that my argument is a posteriori, or based on the entirely empirical fact that all evidence supports my claim. My a posterirori is as follows:
My admitting that I can't cite the specific chapter and verse of American legal code which regulates the factors that have helped avoid a repeat of the "GD" (or any other depression) in the last 75 years doesn't mean anything other than I'm not an expert in macroeconomics. You, on the other hand, have often explained that the New Deal prolonged the misery and suffering of the depression, but cannot offer proof or empirical evidence because you cannot prove a negative. That is the classic definition of an a priori argument... you are making an absolute claim with absolutely no means to absolutely prove the point.
I do not make the case that New Deal "worked" because we avoided another depression, but it is a contributing factor in my claim that some aspects of New Deal did work, and were, in fact, necessary to provide a more economically secure future for the country. It is NOT NOW, nor has it ever been, my only piece of evidence to support this position. It is simply the one you focus on the most. In my many attempts to show you (just you, no one else) why I think the way I do, I am forced over and over again to make my case in the most unambiguous way I can. I admit that it is NOT a valid argument to make, but it is plain, simple and one that I would hope could be understood for what it is... an expedient short-cut used to avoid tedious detail in a very broad and usually quite general argument.
Your posit that greater and more intricate global economic ties has given us a more secure and broad support base for our national economic machine is perfectly valid, and is undoubtedly a large piece of the puzzle... but it doesn't explain why economic crisis in other parts of the world have also NOT caused us to cycle down. Japan has had four major depressions since 1955, and the UK has had two since the end of WWII... we have had none. All three use very similar free market models, but only OURS has been depression free.
I can't give you the absolute reasons because I don't know them... but not because they don't exist at all. Perhaps it is the strength of our monetary standard and the regulation of the Federal Reserve that has kept the dollar so strong while the Yen has stagnated at times. Perhaps it is the greater freedom our markets enjoy that has kept them ticking along while the London Exchanges have crashed under the weight of greater socialist regulation. I don't know, but both the strength of our monetary standard and the very limited regulation in our exchange markets can be DIRECTLY credited to the "New Deal" and the efforts of those men who worked to make sure we never saw another "GD".
Another point you make is that Hoover wasn't the "conservative" I made him out to be, so how could FDR be the success I make him out to be? Again, I ask why you are giving so much credit to FDR and so much blame to Hoover?
Yes, Hoover signed into law the tariffs and spending bills that brought us Smoot-Hawley and the Hoover Dam, but I am CONVINCED that Hoover hated the idea public works, and only signed the bill into law because 1) he was facing the prospect of reelection in 1932 and 2) he realized the scope of the disaster was going to call for SOME sort of intervention, if only to prevent the DEATHS of Americans who simply were unable to feed and shelter themselves through no fault of their own. Hoover worked for Harding, and they shared many similar beliefs (the benefit of tariffs for one), and while I admit that Hoover did actually advocate intervention in 1921, I think he felt that Harding had proved the error in that process and resisted it for the first 30 months of the "GD", hoping the non-interventionist policies would turn things around (which they did not). Obviously, Hoover didn't TELL me this, so I have no direct evidence that this is how his thoughts were running... but it is the most plausible answer to the question of WHY that I can imagine. That does not make my "guess" less valid or plausible... it only means it remains a theory rather than a fact.
Again, I don't DENY that FDR made mistakes and that not all of New Deal was good or necessary, but as you repeatedly point out in your arguments, it was the "reshaping of the American economy" brought about by the world war we were fighting that finally, once and for all, fixed all that had broken in 1929. Who paid for that reshaping? Who did the reshaping? Who mandated that remodelling of our infrastructure, means of manufacturing and production and distribution? Who dictated the manner in which it would be accomplished?
The Federal Government of the United States of America. Who financed that effort? The American tax payer (in one way or another).
If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making? Please point out to me another economic disaster (peacetime or otherwise) of the same scope and scale as the "GD", and how alternative Federal handling of the issues resulted in more satisfactory results than we saw with the New Deal.
I'm not debating what was said in the SotU address you quoted... it is a telling insight into what FDR seems to have felt the role of government was in American society, and I do not agree that his vision is the best vision for America. I do think it was an extension of his plainly expressed belief in the "Four Freedoms" which he first presented in his 1941 SotU address. The last of these four freedoms are Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. I have no problem expressing the firmest belief in these freedoms, but I don't think they are something the Federal government MUST provide to us. Instead it is the role of government to ensure that all of us have the same opportunity to secure these freedoms for ourselves, and that in times of crisis (be it war, disaster or domestic violence), the means to protect and defend these freedoms is provided and promoted by the government for the people.
I see the New Deal, as a whole and complete effort, as one example of how this was done and mistakes or failures that might have occurred during this effort can be explained and understood as the result of never having attempted it before. If you want to continue to argue the viability or legality of any specific program or policy, I will gladly continue this debate as such. However, I simply cannot bring myself to argue for or against the assumed intentions of a man that has been dead for 65 years, or the success or failure of the New Deal effort of the entire Federal government based on the "what if" scenarios Glenn Beck keeps coughing up on his radio and TV shows.
FDR was not a despot. Had he been, he could have made the "changes" to American government that he both openly admitted to wanting to make, and those that you think he intended or wished to make. When his policies and programs were shown to be unconstitutional, they were thrown out with the trash, just like our system was designed to do. FDR was elected (four times) to do a job he promised to do... relief, recovery and reform. I contend that he accomplished this promise to the best of his ability, with the good of the nation first in his mind, and NOT in an attempt to remake America into his personal ideal.
Hitler was a despot. Stalin was a despot. Mussolini, Franco, Codreanu, Tito, Tojo... all despots contemporary with FDR, and not ONE of them was willing to face the prospect of a free and democratic election or work in conjunction with a legislative, representative body the way FDR was at every step of the way during his tenure as CIC.
If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?
I'd like you to stop pointing at my assumed "nostalgic" view of FDR when I have so plainly and painfully made the effort to be fair and objective when discussing such Presidents as Reagan or Bush, whom I have numerous "issues" with when it comes to policy and agenda. To continue to do so is unfair to me and makes you look petty.
First of all, to address the "Bund Fact" (I like that tag... very nice) concerning my link to Harding's tariff mistakes. I was NOT referring to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, I was referring to the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922, which Harding championed and signed into law as a means to maintain revenue after his 1921 tax cuts to the top marginal rates (which isn't entirely fair... he did cut taxes across the board, but the biggest cuts went to the top 20% of earners, but I digress). The GOP as a whole was very tariff-happy in those days, and it is another good indicator that Reagan understood what WORKED from that period and what didn't in that he was a supporter of free trade over protectionist tariffs. Had you followed the provided link, you'd have seen exactly what I was referring to. So, Bund Fact established, yes?
You claim I have reversed or altered my argument, and I assert clearly and loudly that I have not. You base your claim on your assumptions that I am making my case a priori or without empirical evidence. I say that my argument is a posteriori, or based on the entirely empirical fact that all evidence supports my claim. My a posterirori is as follows:
My admitting that I can't cite the specific chapter and verse of American legal code which regulates the factors that have helped avoid a repeat of the "GD" (or any other depression) in the last 75 years doesn't mean anything other than I'm not an expert in macroeconomics. You, on the other hand, have often explained that the New Deal prolonged the misery and suffering of the depression, but cannot offer proof or empirical evidence because you cannot prove a negative. That is the classic definition of an a priori argument... you are making an absolute claim with absolutely no means to absolutely prove the point.
I do not make the case that New Deal "worked" because we avoided another depression, but it is a contributing factor in my claim that some aspects of New Deal did work, and were, in fact, necessary to provide a more economically secure future for the country. It is NOT NOW, nor has it ever been, my only piece of evidence to support this position. It is simply the one you focus on the most. In my many attempts to show you (just you, no one else) why I think the way I do, I am forced over and over again to make my case in the most unambiguous way I can. I admit that it is NOT a valid argument to make, but it is plain, simple and one that I would hope could be understood for what it is... an expedient short-cut used to avoid tedious detail in a very broad and usually quite general argument.
Your posit that greater and more intricate global economic ties has given us a more secure and broad support base for our national economic machine is perfectly valid, and is undoubtedly a large piece of the puzzle... but it doesn't explain why economic crisis in other parts of the world have also NOT caused us to cycle down. Japan has had four major depressions since 1955, and the UK has had two since the end of WWII... we have had none. All three use very similar free market models, but only OURS has been depression free.
I can't give you the absolute reasons because I don't know them... but not because they don't exist at all. Perhaps it is the strength of our monetary standard and the regulation of the Federal Reserve that has kept the dollar so strong while the Yen has stagnated at times. Perhaps it is the greater freedom our markets enjoy that has kept them ticking along while the London Exchanges have crashed under the weight of greater socialist regulation. I don't know, but both the strength of our monetary standard and the very limited regulation in our exchange markets can be DIRECTLY credited to the "New Deal" and the efforts of those men who worked to make sure we never saw another "GD".
Another point you make is that Hoover wasn't the "conservative" I made him out to be, so how could FDR be the success I make him out to be? Again, I ask why you are giving so much credit to FDR and so much blame to Hoover?
Yes, Hoover signed into law the tariffs and spending bills that brought us Smoot-Hawley and the Hoover Dam, but I am CONVINCED that Hoover hated the idea public works, and only signed the bill into law because 1) he was facing the prospect of reelection in 1932 and 2) he realized the scope of the disaster was going to call for SOME sort of intervention, if only to prevent the DEATHS of Americans who simply were unable to feed and shelter themselves through no fault of their own. Hoover worked for Harding, and they shared many similar beliefs (the benefit of tariffs for one), and while I admit that Hoover did actually advocate intervention in 1921, I think he felt that Harding had proved the error in that process and resisted it for the first 30 months of the "GD", hoping the non-interventionist policies would turn things around (which they did not). Obviously, Hoover didn't TELL me this, so I have no direct evidence that this is how his thoughts were running... but it is the most plausible answer to the question of WHY that I can imagine. That does not make my "guess" less valid or plausible... it only means it remains a theory rather than a fact.
Again, I don't DENY that FDR made mistakes and that not all of New Deal was good or necessary, but as you repeatedly point out in your arguments, it was the "reshaping of the American economy" brought about by the world war we were fighting that finally, once and for all, fixed all that had broken in 1929. Who paid for that reshaping? Who did the reshaping? Who mandated that remodelling of our infrastructure, means of manufacturing and production and distribution? Who dictated the manner in which it would be accomplished?
The Federal Government of the United States of America. Who financed that effort? The American tax payer (in one way or another).
If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making? Please point out to me another economic disaster (peacetime or otherwise) of the same scope and scale as the "GD", and how alternative Federal handling of the issues resulted in more satisfactory results than we saw with the New Deal.
I'm not debating what was said in the SotU address you quoted... it is a telling insight into what FDR seems to have felt the role of government was in American society, and I do not agree that his vision is the best vision for America. I do think it was an extension of his plainly expressed belief in the "Four Freedoms" which he first presented in his 1941 SotU address. The last of these four freedoms are Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. I have no problem expressing the firmest belief in these freedoms, but I don't think they are something the Federal government MUST provide to us. Instead it is the role of government to ensure that all of us have the same opportunity to secure these freedoms for ourselves, and that in times of crisis (be it war, disaster or domestic violence), the means to protect and defend these freedoms is provided and promoted by the government for the people.
I see the New Deal, as a whole and complete effort, as one example of how this was done and mistakes or failures that might have occurred during this effort can be explained and understood as the result of never having attempted it before. If you want to continue to argue the viability or legality of any specific program or policy, I will gladly continue this debate as such. However, I simply cannot bring myself to argue for or against the assumed intentions of a man that has been dead for 65 years, or the success or failure of the New Deal effort of the entire Federal government based on the "what if" scenarios Glenn Beck keeps coughing up on his radio and TV shows.
FDR was not a despot. Had he been, he could have made the "changes" to American government that he both openly admitted to wanting to make, and those that you think he intended or wished to make. When his policies and programs were shown to be unconstitutional, they were thrown out with the trash, just like our system was designed to do. FDR was elected (four times) to do a job he promised to do... relief, recovery and reform. I contend that he accomplished this promise to the best of his ability, with the good of the nation first in his mind, and NOT in an attempt to remake America into his personal ideal.
Hitler was a despot. Stalin was a despot. Mussolini, Franco, Codreanu, Tito, Tojo... all despots contemporary with FDR, and not ONE of them was willing to face the prospect of a free and democratic election or work in conjunction with a legislative, representative body the way FDR was at every step of the way during his tenure as CIC.
If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?
I'd like you to stop pointing at my assumed "nostalgic" view of FDR when I have so plainly and painfully made the effort to be fair and objective when discussing such Presidents as Reagan or Bush, whom I have numerous "issues" with when it comes to policy and agenda. To continue to do so is unfair to me and makes you look petty.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Stunning!
I'll get to what I found stunning in just a moment. First, I want to address something before it becomes "Bund fact" or something to that effect. You wrote:
I would make my own assertion, though, that while the "hands off" policies of Harding did nothing to prolong the problem, they also did nothing to prevent the problem from happening again. In fact, I think a good case can be made that, in the government's attempt to regain revenue lost in the tax cuts of 1920-1921, their implementation of tariff legislation not only did nothing to fix short-term problems but directly contributed to the disaster that was waiting in 1929.
First off, the wealth of our nation is not a finite pie in terms of raising tax revenue. You can lower taxes and raise revenue to the Treasury, as did Reagan, so tariffs or any other form of taxation should not be seen as "recovering lost revenue" due to tax cuts. It's a fundamental misperception on how our economy works. Now, Perhaps I'm wrong but the tariff I assume you're talking about is Smoot-Hawely. And yes it did directly contribute the woes of the Great Depression (hence forth summarized as "GD"), but it was signed into law the summer of 1930. It didn't contribute to the coming 29' crash. Hoover was attempting, misguidedly so, to stave off unemployment, post crash, by "protecting" American jobs. It made things worse, much much worse. This is why I find folly in the argument, "we tried laizze faire as a response to the GD, it didn't work." We did not. Hoover implemented public works (Hoover Dam) and higher taxes (the tariff for starters) as a response. FDR then came in and amped such efforts up to unprecedented levels. In other words Hoover's response was "FDR light." Tariffs and public works certainly aren't my definition of "hands off" nor "conservatism."
Now, to what I found stunning in your response ...
I have always contended that business was cyclical. Natural highs and lows (although I was unaware of the specific time table in your chart, but since its' acceptance it has only served to bolster my case, in my opinion). I contend that in times of economic crisis the fundamentals of lower taxes, less regulation, less spending (on behalf of govt) is the clear path out. And as such, New Deal, in its various incarnations not only did not solve the problems of the GD, but deepened them (by the way, you basically agree that this is the formulae for a path out but in this one instance of New Deal contend the opposite worked & I still don't know how you reconcile holding those 2 opinions simultaneously, but I digress ...).
We then go on to disagree about the numbers of the 1930's; what they portend; what the Roosevelt Recession revealed; the Constitutionality of various programs; the wisdom or lack thereof of SSI, and so on. And all that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree about such a mammoth time on our nation's history. But then you routinely assert something, and in such an impassioned tone, that I have taken it to represent the back bone of your argument, in that its' what you always go back to as your trump card (as you see it). And it is this: New Deal clearly worked because we haven't had a depression since, (later adding) after suffering them every decade since our founding."
So finally I said, ok, how? Chronological correlation does NOT denote causation I said. So I asked, what was it about New Deal that staved off all future depressions through to this this very moment in time. What about it stopped cold a ten year cycle of the previous 150+? Now bare in mind, this has become your proverbial "Ace in the hole" argument, as I have taken its' meaning. Yet here was your answer: "something." So as not to take it out of context let me display the statement in its' entirety:
"To argue that there is no difference between the economic climate before 1929 and that which came after is simply wrong. If you do even a little hunting, you can find that we suffered a depressed economy (rather than simply a recessed economy) at least once every 10 years since 1797... but haven't had even ONE since 1933 (the end of the '29 depression). Recessions yes, depressions no. Something in our regulation and control of market factors changed between 1928 and 1934 that has allowed the markets to continue to cycle, but without the extremes of scale ..."
Now I read on, expecting to find what that "something" was. But I instead was stunned by this:
"I do not even claim that it was "New Deal" that brought this change... only that it happened somewhere inside of the historical period marked by the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt ... "
"As already stated, I can't point to any ONE item on the list of New Deal programs or policies that fixed the "depression-boom" cycle (I'm using very general terms here... I don't contend that the cycle was ever broken, you understand). I am simply saying that something at a regulation-level has allowed our economy to continue to grow at a steady, even pace over the last 75 years without ever falling into a "depression" (again, in the technical sense of the term), and with recessions only lasting, on average, less than 24 months (until the current one, that is). Very little of the New Deal survived the end of WWII... as you pointed out... but NOT because they were overturned by the SCOTUS or later administrations. They were intended to be temporary measures, with limited scope and duration, as part of the three-step New Deal promise of "relief, recovery and reform."
You even seemingly suggested that perhaps the GOP was responsible for this "something." Well hells bells Titus, this isn't what you've been arguing. You didn't differentiate that "something" happened during the tenure of Roosevelt that forever changed our nation's 10 year depression cycle. You stated quite clearly in the most unambiguous terms, "New Deal worked because we haven't suffered a depression since." Not that "SOMETHING HAPPENED." For the love of Pete, how would that argument go over were I to champion the Reagan era? Many people have tried to convince me that Gorbachev was the saviour, that it was he that freed the peoples of the USSR and brought down the Soviet Empire. Would a competent response to this revisionist tripe about the old line commie be, "Reagan won it." My adversary asks, "how?" I say, "well, something happened during the 80's, so Reagan policy must have been responsible." WHAT??? Until this post of yours your posit wasn't that there existed a chronological coincidence, but rather a founding tenant, a leg in the stool you sat upon to champion New Deal was that it was New Deal itself that staved off future depressions, and thus it must have worked. How many thousands of times have you said as much? Now it's "something?" And perhaps not even FDR nor New Deal, now it's "something?"
May I posit something? You have no freaking idea why we haven't suffered a depression since, at least not at the time of your post, otherwise you would have stated such.
And look, I'm not knocking you for not knowing every intricacy of the world's most dynamic economy and the reasons we have not suffered a depression since WWII. If I had to reason such an answer off the top of my head I would assert that the globalization of the world's economies, the melding as it were, has had much to do with it. The "Mutually Assured Economic Destruction" as posited post WWII so as to prevent the world's armies from going to war has connected us in such a way that preventing any of the world's major economies from going into free fall has become defacto policy for 1st world nations (see the Greece bailout, for example).
To be honest I was set to counter your idea that New Deal was responsible for preventing future depressions by noting that most of New Deal didn't survive WWII, that they were temporary (most of them) programs in nature, so, "how could temporary programs protect the nation for 70 years?" was to be my point. Then I read your post and not only did you state such yourself, you flat out reverse your claim, and pre-concede that neither New Deal nor FDR may be responsible for staving off pre 1929 cycles of actual depressions these last 70 years. Like I said, I find this stunning since you have routinely used such a claim as one of the premier legs of defense in the New Deal stool.
Again, I interpret the Roosevelt Recession differently then you. FDR wasn't in a time of war, meaning a "healthy" economy should have not gone into spasms at the idea of a balanced budget. In fact a balanced federal budget typically has the opposite effect. The exception I would note is times of war - which is exactly how Reagan saw the US during his tenure. You are just flat wrong when you say he did not publicly advocate a balanced budget. He was supremely behind this (in fact if I remember correctly a balanced budget amendment originated with his "revolution"). His exception was times of war, such as the Cold War, which was as real as any in his view. In times of peace a balanced federal budget should not just be palatable to the private market, but welcomed.
LET ME SUMMARIZE: my interpretation of the 37'-38' recession is simply this - once FDR put the economy on government life support there was no clear path off without sending the economy into shock, which is why you don't do it in the first place. If New Deal was meant to be temporary (& work), then 7 years (roughly) after its original stages of implementation it should have been able to be withdrawn without the economy going into heroine withdrawals. Enter WWII as the sober tank in terms of dramatically reshaping the US economy. You can point to marked improvements throughout his tenure, but we can also cut a $1 million dollar check to each of the families living below the poverty line, and "solve" poverty too. The point is government propped economies, be they work programs etc, are all temporary, & their relief artificial, even to the point of prohibiting private (read: real) recovery. And simply left in place the end game is Greece.Thus govt interventionism in the name of "saving" the private market is doomed to failure long term. Whether we agree on the effects of New Deal specifically during the 30's or not I hope we can agree that New Deal oriented policy is NOT an effective long term solution to economic crisis. You also noted as #1 on your list, of what separated the GD and made it "great", was unemployment. Well, between my afore stated interpretation on the 37-38' recession; the fact that New Deal did not effectively tame or stabilize unemployment throughout FDR's pre WWII tenure; because the economic truism that New Deal style policy is not an effective long term strategy (& clearly had he lived, he would have gone into New Deal II, see that SoTU); and due to the fact that you have openly admitted New Deal did not stave off future depressions (only that "something" did), I find the term failure to describe FDR's domestic efforts a very apt term.
On the ideology ...
It is clear to me that FDR didn't just "smack" of socialism, he was a socialist. That SoTU address clearly states governments role in securing the means of production, for what other mechanism is there for "guaranteeing as a RIGHT" a descent home, a "useful and renumartive job", clothes, food, etc etc. I wasn't claiming that FDR was "anti-American", I'm claiming that he was saw the Constitution of the United States as fundamentally flawed document. I mean, did you not read that SoTU? I truly believe that he saw this second bill of rights as the true expression of quintessential Americanism. I'm saying that be it Ray, F. Glenn or me (& believe me, I'm not equating myself to them), that we don't recognize that as "American" in principle (& I doubt you do either). His vision was contrary to the American dream as constituted, not that he "hated" America, not that his heart was "anti" American," but rather what he layed out as his vision of America is contrary (I 9;d argue the exact opposite) of what the nation stood for as founded. That he was more than willing to sacrifice economic liberty for economic "security", and that is antithetical to the American ideal, as I see it.
But you didn't answer one question. You're right that socialism, communism and fascism were sweeping the world as a reaction to the global depression. I noted to James that soon after FDR's death we hurried to pass the XXII Amendment. Read that SoTU Address from 1944 again. Think of the power to get reelected before the war FDR possessed, and how amplified it would have been coming out on the other side as the successful CIC of WWII. If FDR lives well past the war, is it possible we may have lost the Republic? Easy to scoff and say "no" all these decades removed. But I urge you, really consider the power the man wielded, how unstoppable he would have been after winning the war in both theaters. And try to fully appreciate just how radical that 44' state of the union address was. Then ask yourself that question I did in my last - was FDR the closest we ever came to seeing a despot, had he lived?
I would make my own assertion, though, that while the "hands off" policies of Harding did nothing to prolong the problem, they also did nothing to prevent the problem from happening again. In fact, I think a good case can be made that, in the government's attempt to regain revenue lost in the tax cuts of 1920-1921, their implementation of tariff legislation not only did nothing to fix short-term problems but directly contributed to the disaster that was waiting in 1929.
First off, the wealth of our nation is not a finite pie in terms of raising tax revenue. You can lower taxes and raise revenue to the Treasury, as did Reagan, so tariffs or any other form of taxation should not be seen as "recovering lost revenue" due to tax cuts. It's a fundamental misperception on how our economy works. Now, Perhaps I'm wrong but the tariff I assume you're talking about is Smoot-Hawely. And yes it did directly contribute the woes of the Great Depression (hence forth summarized as "GD"), but it was signed into law the summer of 1930. It didn't contribute to the coming 29' crash. Hoover was attempting, misguidedly so, to stave off unemployment, post crash, by "protecting" American jobs. It made things worse, much much worse. This is why I find folly in the argument, "we tried laizze faire as a response to the GD, it didn't work." We did not. Hoover implemented public works (Hoover Dam) and higher taxes (the tariff for starters) as a response. FDR then came in and amped such efforts up to unprecedented levels. In other words Hoover's response was "FDR light." Tariffs and public works certainly aren't my definition of "hands off" nor "conservatism."
Now, to what I found stunning in your response ...
I have always contended that business was cyclical. Natural highs and lows (although I was unaware of the specific time table in your chart, but since its' acceptance it has only served to bolster my case, in my opinion). I contend that in times of economic crisis the fundamentals of lower taxes, less regulation, less spending (on behalf of govt) is the clear path out. And as such, New Deal, in its various incarnations not only did not solve the problems of the GD, but deepened them (by the way, you basically agree that this is the formulae for a path out but in this one instance of New Deal contend the opposite worked & I still don't know how you reconcile holding those 2 opinions simultaneously, but I digress ...).
We then go on to disagree about the numbers of the 1930's; what they portend; what the Roosevelt Recession revealed; the Constitutionality of various programs; the wisdom or lack thereof of SSI, and so on. And all that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree about such a mammoth time on our nation's history. But then you routinely assert something, and in such an impassioned tone, that I have taken it to represent the back bone of your argument, in that its' what you always go back to as your trump card (as you see it). And it is this: New Deal clearly worked because we haven't had a depression since, (later adding) after suffering them every decade since our founding."
So finally I said, ok, how? Chronological correlation does NOT denote causation I said. So I asked, what was it about New Deal that staved off all future depressions through to this this very moment in time. What about it stopped cold a ten year cycle of the previous 150+? Now bare in mind, this has become your proverbial "Ace in the hole" argument, as I have taken its' meaning. Yet here was your answer: "something." So as not to take it out of context let me display the statement in its' entirety:
"To argue that there is no difference between the economic climate before 1929 and that which came after is simply wrong. If you do even a little hunting, you can find that we suffered a depressed economy (rather than simply a recessed economy) at least once every 10 years since 1797... but haven't had even ONE since 1933 (the end of the '29 depression). Recessions yes, depressions no. Something in our regulation and control of market factors changed between 1928 and 1934 that has allowed the markets to continue to cycle, but without the extremes of scale ..."
Now I read on, expecting to find what that "something" was. But I instead was stunned by this:
"I do not even claim that it was "New Deal" that brought this change... only that it happened somewhere inside of the historical period marked by the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt ... "
"As already stated, I can't point to any ONE item on the list of New Deal programs or policies that fixed the "depression-boom" cycle (I'm using very general terms here... I don't contend that the cycle was ever broken, you understand). I am simply saying that something at a regulation-level has allowed our economy to continue to grow at a steady, even pace over the last 75 years without ever falling into a "depression" (again, in the technical sense of the term), and with recessions only lasting, on average, less than 24 months (until the current one, that is). Very little of the New Deal survived the end of WWII... as you pointed out... but NOT because they were overturned by the SCOTUS or later administrations. They were intended to be temporary measures, with limited scope and duration, as part of the three-step New Deal promise of "relief, recovery and reform."
You even seemingly suggested that perhaps the GOP was responsible for this "something." Well hells bells Titus, this isn't what you've been arguing. You didn't differentiate that "something" happened during the tenure of Roosevelt that forever changed our nation's 10 year depression cycle. You stated quite clearly in the most unambiguous terms, "New Deal worked because we haven't suffered a depression since." Not that "SOMETHING HAPPENED." For the love of Pete, how would that argument go over were I to champion the Reagan era? Many people have tried to convince me that Gorbachev was the saviour, that it was he that freed the peoples of the USSR and brought down the Soviet Empire. Would a competent response to this revisionist tripe about the old line commie be, "Reagan won it." My adversary asks, "how?" I say, "well, something happened during the 80's, so Reagan policy must have been responsible." WHAT??? Until this post of yours your posit wasn't that there existed a chronological coincidence, but rather a founding tenant, a leg in the stool you sat upon to champion New Deal was that it was New Deal itself that staved off future depressions, and thus it must have worked. How many thousands of times have you said as much? Now it's "something?" And perhaps not even FDR nor New Deal, now it's "something?"
May I posit something? You have no freaking idea why we haven't suffered a depression since, at least not at the time of your post, otherwise you would have stated such.
And look, I'm not knocking you for not knowing every intricacy of the world's most dynamic economy and the reasons we have not suffered a depression since WWII. If I had to reason such an answer off the top of my head I would assert that the globalization of the world's economies, the melding as it were, has had much to do with it. The "Mutually Assured Economic Destruction" as posited post WWII so as to prevent the world's armies from going to war has connected us in such a way that preventing any of the world's major economies from going into free fall has become defacto policy for 1st world nations (see the Greece bailout, for example).
To be honest I was set to counter your idea that New Deal was responsible for preventing future depressions by noting that most of New Deal didn't survive WWII, that they were temporary (most of them) programs in nature, so, "how could temporary programs protect the nation for 70 years?" was to be my point. Then I read your post and not only did you state such yourself, you flat out reverse your claim, and pre-concede that neither New Deal nor FDR may be responsible for staving off pre 1929 cycles of actual depressions these last 70 years. Like I said, I find this stunning since you have routinely used such a claim as one of the premier legs of defense in the New Deal stool.
Again, I interpret the Roosevelt Recession differently then you. FDR wasn't in a time of war, meaning a "healthy" economy should have not gone into spasms at the idea of a balanced budget. In fact a balanced federal budget typically has the opposite effect. The exception I would note is times of war - which is exactly how Reagan saw the US during his tenure. You are just flat wrong when you say he did not publicly advocate a balanced budget. He was supremely behind this (in fact if I remember correctly a balanced budget amendment originated with his "revolution"). His exception was times of war, such as the Cold War, which was as real as any in his view. In times of peace a balanced federal budget should not just be palatable to the private market, but welcomed.
LET ME SUMMARIZE: my interpretation of the 37'-38' recession is simply this - once FDR put the economy on government life support there was no clear path off without sending the economy into shock, which is why you don't do it in the first place. If New Deal was meant to be temporary (& work), then 7 years (roughly) after its original stages of implementation it should have been able to be withdrawn without the economy going into heroine withdrawals. Enter WWII as the sober tank in terms of dramatically reshaping the US economy. You can point to marked improvements throughout his tenure, but we can also cut a $1 million dollar check to each of the families living below the poverty line, and "solve" poverty too. The point is government propped economies, be they work programs etc, are all temporary, & their relief artificial, even to the point of prohibiting private (read: real) recovery. And simply left in place the end game is Greece.Thus govt interventionism in the name of "saving" the private market is doomed to failure long term. Whether we agree on the effects of New Deal specifically during the 30's or not I hope we can agree that New Deal oriented policy is NOT an effective long term solution to economic crisis. You also noted as #1 on your list, of what separated the GD and made it "great", was unemployment. Well, between my afore stated interpretation on the 37-38' recession; the fact that New Deal did not effectively tame or stabilize unemployment throughout FDR's pre WWII tenure; because the economic truism that New Deal style policy is not an effective long term strategy (& clearly had he lived, he would have gone into New Deal II, see that SoTU); and due to the fact that you have openly admitted New Deal did not stave off future depressions (only that "something" did), I find the term failure to describe FDR's domestic efforts a very apt term.
On the ideology ...
It is clear to me that FDR didn't just "smack" of socialism, he was a socialist. That SoTU address clearly states governments role in securing the means of production, for what other mechanism is there for "guaranteeing as a RIGHT" a descent home, a "useful and renumartive job", clothes, food, etc etc. I wasn't claiming that FDR was "anti-American", I'm claiming that he was saw the Constitution of the United States as fundamentally flawed document. I mean, did you not read that SoTU? I truly believe that he saw this second bill of rights as the true expression of quintessential Americanism. I'm saying that be it Ray, F. Glenn or me (& believe me, I'm not equating myself to them), that we don't recognize that as "American" in principle (& I doubt you do either). His vision was contrary to the American dream as constituted, not that he "hated" America, not that his heart was "anti" American," but rather what he layed out as his vision of America is contrary (I 9;d argue the exact opposite) of what the nation stood for as founded. That he was more than willing to sacrifice economic liberty for economic "security", and that is antithetical to the American ideal, as I see it.
But you didn't answer one question. You're right that socialism, communism and fascism were sweeping the world as a reaction to the global depression. I noted to James that soon after FDR's death we hurried to pass the XXII Amendment. Read that SoTU Address from 1944 again. Think of the power to get reelected before the war FDR possessed, and how amplified it would have been coming out on the other side as the successful CIC of WWII. If FDR lives well past the war, is it possible we may have lost the Republic? Easy to scoff and say "no" all these decades removed. But I urge you, really consider the power the man wielded, how unstoppable he would have been after winning the war in both theaters. And try to fully appreciate just how radical that 44' state of the union address was. Then ask yourself that question I did in my last - was FDR the closest we ever came to seeing a despot, had he lived?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
