New at Reason
Jesse Walker beseeches the Democrats to recover the spirit of FDR—FDR circa 1932, not 1933.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Cesar | April 10, 2008, 12:27pm | #
Thanks for pointing out FDR was a strong free-trader. Its amazing how many Democrats forget that he, Truman, and Kennedy were all strongly pro-free trade.His Latin American policy pre-1940 (which overturned the imperialist bull his cousin carried out) was also good.
Thats probably the only two nice things I'll say about FDR, though.
ABC | April 10, 2008, 12:32pm | #
Track record, track record, track record.Elemenope | April 10, 2008, 12:39pm | #
Track record, track record, track record.Indeed. Track record predicted well how Earl Warren was to vote in Brown v. Board, didn't it.
economist | April 10, 2008, 12:39pm | #
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnsons, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I "the budget hawk" are also forgotten men. Balancing the budget sounds good until constituents complain about not getting government money. I actually wonder how history might have turned out differently if FDR had stuck t o 1932 platform, having read about this before.fyodor | April 10, 2008, 12:41pm | #
I guess this is why Jesse votes for Donald Duck! :-)I wonder if there's any way to do a more long-term study candidates's stated campaign positions (and/or track record, thank you, ABC) versus their performance in office to see if Jesse's FDR example is representative or unique or closer to one or the other.
Casey Serin | April 10, 2008, 12:43pm | #
FDR was a wheelchair-bound gay man who had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor, and September 11th to boot... not that there's anything wrong with that!Jesse Walker | April 10, 2008, 12:44pm | #
Thats probably the only two nice things I'll say about FDR, though.Hey - give a little love for Repeal...
Jamie Kelly | April 10, 2008, 1:18pm | #
Hey - give a little love for Repeal...Bullshit. That gave us drunk-driving laws. ;-)
I think the article is a reminder that politicians will say whatever they think needs to be said to get elected. What they do once elected is repay the favor's owed to those who financed them. I know that I am not the only person who see's the recent swtiches to the Libertarian Party as a modern day "Oklahoma land grab". With candidates seeing the LP's ballot access as a means to establish themselves on a national level. Now maybe that's just the way it is. If the LP decides to go with a Barr or a Gravel, well the majority does rule and we have to accept that. I would hope that the entire LP could really get behind a candidate who would really give American's a different choice and usher in the kind of change FDR promised. MIichael Jingozian is not a Senator or a former Congressman. Nor is he a former Democrat or Republican. No he is not a media darling or a household name but he could become one. Yes i am a supporter because i believe we do need someone with business experience and we do need someone with political experience. If you would like some more information on the Jingozian campaign go to www.resetamerica.com
Bramblyspam | April 10, 2008, 1:41pm | #
I have long dreamed of having candidates sign legally binding contracts, stating that they will resign their office under certain precisely specified conditions.Yeah, I don't see it happening, but I can always dream.
nanny | April 10, 2008, 1:45pm | #
how can you say probhibition was bad? it was just a reward for the big brewing companiesw tthat supported his campaign. everybody knows that butyou're comveering it up jsut like youcovered up studes showing secondhand smoke causes cancer!!!!! you people dont care about drinking problems and alcoholism and how it affects the community. and your trying to do the same thing to the nations other drug laws. people in afghanistan who grow opium poppies ought to be shot.Is nanny serious or is that tongue in cheek? If she is serious, her name fits her.
NeonCat | April 10, 2008, 2:02pm | #
"All politicians are liars and nothing they say should ever be believed."-I.F. Stone (I think)Stan | April 10, 2008, 2:13pm | #
bookworm: Is nanny serious or is that tongue in cheek? If she is serious, her name fits her.nanny's serious. And I'm really the real Stan. No, really.
person who recently posted as nanny | April 10, 2008, 2:15pm | #
I'm joking. And it should be "the repeal of prohibition was just a favor to the big brewing companies". My bad.eedwaered jkeneneandedy | April 10, 2008, 2:16pm | #
i oppssedda teh propoghibiatioon on tehh abassis thhthat therehhe would be ellesls whiskshkey for the resthkl; of susussus scukkeksrs who follalwa thheh alwlaw.Andy P | April 10, 2008, 2:21pm | #
My professor wrote a book on the 'issue uptake', http://www.amazon.com/Issue-Politics-Congress-Tracy-Sulkin/dp/0521671329One of her findings is that whether an elected official keeps their campaign promises is directly related to their electoral vulnerability. Thus, FDR's decade long run would not pressure him much at all to keep campaign promises.
TallDave | April 10, 2008, 2:32pm | #
Heh, I hadn't realized how libertarian FDR started out.I especially liked the part about ending Prohibition.
Craig | April 10, 2008, 3:24pm | #
I have long dreamed of having candidates sign legally binding contracts...I'm still waiting for the IRS and the Social Security Administration to sign legally binding contracts with me before they garnish my wages.
Alan Vanneman | April 10, 2008, 3:39pm | #
"By not having strong convictions on global affairs in the first place, allowing neoconservative advisers to fill the void after the 9/11 attacks."I'm seriously anti-neocon, but they don't deserve this rap. It was Cheney and Rumsfeld who chose Wolfowitz, Libby, et al., and it was Bush who gladly chose for himself the messianic megalomaniac role of global "decider". The voices of reason, like Powell, were frozen out. Those who told Bush what he wanted to hear (Condi, of course), replaced them. The neocons were enablers, not initiators.
John C. Randolph | April 10, 2008, 4:19pm | #
So, in addition to being a fascist, FDR was a hypocrite. Good to know.-jcr
economist | April 10, 2008, 5:04pm | #
JCR,FDR had more of the "socialist-progressive" in him than "fascist". But the two aren't that far apart anyway, being separated only by a more aggressive militarism.
economist | April 10, 2008, 5:05pm | #
Incidentally, I'm surprised joe hasn't come yet to defend FDR and the New Deal.John C. Randolph | April 10, 2008, 5:33pm | #
FDR had more of the "socialist-progressive" in him than "fascist".Tell it to Korematsu, and all of the other US citizens that he rounded up and put in concentration camps.
-jcr
economist | April 10, 2008, 5:44pm | #
jcr,That's true, I didn't think about that. However, if we really want to go back to the source of fascism in this country, I think TR gets the prize. Nationalistic, socialistis (called "progressive" at the time), put them together and you get...
economist | April 10, 2008, 5:59pm | #
Sorry, it's supposed to be "socialistic" not "socialistis".FDR | April 10, 2008, 6:29pm | #
"First, we're going to forcibly take all your gold from you- and pay you $20.67/oz.""Next, we'll make it 'illegal' for you to even own gold."
"Gold is now worth $35/oz!"
Daniel | April 10, 2008, 9:14pm | #
In quasi-defense of W's flipflopping on the "humble foreign policy," there was that little intervening circumstance of 9/11. Perfectly debatable whether his foreign policy since then has been effective, but under certain circumstances politicians rightly throw their campaign platforms to the side. Al Gore, in a sense, certainly did. That is, in his 2000 campaign, and throughout his tenure as VP, he sounded very much like a neocon. (Isn't there that youtube clip right out of the bizarro world comparing statements from Cheney and Gore on Iraq in the 90's).Likewise with Roosevelt. It was one thing to pledge non-intervention in foreign affairs in 1932. Things changed just a tad by 1940, such that it probably made sense not to adhere stubbornly to the party platform from eight years earlier.
Jim Walsh | April 10, 2008, 10:32pm | #
Good point about FDR the candidate vs. FDR the president (though it begs the question: how the hell do we know who to vote for?)...I've had a theory about this for some time: if you're gonna bother with voting, you should vote for the person who least represents what you stand for.
In other words, if you want peace with China, vote for Nixon...
shrike | April 11, 2008, 1:33pm | #
So Bush the Lesser = Hoover + Iraq Disaster.Fair enough since I had no idea about Hoover's foreclosure/lending actions --.
But Bush is the real fascist also - never forget the prescient Lewis statement, "when fascism comes to America it will be waving a flag and carrying a cross".
I recently read 'American Fascists' by Chris Hedges - a very astute look at the religious right.
that quote is by Upton Sinclair, btw - remarkable and ironic that I credited his rival with it.
Mike | April 12, 2008, 3:02pm | #
@Shrike,That's Sinclair Lewis, not Upton Sinclair...two separate people......one's a liar, btw.
Oddy | April 12, 2008, 8:11pm | #
According to Wiki "Roosevelt entered the (New York State) governorship with a $15 million budget surplus left by previous governor Al Smith and left the state with a $90 million deficit." due mostly to a slew of new relief and "stimulus" programs.So I don't know why anyone would have expected anything else could happen at the Federal level after his election as President.
ABC | April 15, 2008, 12:49pm | #
"Indeed. Track record predicted well how Earl Warren was to vote in Brown v. Board, didn't it."Never said it's a 100% accurate, but if someone is for example a governor with a record of not vetoing tax raises and then claims that he'll veto federal tax bills as president then you might want to be a bit more suspicious