Titus, seriously, you can't have it both ways ... and in two areas no less.
First, you can't on the one hand tell me that the programs and laws passed under FDR that have benefited the US in the 80 years since ARE a part of the Roosevelt legacy, yet the programs and initiatives that were utter failures or were unsustainable in the 80 years since are the fault of subsequent administrations, and not part of the FDR legacy. For example, either he gets the credit for the FDIC and the blame for SSI, or he gets neither. If subsequent administrations get the blame for screwing up his "brilliant" policies that averted another catastrophic depression, then subsequent administrations get the credit for keeping in place, shoring up, and expanding the successes. You don't get to have your WPA cake and eat it too.
Second - what you're telling me is that without actually saying the words "I don't like America", President Barack Obama has demonstrated to you that he does not like America? Ok, fine. But PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, look at the examples you cited which have convinced you of this reality, and tell me I can't make the same case - based on your standard - about FDR. Obama in a 2000 Chicago NPR interview, as an Illinois state senator, described the Bill of Rights as a "charter of negative liberties." I was the first to criticize that description here, and in fact I linked to the You Tube audio on this very site. He went even further to say that instead of simply saying what the government can't do "to you", that it should state what it "must do on your behalf." Dear Lord in Heaven Titus - FDR went on national radio, as a sitting US President, and not only offered a rhetorical critique of the Bill of Rights, but went so far as to actually LIST those things the government "should do on your behalf." In fact he didn't just list them, he actually called them a "2nd Bill of Rights." That's going much, much further. You think Obama is arrogant and disapproves of the nation as founded? FDR in essence said, yeah Jefferson and the boys, they almost got it right, here's what they should of added. FDR was also much more prone to ignore the Constitutional limits on his office - you acknowledge the disaster that was court packing, then move on, as if it was unrelated to New Deal. That's like Obama trying to add 2 justices now so as to keep intact the individual mandate and then an apologist acting as if it was unrelated to Obamacare - we'd cry for his impeachment! Again I urge you, think about what you're defending. It was New Deal's (the policies you describe as an overall "success") continual slap down that prompted the court packing attempt. It's as much a part of New Deal legacy as the TVA. Brother, the bootom line is the collectivist, big government, planned economy model that Obama advocates is LIGHT YEARS less radical (leftward) than FDR's. For example, Obama is getting roundly criticized right now (and rightly so) for this gimmick called "The Buffet Rule." Yes, lets base an entire nation's tax policy on one secretary's returns, but don't bother to release her returns... whatever. The point is that you could raise Warren Buffet's income tax rate to 100% and he would still pay zero. He doesn't earn an "income" as defined by the IRS. Obama knows this, and he's getting hammered because in essence he wants to raise capital gains to be on par with income tax. And you oppose this as doomed to fail, and worse, not capable of raising the desired revenue to state coffers. FDR advocated a 100% tax, let me repeat - A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT TAX - on all monies earned as income above $250k. Who's the "radical leftist" here?Again, I ask you, stop defending the war time president and think about the economic policy/ideology you are defending in FDR, whilst simultaneously criticizing Obama's. You don't like tossing around the word "socialist" because you think it shuts off debate rather than encourages it - fine, fair enough. But I urge you to reread that second bill of rights and look at the economic model Roosevelt advocated - CLEARLY the man defined "freedom" differently than you or I. Freedom from want, freedom from worry, freedom from choice is ultimately what he was advocating. You can claim "he meant well", or that it was a desperate response to desperate times, I'll accept any of those motivations. What I can not accept is your defending FDR as an overall economic "success" while hounding Obama for proposing much, much less radical policies. If New Deal was an overall success then you need to reexamine your political ideology, the two do not match.
You noted that my assertion "they're cut from the same mold" was (I'm paraphrasing) too broad, because FDR didn't "hate" America. Ok, fine. Perhaps I should have said the same "economic mold", or "Constituional mold." Because buddy, FDR clearly, clearly saw the Constitution as a flawed document. As something to overcome, to "progress" past. FDR was literally trying to reshape the US economic model because he felt justified (amidst the Depression this might be easy to do) in calling the model set forth thus far a "failure." Now let me make this point clearly - did FDR "hate" America? I don't think so. My point is though, if there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict Obama of not approving of America as founded, then there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict FDR of the same thing; and there's certainly enough evidence to describe FDR as a definitional "socialist."
Whatever the motivation of the two men - one born of desperate times and seemingly irrefutable proof that the US economic model was a failure; or one born of a Marxist, communist rearing - they clearly share the idea that the Founders didn't quite get it right. That the Constitution was inadequate to match the needs of the time in which they lived. That if given enough time and power THEY could make those necessary corrections to the founding fabric of our nation and set the US on a course more sound than what the Founders intended.
The bottom line is, no matter how far down the wrong road you think Obama is when it comes to economic policy, and how incorrectly he views the proper distribution of wealth and resources, FDR was - in almost every instance - much, much further down that wrong road.
I'll close the way I started - my dear, dear friend, think about what you're defending. Away from D-Day, away from VE Day, away from "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", and just put the man's economic policies and ideological inclinations into another body, another face, another person, and tell me you wouldn't oppose THAT MAN on every level. That you wouldn't decry as doomed to fail such top down initiatives. That you wouldn't see any gains occurring within the time period of those policies as a mirage, or in spite of, rather than because of such policies. You can't possibly stand for what you do today and maintain that the policies of the 1930's "worked." How can you oppose success? Everything you are, everything you believe to be true about the proper functioning of economics and man's right to self-rule is in diametric opposition to the President... you tell me which president I'm talking about, Obama or FDR?
What continues to baffle me is that in 2012 you oppose - in both principle and practical application - what you claim was an overall "success" under FDR. If it worked then, why do you stand for its' polar opposite today? Why not advocate for our generation what was a proven success in the 1930's? And just for the record, I think it is fair (even if I disagree) to argue that even if New Deal was an overall "failure", that his presidency was an overall "success." I mean, you still have that little thing called WWII to point to... I'm just saying.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Your list...
Wilson, Jackson, FDR, Grant and Carter... the worst five Presidents in US history, according to F. Ryan.
Obviously, I am aware of the percentage of progressives on the list... 60%. Also, that 60% of the list are 20th Century Presidents. Wilson is the worst because he was the most progressive President until FDR, and FDR only remained third-worst because of his leadership during WWII... am I right? I'm no fan of Wilson, and it pains me to ask this, but I'm looking to understand better why he makes the worst of the worst list.
Wilson was a progressive... liberal, leftist, centralist, statist, call it what you will... and ushered in the busiest 100 days the country had seen in decades, unrivaled in the 20th Century until FDR was sworn in, in fact. He did more to change the Fed than anyone had in the 35 years before him. I'm curious as to what changes he made that were so bad. The anti-trust laws? The Federal Reserve? The income tax? The League of Nations?
His anti-trust actions were (in my eyes) simply an extension of what the Republicans had been doing under Roosevelt and Taft... and Wilson only did it to pander to the right. The Federal Reserve was, is and will continue to be the best means by which we can regulate our national currency and national debt that I have heard of. Failings within the early years of its existence were fixed in the 1930s, and the Reserve has proven itself time and time again since then. The income tax was a means by which Wilson could lower tariffs across the board without reducing Federal revenues... and proved to be a necessary evil in light of the cost of fighting and winning WWI. The League of Nations was a failure from the moment it was conceived... it was so impotent and twisted that it couldn't have infringed on a nation's sovereignty if it had wanted to, and was little more than a means for the US and other signatory nations to meet in a single room and waste breath.
I'm asking what it was that he did as President that makes him dead last? He's low on my list, too, mind you... so don't think I'm defending him. In fact, here's my last five:
Out of 42 past Presidents...
38) John Tyler
39) Millard Filmore
40) Franklin Pierce
41) James Buchanan
42) Andrew Johnson
Wilson comes in at #29... Carter at #35... Nixon at #37... Grant at #31... and FDR is sitting pretty at #7.
Obviously, my list is centered around what I still believe to be the single most divisive period in American history... the Civil War. The three Presidents preceding Lincoln did nothing to stop the conflict and actually might have sped it up, while Johnson coddled the radical Republican wing of Congress and turned Reconstruction into Federal retribution, souring relations between North and South for another 50 years. That's why Lincoln is #2 on my list, behind Washington.
I can't think of another President that fundamentally changed the role of Executive authority in this country more than Lincoln... and he changed it forever (meaning until today). Not Wilson, not FDR, and certainly not Obama... yet he is hands-down one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known, let alone the US. Is it only because you so despise anything and everything "progressive" that things like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Highway system, TVA, SSI and the dismembering of Ma Bell are seen as utterly evil, but Lincoln is lauded as "great"?
This isn't me trying to pick a fight... and you don't even have to answer. I know your positions on this topic, and this isn't anything we haven't talked about before, but if you wanted to continue... that's what I'm asking.
Obviously, I am aware of the percentage of progressives on the list... 60%. Also, that 60% of the list are 20th Century Presidents. Wilson is the worst because he was the most progressive President until FDR, and FDR only remained third-worst because of his leadership during WWII... am I right? I'm no fan of Wilson, and it pains me to ask this, but I'm looking to understand better why he makes the worst of the worst list.
Wilson was a progressive... liberal, leftist, centralist, statist, call it what you will... and ushered in the busiest 100 days the country had seen in decades, unrivaled in the 20th Century until FDR was sworn in, in fact. He did more to change the Fed than anyone had in the 35 years before him. I'm curious as to what changes he made that were so bad. The anti-trust laws? The Federal Reserve? The income tax? The League of Nations?
His anti-trust actions were (in my eyes) simply an extension of what the Republicans had been doing under Roosevelt and Taft... and Wilson only did it to pander to the right. The Federal Reserve was, is and will continue to be the best means by which we can regulate our national currency and national debt that I have heard of. Failings within the early years of its existence were fixed in the 1930s, and the Reserve has proven itself time and time again since then. The income tax was a means by which Wilson could lower tariffs across the board without reducing Federal revenues... and proved to be a necessary evil in light of the cost of fighting and winning WWI. The League of Nations was a failure from the moment it was conceived... it was so impotent and twisted that it couldn't have infringed on a nation's sovereignty if it had wanted to, and was little more than a means for the US and other signatory nations to meet in a single room and waste breath.
I'm asking what it was that he did as President that makes him dead last? He's low on my list, too, mind you... so don't think I'm defending him. In fact, here's my last five:
Out of 42 past Presidents...
38) John Tyler
39) Millard Filmore
40) Franklin Pierce
41) James Buchanan
42) Andrew Johnson
Wilson comes in at #29... Carter at #35... Nixon at #37... Grant at #31... and FDR is sitting pretty at #7.
Obviously, my list is centered around what I still believe to be the single most divisive period in American history... the Civil War. The three Presidents preceding Lincoln did nothing to stop the conflict and actually might have sped it up, while Johnson coddled the radical Republican wing of Congress and turned Reconstruction into Federal retribution, souring relations between North and South for another 50 years. That's why Lincoln is #2 on my list, behind Washington.
I can't think of another President that fundamentally changed the role of Executive authority in this country more than Lincoln... and he changed it forever (meaning until today). Not Wilson, not FDR, and certainly not Obama... yet he is hands-down one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known, let alone the US. Is it only because you so despise anything and everything "progressive" that things like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Highway system, TVA, SSI and the dismembering of Ma Bell are seen as utterly evil, but Lincoln is lauded as "great"?
This isn't me trying to pick a fight... and you don't even have to answer. I know your positions on this topic, and this isn't anything we haven't talked about before, but if you wanted to continue... that's what I'm asking.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Just one more...
Ryan wrote: " In every measurable way - apart from an open hostility to Christianity - the two men (Obama and FDR) are cut from the same ideological cloth."
I disagree in one more very important area than just Christianity.
I think FDR knew this country was great, before he came to office, while he was in office and all that would come after he left office. FDR was proud to be an American, and he was able to instill that pride and confidence in the American people in a way that Obama never will be able to. Did FDR ever fail to salute the flag? Would he have refused to where a lapel pin? Would he not put his hand over his heart? Did he hesitate to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety? (I'm not even sure the Pledge existed then... but that's a side note)
He proposed the "second bill of rights" in 1944 to further guarantee the economic and fiscal equality of all Americans as they conducted their lives and followed the "pursuit of happiness"... but he didn't ever suggest that the Constitution was "flawed" or that it was a "charter of negative liberties". Yes, he did try and stack the SCotUS... and was soundly bitch-slapped by both the Court and the American public opinion polls. That was the ONLY time he chose to cross the SCotUS... otherwise, he played nice whenever they shot down his programs or policies.
I won't now, nor have I ever berated Obama for taking shots at either Congress or the Supreme Court when things haven't gone his way... it is what I would do, I can promise you that. My problem with Obama is that he has, from the very start of his Presidential run, shown me that he doesn't like the US... that he isn't proud to be an American... and that he has little to no time for those that do like the US and what she stands for.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel... we just need to fix the wheels we have. Obama wants to rewrite the books on more things than I care to imagine, and that is why I don't like him. Perhaps FDR was the same way to those sitting in their living rooms listening to the fireside chats in 1933... I KNOW my paternal grandparents hated him, and continued to hate him well into the 1980s... but someone was voting for him in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. Can we discount that now, just because we don't like what his policies have become 80 years later?
I disagree in one more very important area than just Christianity.
I think FDR knew this country was great, before he came to office, while he was in office and all that would come after he left office. FDR was proud to be an American, and he was able to instill that pride and confidence in the American people in a way that Obama never will be able to. Did FDR ever fail to salute the flag? Would he have refused to where a lapel pin? Would he not put his hand over his heart? Did he hesitate to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety? (I'm not even sure the Pledge existed then... but that's a side note)
He proposed the "second bill of rights" in 1944 to further guarantee the economic and fiscal equality of all Americans as they conducted their lives and followed the "pursuit of happiness"... but he didn't ever suggest that the Constitution was "flawed" or that it was a "charter of negative liberties". Yes, he did try and stack the SCotUS... and was soundly bitch-slapped by both the Court and the American public opinion polls. That was the ONLY time he chose to cross the SCotUS... otherwise, he played nice whenever they shot down his programs or policies.
I won't now, nor have I ever berated Obama for taking shots at either Congress or the Supreme Court when things haven't gone his way... it is what I would do, I can promise you that. My problem with Obama is that he has, from the very start of his Presidential run, shown me that he doesn't like the US... that he isn't proud to be an American... and that he has little to no time for those that do like the US and what she stands for.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel... we just need to fix the wheels we have. Obama wants to rewrite the books on more things than I care to imagine, and that is why I don't like him. Perhaps FDR was the same way to those sitting in their living rooms listening to the fireside chats in 1933... I KNOW my paternal grandparents hated him, and continued to hate him well into the 1980s... but someone was voting for him in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. Can we discount that now, just because we don't like what his policies have become 80 years later?
That's better...
Missed you, my man!
All kidding aside, this doesn't have to be a "New Deal" beef... really. I'm okay with your holding the views you do. You think I'm wrong, and I think you are wrong. Nothing new there, right?
I'll touch on a few small points, then I'll let it go... I think the list is more productive than the fight over New Deal.
Why do I defend New Deal and rip Obama? Why is the former a success and the latter a failure? Why not a New New Deal to defeat the Great Recession?
First of all, I'm of the opinion that 90% of everything in the New Deal of 1932 was designed to end within 8 years, and anything that lasted longer than that could only do so by Congressional approval. By '41 nothing was left of the ABC programs that were always intended to be "temporary" fixes to bigger issues. Nothing.
Secondly, there were fundamental, paradigm-changing portions of New Deal... Social Security first and foremost on the list. You say it was socialized retirement, but I say it was exactly what the name implies... a Federal insurance program to supplement elderly American's income in case of a fiscal crisis the likes of which had occurred every 14 years (like clockwork) since 1790. Even when I was a kid, SSI was NOT seen as the ONLY means to survive into retirement... both my grandfathers had pensions and savings in addition to whatever benefits SSI was bringing in at the end of the month, and it was always my understanding that I would have the same. Were this NOT the case, then why were companies and industries like the Great Northern Railroad or Grain Belt Brewing Company offering retirement packages even though everyone by 1950 was paying into SSI? Why wouldn't they just give them the watch and the handshake and say "Well Done!" after 35 years of dedicated service?
In short, you see SSI for what the liberal, leftists in this nation have made it out to be TODAY, while I defend what it was in 1933... insurance against disasters like the Great Depression.
Lastly, why not a NEW New Deal? Because what needed to be changed in 1929 to prevent another depression is still working just fine. How can I say that? Since 1929... no new depressions. Only 5 real recessions (and all of those due to Democratic policies), one of which was in 1938 as you pointed out. But another was in 1982... during the Reagan years... and I don't blame Reagan for that, do I? Taxes had already been lowered to levels never before seen in the 20th Century... yet we had a recession in 1982. Not in 1979, but in 1982... so doesn't that mean that not EVERY single bump-in-the-road that gets labeled a recession is the result of liberal, progressive, Democratic (call it what you will) policies?
FDR was a radically different sort of President than any that had come before him... but he isn't the only one that can say that, and that isn't always a bad thing. Lincoln broke some molds, too... as did Reagan. Both expanded the scope of government, both watch government grow in size and cost, and both did so to see the country through a terrible crisis. Both of them are seen as "great" on our lists, because they did what had to be done to see their vision through. No other President in history was re-elected as many times as FDR, so he must have been doing something right by someone other than F. Ryan... and I don't see how that can't count for something when ranking them in a historical list.
All kidding aside, this doesn't have to be a "New Deal" beef... really. I'm okay with your holding the views you do. You think I'm wrong, and I think you are wrong. Nothing new there, right?
I'll touch on a few small points, then I'll let it go... I think the list is more productive than the fight over New Deal.
Why do I defend New Deal and rip Obama? Why is the former a success and the latter a failure? Why not a New New Deal to defeat the Great Recession?
First of all, I'm of the opinion that 90% of everything in the New Deal of 1932 was designed to end within 8 years, and anything that lasted longer than that could only do so by Congressional approval. By '41 nothing was left of the ABC programs that were always intended to be "temporary" fixes to bigger issues. Nothing.
Secondly, there were fundamental, paradigm-changing portions of New Deal... Social Security first and foremost on the list. You say it was socialized retirement, but I say it was exactly what the name implies... a Federal insurance program to supplement elderly American's income in case of a fiscal crisis the likes of which had occurred every 14 years (like clockwork) since 1790. Even when I was a kid, SSI was NOT seen as the ONLY means to survive into retirement... both my grandfathers had pensions and savings in addition to whatever benefits SSI was bringing in at the end of the month, and it was always my understanding that I would have the same. Were this NOT the case, then why were companies and industries like the Great Northern Railroad or Grain Belt Brewing Company offering retirement packages even though everyone by 1950 was paying into SSI? Why wouldn't they just give them the watch and the handshake and say "Well Done!" after 35 years of dedicated service?
In short, you see SSI for what the liberal, leftists in this nation have made it out to be TODAY, while I defend what it was in 1933... insurance against disasters like the Great Depression.
Lastly, why not a NEW New Deal? Because what needed to be changed in 1929 to prevent another depression is still working just fine. How can I say that? Since 1929... no new depressions. Only 5 real recessions (and all of those due to Democratic policies), one of which was in 1938 as you pointed out. But another was in 1982... during the Reagan years... and I don't blame Reagan for that, do I? Taxes had already been lowered to levels never before seen in the 20th Century... yet we had a recession in 1982. Not in 1979, but in 1982... so doesn't that mean that not EVERY single bump-in-the-road that gets labeled a recession is the result of liberal, progressive, Democratic (call it what you will) policies?
FDR was a radically different sort of President than any that had come before him... but he isn't the only one that can say that, and that isn't always a bad thing. Lincoln broke some molds, too... as did Reagan. Both expanded the scope of government, both watch government grow in size and cost, and both did so to see the country through a terrible crisis. Both of them are seen as "great" on our lists, because they did what had to be done to see their vision through. No other President in history was re-elected as many times as FDR, so he must have been doing something right by someone other than F. Ryan... and I don't see how that can't count for something when ranking them in a historical list.
I just want to add...
I think the reason you have been able, to date, to rate FDR's economic policy as an overall "success", yet still rip Obama, is simple. The justified admiration you have for FDR as a war time president, his many successes there, being at the helm when the US defeated literal evil, has allowed you more mental latitude (if that makes sense) on how you define "success" for FDR, than you have for Obama. That happens. It's happened to me.
You take WWII out of it (a mammoth take, I admit), and I think you would be here annihilating New Deal the same way you have (in its' premise and real time results) Obama's intiatives. And that's all I ever wanted to "win" here, your concession on FDR's economic policy, not his overall presidency.
You take WWII out of it (a mammoth take, I admit), and I think you would be here annihilating New Deal the same way you have (in its' premise and real time results) Obama's intiatives. And that's all I ever wanted to "win" here, your concession on FDR's economic policy, not his overall presidency.
I'm so disappointed...
It hurts to find out that Ryan would avoid posting because he can't bring himself to start another fight over whether or not FDR was the worst President in US history.
Dude... man up or turn in your Bund membership card.
Anyone reading this knows my stance on New Deal, and also knows Ryan's stance on New Deal. Rank him as you see fit... it's only fair and it IS an opinion-based question. Voice yours all you want, but please be ready to defend your position, that's all.
Let's assume New Deal is all that Ryan said it was: the sole reason that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did, and the biggest brake on US economic expansion in US history. Ryan seems to have told Jambo that this ALONE puts FDR in the bottom 5% of the list of greatest Presidents... even though he led the country through WWII. Doesn't that count for anything? No President after FDR until Reagan broke the New Deal mold... should they all be ranked lower because they supported or expanded New Deal policy? Eisenhower's Federal Highway program? His expansion of the Federal welfare system? Nixon's signing into existence the EPA and OSHA should drag him even lower than Watergate, right?
I'm willing to stick to what is measurable and specific... no what-ifs in this question. FDR led the nation through what is arguably the second toughest period of American history, after only the Civil War... and he did it successfully. Was it the BEST way to go? Perhaps not... but it worked, and that surely must count for something.
Besides... Ryan doesn't even know where I ranked FDR. He might be surprised...
Dude... man up or turn in your Bund membership card.
Anyone reading this knows my stance on New Deal, and also knows Ryan's stance on New Deal. Rank him as you see fit... it's only fair and it IS an opinion-based question. Voice yours all you want, but please be ready to defend your position, that's all.
Let's assume New Deal is all that Ryan said it was: the sole reason that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did, and the biggest brake on US economic expansion in US history. Ryan seems to have told Jambo that this ALONE puts FDR in the bottom 5% of the list of greatest Presidents... even though he led the country through WWII. Doesn't that count for anything? No President after FDR until Reagan broke the New Deal mold... should they all be ranked lower because they supported or expanded New Deal policy? Eisenhower's Federal Highway program? His expansion of the Federal welfare system? Nixon's signing into existence the EPA and OSHA should drag him even lower than Watergate, right?
I'm willing to stick to what is measurable and specific... no what-ifs in this question. FDR led the nation through what is arguably the second toughest period of American history, after only the Civil War... and he did it successfully. Was it the BEST way to go? Perhaps not... but it worked, and that surely must count for something.
Besides... Ryan doesn't even know where I ranked FDR. He might be surprised...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
