Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate

[MannyGoldstein]

"They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House--by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.

Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate. Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America's working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them."

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[DJ13]

1. Oh no, not another Hillary thread.....

[global1]

2. I Thought This Was About Colbert....nt (sarcasm)

[mylye2222]

66. I thought it was about Kerry. Or Dukakis. ....:d:d

Weren't they among the most so called "unpopular " Dem nominees ????

[randome]

3. Yeah, the 1930s were trippy, all right.

3.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[99Forever]

4. Thanks Manny.

Thom Hartmann plays parts of this superb FDR address often, so the title was familiar to me. A powerful reminder of what OUR party once stood for and thrived with.

[sabrina 1]

5. Didn't they plot to assassinate him also?

[zeemike]

11. The Business Plot

The Business Plot was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933. Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler claimed that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Butler as leader of that organization. In 1934, Butler testified to the Special Committee on Un-American Activities Congressional committee (the "McCormack-Dickstein Committee&quot on these claims.[1] In the opinion of the committee, these allegations were credible.[2] No one was prosecuted.

At the time of the incidents, news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax".[3] While historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed.[2][4][5][6][7]

On July 17, 1932, thousands of World War I veterans converged on Washington, D.C., set up tent camps, and demanded immediate payment of bonuses due to them according to the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 (the original act made the bonuses initially due no earlier than 1925 and no later than 1945). Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant, led this "Bonus Army". The Bonus Army was encouraged by an appearance from retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler; as a popular military figure of the time, Butler had some influence over the veterans. A few days after Butler's arrival, President Herbert Hoover ordered the marchers removed, and U.S. Army cavalry troops under the command of General Douglas MacArthur destroyed their camps.

Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 U.S. presidential election.[8]

By 1933 Butler started denouncing capitalism and bankers, saying as a Marine general he was "a racketeer for capitalism."[9]

[sabrina 1]

16. Thanks, zeemike.

It's not hard to believe that anyone who takes them on, is likely to become a target of some kind. Paid for smear campaigns seem to work for them today, eg. We have all those 'security contractors' receiving tax dollars who also appear to be in the business of contracting for smear campaigns against those who stand up against the corrupt practices of our ruling elite.

[zeemike]

23. Back then they tried it the old school way.

But they failed to see that Smedley Butler was a patriotic man and not one of them.

The new way is with money, and Reagan made it possible for them to obtain a lot of it...and now they own all of the media and can fill it with things that further their own interests, and use tax payer money as their personal expense account.
The coup did happen, but slowly so we did not see it.

[2banon]

73. exactly right, it's that pot of boiling frogs syndrome.. and here we are n/t

[Initech]

20. I often wonder if that plot actually succeeded or not.

Because our corporate overlords are completely out of control and the latest Supreme Court ruling is going to have seriously dangerous consequences in the long run. Fuck them all!

[zeemike]

24. It did, but not in the old school way

As I have said above...and those serious consequences are here already.

[LiberalLovinLug]

29. Don't forget grampa Bush was a key player in that attempted coup

Prescott who made the family fortune out of dealings with Hitler. Set up basically a Nazi money laundering "bank".

Its astounding that not only no charges were ever laid, but Prescott and others were allowed to keep their ill gotten gain in order to build their fortunes.

[zeemike]

45. Yep and that makes it so much more interesting.

The same fucking family keeps popping up in this shit.

[OKNancy]

6. If he was alive today he would be excoriated here on DU

for the Japanese internment
trying to pack the Supreme court
integrating the CCC with the military
failure to help the Jews enough
----
He was a great President, but certainly not perfect.
He was for sure the lesser evil.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. And praised mightily

For fighting the bankers and helping the 99%.

[Rex]

10. Aw come on, why you have to bring that up?

I read here on DU he had blood dripping from his fangs and claws. Certainly he provokes a peculiar response from certain DUers.

[bvar22]

105. The same "response" that used to be limited to the Hard Right Wing.

What could any Democrat hope to gain by tearing down FDR and the New Deal?

Those policies built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working Class the World has ever seen.
It has been straight downhill for the Working Class since the Koch Brothers bought the Democratic Party leadership back in 1990.


http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html



You will know them by their WORKS.
This member of the Working Class thanks FDR.

[defacto7]

69. as did his fifth cousin Theodore

from whom many of FDR's initiatives for social justice and welfare and regulation of business oligarchs got their inspiration.

Just sayin'

[HooptieWagon]

84. Much was from Eleanor. nt

[ananda]

87. Absolutely. Eleanor was FDR's heart...

... not just his "legs."

[defacto7]

108. Actually, he listened to her most of the time,

but he ignored her more than not. She was the champion of many things FDR seems to be known for. Her energetic work for women's rights, workers rights, and her work against racism were amazing. It's unfortunate she was ignored so much and sometimes forcibly so. Historically, it's clear there was little love between them in either direction.

[merrily]

101. Like most of our presidents of the two major parties, Teddy was ambivalent toward the rich.

Pals with people like Henry Ford; opened a national park to help out railroad owners by providing affordable travel destinations, etc. Not that opening a national park is an evil way of helping out the moguls, but still.... It was a form of corporate welfare that also worked out for the people.

Not exactly a pacifist, either.

Teddy, however, did believe in a truly free market than most Presidents seem to. Our anti-trust laws today are a joke.

Most or all of our Presidents have been a mixed bag.

[defacto7]

107. Ambivalent? Theo Roosevelt?

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 01:26 AM - Edit history (1)

I absolutely agree about his lack of pacifism; in that regard he was a downright war hog which is something about him I despise. But he was the hardest on corporate magnates of any president we have ever had.

Ambivalent is probably the last word I would use for TR about anything let alone the rich. If anything, he stood his ground relentlessly on almost every issue he took a position. As a matter of fact, his single-mindedness became so dogmatic after his second term he splintered the republican party out of a misguided responsibility for having put Taft in the presidency and wanted to make sure Taft didn't get a second term even if it destroyed his party. He trusted information he received from his disgruntled close friend Gifford Pinchot while in Africa and never stood down. His lack of flexibility later in life became his and his party's downfall let alone Taft's second term.

But his work against the corporate moguls (the trusts) and his abhorrence of the cronies that had taken over both the Republican and Democratic parties is epic. He was supported by the socialists and the progressives because of his stance on breaking the trusts and paid politicians. Did he have to make concessions during his presidency? Very few but yes and regretted it. He was no friend of the rich in politics and his "Square Deal" made huge strides toward elevation of the working class in his time.

FDR was a great president in most respects but he was the one more rightfully deserving of the term ambivalent toward the rich. On many occasions he listened to Elenore's plea for women's rights, the fight against racism, and the care of war casualties but many more times he explicitly ignored her. And unfortunately, he started the centralization of the military complex in WWII by choosing the most powerful corporations and allowed the smaller contractors be swallowed up by them mostly on the word of those most powerful and moneyed. (on edit: I'm not saying that was his ultimate intention, it's just the outcome of his decisions to win WWII) Most of those corporations are the same big names we all know today. His first two terms were stellar... his last two were arguably.. ambivalent.

[merrily]

117. I like a lot about Teddy, but we differ in our interpretations.

IMO, Teddy wanted businesses to compete on a level playing field, hence his battle against big business. But things like that do not make him anti-wealth per se.

[defacto7]

118. Have you ever read Doris Kearns-Goodwin's newest biography

on TR? "The Bully Pulpit" It's about TR, Taft, and the progressive media of the time (the muck rakers). I found it incredibly fascinating and her documentation is exemplary. A great read. I came to love him and hate him at the same time.

In another study??? wish I could remember where, they were analyzing his work, study habits, history and media available and were making a argument that TR may have had low lever autism and was possibly a savant considering his incredible mental energy. He averaged 7 books a day and took meetings in his office at 4 minute intervals. People were told when he put his book down to go right to the point. When he started reading again the interview was over. He remembered every meeting. He also was known to have quoted from memory passages from a book in Chinese that he had read a decade earlier when a Chinese ambassador visited the White house. Fascinating man... though a war monger.

If you do read that book, please give me your impressions. I'd be glad to hear your review.

[merrily]

119. He was a remarkable man and a remarkable President.

No argument there. He makes just about every respectable "ten best U.S. Presidents ever" list.

No, I have not read DKG's biography. She has said in interviews that she falls in love with the subjects of each of her books while writing. Maybe, but I think she tends to choose as her book subjects people whom she already admires. Still, she is thorough, spending about 5 years on each book. And I think she tries to be honest And, she has allowed Colbert to invoke her name almost as often as Kimmel invokes Matt Damon's. Even if she never took pen to paper, I'd admire her for that alone!

[whathehell]

91. 10 n/t

[merrily]

100. Are you sure he fought bankers?

New Deal measures helped preserve the banking system.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. A few here would jump all over his supporters claiming he's "unelectable".

[adirondacker]

37. C'mon, you KNOW he is FAR LEFT!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. Dems want to be known for *sucker* punching hippies. (At least inside the Beltway)

[SwankyXomb]

40. A few?

There are dozens of pseudo-Democrats on this board, most of them with 5 digit post counts so they seem knowledgeable. If you've got people on your ignore list, that's probably them.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. I don't use the ignore function. You miss out on some real humor.

[SwankyXomb]

55. You must have a much higher tolerance

for DMF than I do, but I'll try clearing out the Ignore list for a week or so.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. I'm the type that trolls the trolls.

[Schema Thing]

12. If he were alive today, and president, he would accomplish no more than Obama.

in terms of progressive goals.

[Aerows]

52. I think he would

Why do YOU think he wouldn't?

[Schema Thing]

57. because he wasn't a magician

[heaven05]

89. I think he would accomplish more

because.......wait for it......HE WASN'T BLACK!!!!!! geez

[Schema Thing]

103. well, there is that.

[OKNancy]

59. because FDR's congress had huge

( up to 80%) majority Democrats.

Congress now is full of idiots

[99Forever]

62. Are you aware of HOW that huge majority happened?

Think it happened by kissing Republican ass, capitulating to their demands and pushing the Democratic Party ever further right?

[JI7]

63. he had some racist supporters , it's why he opposed the anti lynching bill that liberals in congress

wanted to pass.

[99Forever]

64. Oh please.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in months.

Try again.

[merrily]

98. Actually, Republicans were in the majority at some points and, even when

Democrats had a solid majority, there were many deep divisions within the Democratic Party.

[merrily]

97. No one has any way of knowing that. Imaginary Presidencies are silly ways to make a point.

[treestar]

14. And he'd still be white, and the filibuster would not be used for every bill

in the Senate.

And no one would question he was a citizen or graduated from the colleges he said he did.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. ^this^

[JI7]

56. exactly,he had some white racist supporters

[tazkcmo]

58. And rightly so, IMHO

And still a great president as none of them has been, are or will be perfect.

[merrily]

95. Why would he be excoriated for increasing the size of the Supreme Court?

"packing the court" is an unnecessarily pejorative way to describe an increase in the size of the Court.There had been increases in the past and, during the Depression, the Supreme Court was about to ensure the destruction of the country by rejecting all attempts by Congress and FDR to save it.

I would have praised him for finding a legal way to save the nation.

BTW, the mere threat of increasing the size of the court worked--some might say too well. The court finally recognized a role for the federal government in saving the nation from economic collapse.

Internment, yes. I hope to heaven that we would have criticized him for that, though it seems that anything goes when Americans perceive themselves to be threatened. Internment, extraordinary rendition, torture, serial drone murders, whatever. And Democrats seem receptive, as long as it's a Democratic President.

So, maybe FDR would not have been universally criticized here, even for internment, much as Obama and Clinton are never universally criticized here. Here, there is the "left of the left" crowd and then there is the "loyal to Democrats, no matter what" crowd.

[Hekate]

114. We'd have to form an FDR Group here, wouldn't we?

The "feet to the fire" folks would probably call us the FROGGERS or something.

[zeemike]

8. Just change the dates and it would apply today

Too bad we don't have anyone today with the balls to say it.
But perhaps they fear the Grassy Knowl...

[treestar]

13. He thought they were united against him?

He should try being filibustered for everything. He should live in an atmosphere where the opposition uses the filibuster routinely.

And where there is a mass media channel like Faux News to find everything he does wrong.

And the New Deal did get passed. I'm sure it was not good enough, but something was negotiated with Congress and got through.

[BrotherIvan]

18. When the Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate

did not change the filibuster rule, did the President call him in for a good, sound thrashing? If not, that excuse no longer applies. The Republicans are bumbling idiots; why do the Democrats let them win so often?

[treestar]

21. What's a good sound thrashing?

[merrily]

99. " The Republicans are bumbling idiots; why do the Democrats let them win so often?"

And correctly phrased, too. No implication that Republicans win so often only because Democrats are dumber or weaker or less brave than Republicans.

Nonetheless, I cannot answer it. My honest answer would probably violate DU's TOS; and it's not something I am willing to risk banning for today. Besides, the answer to a question so well framed should be self evident.

[BrotherIvan]

102. Thank you

I do believe it is why myself and likely others are so bitter around here. I don't believe that Democrats are stupid or that they don't know what Democratic Principles are or should be. They run on them; they use them as slogans in award-winning campaigns with beautiful graphics. This fact makes me the most cynical--that my values were repackaged and sold to me with no intention of fulfilling those promises: just ad men crafting a campaign.

There is also a sense that those from our side should know better. My mother used to always hold me to a higher account when I was caught messing around with my friends. And no matter how many excuses or stories I made up to try to deflect blame, she always went straight to the heart of the matter, "Yes, but you know better." So any Democrat acting as though it's a shock that Republicans play dirty is lying. But now it seems as if they have been taking a dive as well.

[merrily]

104. You're welcome.

I would say both parties know pretty much the same things.

[zeemike]

25. But in those days you actually had to do the filibuster.

Today one senator just has to say he will filibuster and the bill is dropped...under the rules a democratic leader has control over.

[BlindTiresias]

46. Well actually

He was shut down by the supreme court repeatedly as they made a vigorous attempt to declare as much of the New Deal possible as unconstitutional. This only ended when he threatened to pack the courts.

Admittedly the media apparatus wasn't quite there and the destruction of socialists/communists and unions had not yet started. FDR would be considered far left by many today, and probably a good deal here on DU who are Reagan Democrats.

[JaneyVee]

15. That last paragraph.

Perfection.

[WillyT]

17. K & R !!!

[SidDithers]

19. Wasn't FDR responsible for the firebombing of Tokyo?...

And the firebombing of Dresden?

And the development of nuclear weapons?

And the internment of Japanese-Americans?


Can you imagine how he would have been savaged by DUers had he done those things in the internet age?

It's cute, tho, that you're so enamored by the myth of FDR.

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Are you sitting down?

Are you in a spot where, if you lose consciousness, you won't bang your noggin'?

Is your enema apparatus decoupled from your person?

Good!

I have some news, and it will (apparently) rock your world: There was a world war going on when those things happened. Tens of thousands of human beings were being slaughtered each day the war continued: in fact, 12,000 Jews alone were being exterminated daily.

Do you think DUers would have decried the steps necessary to end that war? Really? Then I think you are either badly, badly mistaken.

[sabrina 1]

26. Bashing a Democratic President like FDR on a Democratic forum. Did you ever think we would

see that here? I know it's just a few, but the attempt to discredit FDR here has become disturbingly familiar. I used to only see that on some of the old right wing controlled sites, they sure hated FDR and brought up these same issues trying to 'stick it to' Dems.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Human behavior is a curious thing

Cognitive dissonance is a very, very painful thing, and people will do all kinds of things to avoid it. Including claiming that FDR was a monster.

[sheshe2]

70. Actually no,

I never thought I would see the bashing of a Democratic President here in a Democratic forum. Never believed that he would be called a POS here and cheered and cheered and cheered for it. Rec Rec Rec, he sucks!

Yet President Obama comes to mind~

[cui bono]

77. Well, Obama does have a D after his name, but as far as most of his policy goes

he's pretty much Reagan. Said so himself.

[Dragonfli]

75. Well if one were a member of the conservative party in another country

Bashing a president that saved hundreds of thousands from dying of hunger and putting the able bodied to work to end the depression is to be expected. Such things will pass from conservative lips like farts in the breeze.

As of course, they now are.

[randome]

83. Bashing a Democratic President like [Obama] on a Democratic forum. Did you ever think we would

see that here? I know it's just a few, but the attempt to discredit {Obama} here has become disturbingly familiar. I used to only see that on some of the old right wing controlled sites, they sure hated {Obama} and brought up these same issues trying to 'stick it to' Dems.

So the items SidDithers listed don't matter to you. But when it comes to our current President, everything you can find is fair game.

The cognitive dissonance is yours.

0.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

96. Right Wing talking points about FDR are very recognizable to those of us who have been around

for a while. The 'Socialist' must be smeared! We get it.

What makes YOU think I would not have disagreed with FDR on some of his policies?? What kind of thinking is that? Of course I would, I'm sure.

I don't care WHO the president is, if I think they are wrong on something, I will say so. It's the totally blind followers of any president who appear to think that we are all willing to give a pass to those we generally support. What a strange asssumption to find here on DU.

I was not around when FDR was president, I'm sure there are policies I would have disagreed with back then. But from this vantage point looking back it appears he was judged by those who WERE there at the time.

Disagreeing about policies is a required element for citizens of any democracy. Anyone who cannot take any disagreement over policies no matter who the president is, are mostly on the fringes.



Hey, thanks for dragging the 'let's smear FDR' anti Dem talking points to DU. I got used to them during the Bush years as a means of trying to justify the illegal invasions their hero was trying to compare to WW11.

[former9thward]

51. Why was there no attempt to disrupt the concentration camps?

The railroads leading to them were never bombed. There was no attempt to shut them down.

[davidpdx]

109. Not to mention one other thing he got wrong

It was actually Truman who ordered the atomic bombings not Roosevelt.

[Kablooie]

27. As to the development of nuclear weapons, the Nazis were well on their way to develop them.

They didn't finish but they had all the critical information.

I know because after the war my Mother helped in translating Nazi documents found at the bottom of a well.
They were plans, viable plans, to build an atomic bomb.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Ja. Herr Heisenberg screwed up his calculations.

Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

And that set 'em back quite a bit. Did Heisenberg do it by accident, or intentionally? We may never know.

[Enthusiast]

34. I couldn't have a lower opinion of you anyway. Say what you wish.

Make a damned fool of yourself.

[L0oniX]

92. ^^^this^^^

[Bluenorthwest]

36. In the way that Obama is responsible for droning wedding parties and small kids

while presiding over the largest civilian prison population in the history of democracy, sure that's what FDR is responsible for.

What do you think current leaders would do if Oregon was being shelled, bits of Alaska occupied, Honolulu bombed? It's a fair question, considering they use remote control killing machines on hundreds of people without any of that going on, with no army and no Empire threatening.
They kill for no apparent reason at all, in secret and without remorse, gaining nothing but another notch on the Presidential kill list.
If that's how we're talking, Sid, no President will bear up well. Least of all a covert hit list Mafia style death from above Xbox killer.

[Dragonfli]

76. Drone killings don't count you see because children blown to bits are nothing more than "bug splats"

to the psychopaths that play the video game, should the one ordering their death be upset by bug splats? since they are bugs their deaths ordered at the pleasure of a decider is kind, gentle and something to swoon over.

[Hissyspit]

38. People shouldn't have questioned those things?

[rhett o rick]

39. Spit it out Sid, dont you think FDR was a good president? Tell us what you really think.

"It's cute, tho, that you're so enamored by the myth of FDR."

It may be just me, but I dont think your condescension is "cute".

[Capt. Obvious]

122. FDR is no Stephen Harper

[99Forever]

53. A Canadian insulting FDR on Democratic website.

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

[neverforget]

60. And the Canadians were right there with us as Allies

participating in the very same war against the Axis powers.

[HooptieWagon]

86. Yes, no, yes, yes.

Tokyo - Japan wasn't going to surrender by merely losing the tactical advantage, which had occured in mid-'42. They were going to fight to the bitter end. An invasion of the island would have cost the lives of 10s of thousands of Marines, and 100s of thousands of Japanese. Any action taken to break their will prior to an invasion was a positive. And it might be noted much of the constrtuction was wood and paper, thus any bombing was going to result in a fire.

Dresden - The British were largely responsible for the Dresden fire. They made the initial nighttime raids mostly loaded with incindiary bombs. Following USAAF raids in daylight had normal mix bomb loads. City was already an inferno. US targets were RR yards, industrial areas. Several groups got lost/confused and bombed other cities instead, including Prague.

Nuke - yes, and the Germans were working feverishly on a nuke also. Good thing we built one before Hitler did.

Internment - This was a mistake, and no one defends it. Surprised you didnt also mention Jefferson owned slaves.

[Enthusiast]

32. Well done, Manny! And well said, FDR!

Last edited Sat Apr 12, 2014, 04:00 PM - Edit history (2)

I will be disappointed if this post doesn't have hundreds of recommendations.

Because these words of FDR are so relevant today. And the forces aligned against the interests of the American people in the 1930s are precisely the same forces against us today.

Some would like to put up a smoke screen. They want us to forget about the accomplishments of FDR. They would like to us overlook the radical far right that FDR had to overcome right here in the United States.

[BlindTiresias]

47. Except

This time they won and there is no real resistance against the far right, in fact many Democrats openly side with the right wing and extoll its virtues.

[Enthusiast]

85. I didn't want to say that.

They spent decades gaining control of the government and the media. If the media would only report the truth, the problem could be solved almost overnight.

That's why they got rid of the fairness doctrine. While Limbaugh and the rest of the liars proclaim we have a liberal media the exact opposite is true. And now there is no fair media to refute their assertions.

[louis-t]

33. File this under:

Nothing new under the sun.

[dotymed]

35. K and triple R

[reformist2]

43. If it hadn't been for FDR, America as we know it today wouldn't exist.

I'm convinced more than ever that the great middle class wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for government in general, and FDR's programs and policies in particular. Capitalism alone never would share the wealth like that.

[Nye Bevan]

44. Quite simply, FDR saved the world. Literally.

One of the very best presidents ever.

[Zorra]

48. Recommend! nt

[BlindTiresias]

49. Hate to be a downer

But Obama ain't no FDR, and the Democratic party today is very different from how it was in the 30's. Things are significantly worse than back then as the elements of the Democratic party openly side with the right wing and consider that a superior way to organize society. Furthermore, there is nowhere near the level of popular resistance and organization against the right wing today as there was in FDR's day. A fair assessment would be to declare the left as a whole dead and the victory of the corporate republic complete.

[randome]

65. Depends on your point of view.

If you were female, gay or black, or even an underage working lad, I would think things are significantly better. I'm none of those but that's my guess.

And politics is much the same, as pointed out by many.

1.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[BlindTiresias]

67. Ok

But those groups still have no organization. Once the corporate republic is fully solidified the fortunes of women and minorities will very quickly deteriorate. The verdict on whether or not homosexuality will become taboo again is still out, I suspect it will have a largely regional basis. At any rate the average person is looking at a century of misery at the very least.

[defacto7]

71. I would have to agree with you

that the political world today has no resemblance to the politics of FDR's day. We are coming closer all the time to what it was from 1890 through 1904 where rule by the business magnate and the crony politician on both sides were ugly as hell and the average person lived in abject poverty.

But the sentiment of the OP and the words of FDR still stand as a warning and maybe even a battle cry.

[BlindTiresias]

72. Yeah

That is probably true.

[jwirr]

50. K&R for the President who was the first I remember - even if it was his death I remember. My

parents adored him.

[abelenkpe]

54. "It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them"

Same as it ever was, huh? I'll never understand why so many working class republicans vote for people whose policies hurt the working class.

[IkeRepublican]

68. Because they're f**king lazy

That's why. They need everything spoon fed to them. That's why they so heavily overcompensate about what great "hard wurkin' men" they are.

[octoberlib]

74. K&R!

Many Democratic Party chiefs considered New York governor Franklin D. Roosevelt a weak choice in 1932. He had run as James Cox’s vice presidential candidate in 1920 but did not have the strong track record of some other presidential hopefuls, including Al Smith, who wanted to run again. It took four votes and aggressive behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get Roosevelt nominated.

H. L. Mencken commented, “Here was a great convention … nominating the weakest candidate before it. How many of the delegates were honestly for him I don’t know, but … [t]here was absolutely nothing in his record to make them eager for him.” Political commentator Walter Lippmann described Roosevelt contemptuously as “an amiable boy scout.”

The Republicans did their best, attacking Roosevelt as a radical and a socialist. Hoover predicted economic ruin if the Democratic ticket was elected, saying “grass would grow in the streets of one hundred cities.” Republicans also questioned whether Roosevelt was healthy enough to be president — polio had left him paralyzed from the waist down since 1921. Roosevelt answered his critics with a vigorous cross-country campaign, giving dozens of speeches in front of cheering crowds. He told them, “My policy is as radical as American liberty, as radical as the Constitution.”




http://www.salon.com/2011/09/03/slinging_mud_excerpt_slideshow/slide_show/7

[Corruption Inc]

78. Rec'd, keep up the good work

I'm sure all the closet repukes pretending to be democrats hate anything "Roosevelt".

[chknltl]

79. Honored and humbled to see my name listed....

...among the many TRULY GREAT members of this board who have recommended this post.

[a2liberal]

80. K&R for the Greatest President

I used to have a youtube link to one of the parts of that speech in my sig. I think it disappeared in the move to DU3... I should go find it again and put it back. The part before you begin your quote is IIRC an even better match to current conditions

[snot]

81. K&R'd!

[Nanjing to Seoul]

82. GREATEST. AMERICAN PRESIDENT. EVER.

[dionysus]

111. for sure.. my Dad was named Delano because of FDR. but compare the congresses they had.

[ProSense]

88. One can tell

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."

...the effectiveness of a President by the caliber and determination of his critics.

While the New Deal did much to lessen the worst affects of the Great Depression, its measures were not sweeping enough to restore the nation to full employment. Critics of FDR's policies, on both the right and the left, use this fact as a reason to condemn it. Conservatives argue, for example, that it went too far, and brought too much government intervention in the economy, while those on the left argue that it did not go far enough, and that in order to be truly effective, the Roosevelt Administration should have engaged in a far more comprehensive program of direct federal aid to the poor and unemployed. But the New Deal's greatest achievements transcend mere economic statistics, for in a world where democracy was under siege, and the exponents of fascism and communism flourished, the New Deal offered hope and restored the faith of the American people in their representative institutions. It also transformed the federal government into an active instrument of social justice and established a network of laws and institutions designed to protect the American economy from the worst excesses of liberal capitalism.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideasroosevelt-historyfdr/new-deal

<...>




http://books.google.com/books?id=vC5HJloBWugC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false

Report: Wall Street’s Opposition to Dodd-Frank Reforms Echoes Its Resistance to New Deal Financial Safeguards

Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as ‘Exceedingly Dangerous,’ ‘Monstrous Systems’ That Would ‘Cripple’ the Economy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.

In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.

“The business community’s wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and author of the report. “If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.”


<...>

In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDIC’s authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.

- more -

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0

Elizabeth Warren:

There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong bill—the strongest in three generations. I didn’t have a chance to vote for it because I wasn’t yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf

Obama's CFPB under Richard Cordray "took $800 million from Bank of America"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024802019

One of my favorite clips

Elizabeth Warren: Cordray Vote ‘A Historic Day For Working Families’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to Twitter on Tuesday in praise of the Senate's vote to advance Richard Cordray's nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, calling it a "historic day for working families."

Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma

I couldn't be more pleased that Rich Cordray will finally get the vote that he deserves. This is a historic day for working families!
1:11 PM - 16 Jul 2013

47 Retweets 26 favorites

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-cordray-vote-historic-day-for-working

Thank you Senator Warren.

CFPB Sues ITT Tech For Allegedly Exploiting Students, Pushing Predatory Loans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024570346

Sen. Warren Praises New CFPB Mortgage Rules that Make Families, Economy Safer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024295777

Banks Ordered to Add Capital to Limit Risks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024798328

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024755799

Obamacare Headline in Rural Arkansas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024798807

Change
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024781130

Thank you President Obama.

[maced666]

90. Old, white, privileged men - give me Barack Obama any day -

Obama will be remembered for his own greatness in due time. We are still waiting out the majority and privilege -fading more and more each day.

[L0oniX]

93. Government by organized money is what we have now.

[olegramps]

94. The parallel to the Obama adminsitration is frighting.

Throw in a generous heaping racism and vicious propaganda and its 1932 revisited.

[cheapdate]

106. The roots of naysayers run deep...

<...>




http://books.google.com/books?id=vC5HJloBWugC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q&f=false

(Thanks ProSense)

[dionysus]

110. yeah Manny, and he had an indestructible House and Senate.

you're a smart man, I can tell, don't try to tell us Obama could have pulled off a fraction of FDR shit with the congress we had.

it's bullshit to even peddle that line of thought

[Hekate]

112. ...and was elected to four (4) terms. He had the advantage of time in addition to everything else.

FDR was a great man, but lived in very different times.

[dionysus]

113. my Dad's name is Delano, and i think he wanted to name me Franklin , but Mom overruled with Matthew.

I like being Matt but Keith was the other choice and I don't know which would have been better

[Hekate]

115. In high school I dated a guy whose first name was Roosevelt, after FDR

He was a Jr., born in 1946, so I'm guessing FDR was a hero in his African American family for at least a couple of generations.

[dionysus]

116. my kindergarten was Roosevelt School :)

[Junkdrawer]

120. Can you EVEN imagine those words slipping by the lips of ANY President since Reagan?

[Junkdrawer]

121. Make that Kennedy....

Octafish

[Octafish]

123. Each passing year, fewer remember.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4212956

Thank you fot remembering, Junkdrawer.

[Junkdrawer]

124. As long as that crime goes unpunished, as long as the perps walk....

the likely perps are treated as untouchables, or, as your link suggests, unmentionables.

FDR was the last President to try to reign in their power because, after Kennedy, the closest any President dares come to even acknowledging their existence is to rail against the Republican right.

The Ghosts in the Machine.