Obama is not FDR, nor could he be even if he wanted to.

[redqueen]

FDR came into office at a time when the economic situation was drastically worse than it is now.

And as you all should know, the majority of people don't really care too much about anything that isn't directly causing them any inconvenience.

Additionally, FDR had the luxury of a compliant congress.

Do any of you seriously expect the same results FDR delivered given the congress Obama has to deal with now, with Conservadems siding with Republicans and corporate interests... oops, sorry... that's redundant.


Anyway, cut it out with the FDR comparisons, please. It only makes you look uneducated.

[xchrom]

1. no he isn't FDR -- not even close. nt

[Dr Fate]

2. I doubt that line will work with moderates & swing voters if healthcare reform fails.

In fact, many of them wouldnt even know what you are talking about.

I'm not attacking Obama- I just find "Obama is no FDR" to be a weak argument/excuse.

[redqueen]

4. It's not an excuse. I keep seeing comparisons and it's stupid.

That's it.



There are also comparisons to LBJ... he got things done by bullying. Perhaps some expected Obama to transform into a bully after being elected. I didn't.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Correct. The comparison is not valid and doesn't help either. nt

[Dr Fate]

12. Tell all of that to the moderates & swing voters who want health care reform.

Hopefully it will not even be an issue- your counter-argument to the comparison seem to be anticipating failure by even bringing this up.

In any event, if Obama did end up being a success by being a "bully", I doubt too many voters would complain.

[redqueen]

13. This isn't about healthcare!

Jesus!

Whatever context the comparison is made, it's idiotic. I can't put it any plainer.

[Dr Fate]

14. Tell all of that to the moderates & swing voters who want health care reform.

n/t

[redqueen]

15. LOL... well... even though this isn't about healthcare - I kinda already am, yeah?

:hi:

[Dr Fate]

16. So it's a general statement about any given issue- one of those being healthcare.

I thought your post refered to Obama's agenda- which includes healthcare, if I'm not mistaken.

[redqueen]

17. It's about his ability to push through big changes quickly.

Sorry for not making that more clear.

[Dr Fate]

18. So I'm not incorrect to include healthcare as part of those big changes.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

[redqueen]

20. *roffle*

No, you can bring it up.

I was just pointing out that that's not the only big change that he's not able to ram through congress due to not being FDR (or LBJ).

:hi:

[HughMoran]

34. IF healthcare passes, what will be the next big IF

Don't you think that there will always be an "IF Obama doesn't do this THEN I will never..."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. First off, he's a much better basketball player.

[mitchtv]

5. Don't worry

I for one, won't be making any comparisons like that

[alarimer]

38. Yes, Obama is not fit to push FDR's wheelchair.

He does suffer in comparison to that great American. I am pretty sure Obama will NEVER measure up. He is another Clinton, who will never be listed among the greatest Presidents.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Different times. Different dangers. Different opportunities.

ER: Captain Hilts, certainly nailed it. Right, darling?
FDR: You got that right, old girl!

[MADem]

7. FDR had much less to prove. He came from wealth, and had held

a number of government jobs before becoming President--state senator, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, NY Governor. Obama came from, certainly not real poverty--he was educated at a private school--but not wealth, either. His grandparents sacrificed to give him advantages, and their sacrifice was evident. He also is very short in the "resume" department compared to FDR, having no "executive" experience at all and not even having completed a single term as a US senator.

Also, FDR was disabled and older, Obama is athletic and young. About the only things they have in common are tobacco, though Obama has supposedly quit, and the fact that they both used their wives as an extension of the Presidencies to good effect.

Finally, the Nazis and the Japanese are not invading our allies and murdering millions. There is no draft, everyone serving in the military is a volunteer. The nation is not mobilized for war (and what's happening over in the middle east and southwest asia is not "war" in the way that WW2 was).

These are different times. This is a new century. It's impossible to play the "compare" game because the dynamics are entirely different. Not only is the country a different place, the world is a different place.

[Captain Hilts]

9. FDR hit the White House at age 50. One of the younger ones, appearances aside. nt

[MADem]

24. People didn't live as long then. He was "older" in more than simply (three) years.

Obama is perceived as being healthier....though all that smoking and burgers and ice cream he's enjoying of late may be just as unhealthy as all that scotch, smoking and steaks--along with the issues associated with FDR's polio.

Fifty used to be old, back in the day. Now it's "middle aged." Fifty is the new forty, as they say...!

[Captain Hilts]

26. Sing it to me, baby, I turn five oh tomorrow. nt

[redqueen]

28. Happy early birthday!

:hi:

[Captain Hilts]

29. Ah, my favorite Arsenal fan!

Thanks!

[redqueen]

31. My pleasure!

Are you as happy as I am that both the diving diva and Tevez have left for greener pastures? :D

I know they have the money to buy more players but I don't care, I'm relishing the joy while I can, short-lived though it may be.

[Captain Hilts]

32. Yes, it was an early birthday gift. I think there will be more trades and aquisitions. nt

[redqueen]

10. People keep bringing up FDR and LBJ because they got shit done quickly.

I understand the desire to have things done quickly, but come on.

[Captain Hilts]

19. I agree. It is not at all a fair standard. nt

[MADem]

22. Democrats were a lot like Republicans back then. Lockstep loyalty was the rule.

The ones that strayed off the ranch were rounded up and punished, and wouldn't get any of the slush money that floated around before the campaign finance era. About the only division in the Democratic Party worthy of note was the "southern Democrats" vs. the "Democrats who weren't racists" imbroglio.

Seniority in the Senate, especially, mattered, and counted for something. That was the absolute case in the FDR era, and it was, ironically, LBJ who broke that paradigm, and who started to use committee assignments and chairmanships as "rewards" for "good" (as in, do what the Leader tells you to do) behavior.

LBJ was a Majority Leader--he knew how to twist arms, and "had something" on everyone. He could squeeze a vote out of pretty damn near anyone--but that's experience talking. The closest thing to that skill that Obama has resides in the person of Rahm Emmanuel--and while I do admire Rahm's ability to kneecap the reluctant and knock the heads of the obstreperous, he's a neophyte compared to LBJ.

[redqueen]

23. Yeah, LBJ was notorious but his methods got things done.

I wish Rahm was less centrist and more liberal. Then I might appreciate his bullying ways.

[GTurck]

42. LBJ..

got a huge boost for Civil Rights and Medicare because they were initiatives started by JFK and when he was assassinated most of us alive wanted him to have a positive legacy; being much less interested in who he was sleeping with back then.
I never expected Obama to be exactly like any of the other Democratic Presidents but I keep hoping that he will eventually accomplish all the the reforms we have wanted these past 9 years. I keep hoping that he will inspire us all to insist on his getting done what we say we want done; metaphorically push him over the cliff created by lobbyists and special interests. LBJ was pushed because of images on TV and his own philosophy; Roosevelt by daily seeing Depression Cities and his battle with polio. What heart-rending images are available today for health care, education, infrastructure, and health reform? We are locked in a world of isolated images deliberately disconnected from any consequences or amendment.

[WI_DEM]

11. Who said he was? p.s. FDR courted southern democrats and was much less liberal than

Eleanor. He accomplished a good deal at the height of the depression when real action had to be taken, but he could have done much more but didn't. He gave us social security but even in 1932 there were calls for universal health care and he didn't do it. They are all politicians--Not Gods. Even Dennis Kucinich couldn't pass single payer.

[Captain Hilts]

21. Oh, a LOT of people are making the comparison. The Time Mag cover.

But they took very different approaches to the economic crisis and each might have done the right thing. We'll have to wait and see.

[SidneyCarton]

25. Too true.

We have this infatuation in the US with turning everything into a historical analogy. To watch cable news, you would assume that we were doomed to relive the 20th century over and over again, with every dictator a Nazi, every war a microcosm of WWII, every flu the Spanish Influenza of 1918-19, and every economic recession the Great Depression. Hence every President is either FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon or Reagan.

I realize that we do this because it makes it easier to understand what's going on by likening it to familiar events in the past, but it sells the present short, by ignoring the inherent uniqueness of each historical event, and it leads us to make bad decisions, as we attempt to use the same solutions for very different problems.

FDR inherited a very different nation from Hoover than Obama inherited from Bush. In 1932 we were the leading global creditor, we were the largest industrial producer on Earth, and we were effectively neutral, with military engaged only in our imperial posessions, and a few incursions in Latin America. We are now a massive debtor, we produce very little, and are engaged in two considerable, and currently open-ended conflicts on the other side of the planet. FDR would have found this mess difficult to deal with too.

[redqueen]

27. Thanks for fleshing out the other differences in context.

It is much more than just governing style or the mood of congress at play, for sure.

Maybe it'd help if The History Channel showed more actual history and less armageddon crap. :)

[Odin2005]

35. Well, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

*points to FDR quote in sig line*

There seems to be an 80-year-long socio-political cycle running through American history, with a major political-institutional crisis at the end of the cycle (American Revolution, Civil War, Depression and WW2) and a period of cultural innovation in the middle of the cycle (The Great Awakening, the Age of Jackson, the Progressive Era, the 60s and 70s). Looks like the next crisis is upon us.

[leftstreet]

30. True. There are no strong Leftist movements in the US to appease

This country is so fucked up and has drifted so far to the right, politicians can actually campaign on social issues.

The economy is melting down, wages have stagnated for decades, people are losing their homes, no one can save a dime - but these asshats actually participate in campaign 'Faith Forum' debates.

:grr:

And then we wonder why only half the people in the country vote.

Go figure.

[Odin2005]

33. Even FDR wasn't FDR.

That is, the real FDR was not the same as the FDR of the post-WW2 political hagiographies. it is the hagiographic image of FDR Obama is getting compared to.

[alarimer]

39. Read H.W. Brands "Traitor To his Class"

FDR did tremendous things. He was the best President we have ever had. The people that he chose were just extraordinary. Most of them were not corporate whores like Obama's people.

Of course everyone will always pale in comparison to FDR but what we need is boldness, not more corporate kiss-ass bullshit.

At this point I pretty much hate Obama. Corporate shill milquetoast is all he is.

[Odin2005]

40. That's the hagiographic FDR, not the real one.

[Cleita]

36. Then he's going to have to be better and take some notes from LBJ's

playbook.

[alarimer]

37. It is what we need right now.

If he does not realize this and become bolder, he will be a failure as President. THIS is THE moment to do bold things. The Democrats control both Congress and the White house. They should be able to do whatever they want. But Obama STARTS in a position of compromise, when what he really needs to do is ask for the moon, then whittle it down from there. When you start with a half-assed position, the end result will be so watered-down as to be useless.

We need FDR; we got Woodrow Wilson, someone who was too cautious to push through the League of Nations, a good, bold idea but he did not have the guts to push it through.

[rug]

41. He's Woodrow Wilson.