FDR: I Welcome Their Hatred

[mmonk]

Run time: 01:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RP_8bwhNVw   Posted on YouTube: January 19, 2011 By YouTube Member: AntiSchiff Views on YouTube: 4347   Posted on DU: November 01, 2011 By DU Member: mmonk Views on DU: 1290

 
A reminder of leadership in a similar period of history.

[Marazinia]

1. Someone needs to play this for President Obama

In hopes of inspiring him to grow a backbone and some integrity.

Although he might have to worry about a coup attempt if he ever does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

[pacalo]

8. Those who are running the government like organized crime bosses would indeed

have the money & resources to pull a coup on someone who stands up to them -- unless there is a clear showing (like the OWS protests) that the people are fed up with the status quo. The "organized crime" faction just pulled one on Cain: He's not their chosen guy but was gaining popularity with the nutballs, so they released the dirt they scraped up on him.

But most of that sleaze is used on Democrats who go against the "organized crime" faction. Bill Clinton, as well as those who earned wide popularity of progressives & were very vocal: Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson. I remember a lot of moderate Republicans who retired in the last 7 years or so, possibly indicative of the fact there was behind-the-scenes housecleaning to make room for more radical Republicans to toe ALEC's line?

This is a different political climate than in FDR's time. The corporate power & their money have gotten way too big. That's why I couldn't be more thrilled with the rising up of the OWS protests. The protesters say they are independent of political affiliation, but all of their complaints are products of the Republican-corporate legislation.

Obama may not be perfect, but if he's not re-elected, the Republican president, Wall Street, the Koch brothers, & ALEC will make sure there will never be another opportunity for an uprising like OWS to occur again.

[Marazinia]

10. I don't see President Obama as any different from Bush

And I don't hear him telling police to stand down and stop carrying out acts of theft and violence against protesters. So what's the difference?

[jaxx]

2. Understanding Your Government: Obama, FDR and the Notion of Change

Some on the left left like to compare Obama to FDR, citing his many failures to live up to FDR’s New Deal. But both FDR and Obama did/do what they can within the constraints of their respective political environments.

<..> Franklin Roosevelt enjoyed an era where there was less media scrutiny of the President. There was no Internet, no television, and no 24 hour news cycle. If FDR’s first term faced the restrictions that Obama’s has, the New Deal would have never have come to be. These are the reasons why Obama can’t be FDR and just make Congress do what he wants to fulfill the progressive agenda.

It’s ironic that we use FDR to bash Obama with, when both are/were pragmatists who know how to use the sentiment of the day to enact big change. FDR had other advantages that Obama doesn’t, one of the biggest being that FDR’s America did not have such rampant mistrust of government as our generation does, post-Nixon and W. And FDR had language. He knew how to use language to make liberal ideas appeal to the mainstream, instead of coming off as a radical agenda. Obama shares this talent, though he is not as skilled in his direct communication with the American public as FDR. For all of the talk of Obama’s incredible oratory skills, few note that when speaking directly to the camera without a live audience, Obama’s passion falls flat. This President is at his best speaking to the people directly.

Make him do it, but first, make others want to make him do it, too.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-fdr-change

[Marazinia]

4. You're right that FDR was a pragmatist

I have my own issues with FDR, but democrats are going to have to do at least as well as an FDR before I'm going to take your party seriously again. And the reason Obama's 'passion falls flat' in my opinion is that he doesn't have any. He's a bought and paid for puppet and he only gives lip service to the principles that matter most to me.

[jaxx]

5. That looks like lip service to me.

I think you have already made up your mind.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

3. No, Obama can't govern like FDR in 1933

<..> The House that Franklin Roosevelt faced in 1933 was the only House between 1899 and the present day in which a majority of members were freshmen. (Many years ago I actually went back and did the numbers; the fact that the 1898 election was the first in which a majority of House members were reelected tells you something interesting about the Progressive period, but I’ll save that for a later post.)

Not only was there not much of a Washington lobbying community; most House members had never had any contacts with a Washington lobbyist in their lives. Many of them were political accidents. Most of them had no experience serving on a committee, learning about its legislative ambit and acquainting themselves with its lobbying constituencies. Most of them were ready to follow, in a state of genuine economic emergency, an assertive and charismatic president of their own party, in the absence of any other guidance.

Megan McArdle’s point is that Franklin Roosevelt enjoyed a political dominance in 1933 that no president since, including Obama, could hope to enjoy. My addendum just underlines and strengthens her argument. No president will ever again face a Congress as ready to follow a president and as unprepared to set a different course as the Congress Franklin Roosevelt called into special session in March 1933.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2009/06/no-obama-cant-govern-fdr-1933

[mmonk]

6. Sorry but I choose not to bend over. And I did not mention Obama.

There is a lot of defensiveness on the part of the current administration and the Democratic Party in general. But the major problem is that the Democratic Party of today does not speak the same language. And in many regards, their solutions and speeches carry the propaganda water of the same forces Roosevelt fought. If FDR did not fight them, would there have been a New Deal? We'll never know. Under current House Republican Party control, would we continue to slip under a fight similar to that carried by Truman? Again, we'll never know.

[jaxx]

7. Odd you call facts defensiveness.

You choose not to bend over....does that mean you will work to make sure there are 300+ Democrats in the House in 2012? Or does it mean that you will bend over to the right and let the President fight it all alone? Looks pretty one sided to me.

[mmonk]

11. I've heard all the reasons why we can't turn things back

towards the America we had since we gave the Democrats victories in 2006 until 2010. In 2008, we produced enough to begin change in my opinion. I also am aware of the Blue Dogs and the Third Way. Those two groups helped to be a roadblock to meaningful change. I hear bipartisan and see bipartisan ways to keep the status quo of power. By leadership, I mean people willing to say what needs to be said and attempt to try for returning to balance. I mean people who aren't for continued budget cuts of government services and aid as false solutions and the harm it brings to a dead and moribund economy.

[mmonk]

12. Another thought. The super committee.

What are the "Democrats" prepared to do on that? Pragmatism in the wrong direction? That is what I would call it, especially when compared to Roosevelt (of which I did not do in the op but compared the times and his attitude of leadership to present day Democrats in general).

[jakeXT]

13. “Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” —George W.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls