Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Just as Progressive as non-mythical FDR

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:34 PM
Original message
Obama Just as Progressive as non-mythical FDR
In my last post, I responded to something someone put up at Daily Kos. In it, he referred to himself as "an FDR Democrat." I told him he wasn't, and said he had no idea what that meant. I meant that he was referring to the myth that has grown around Roosevelt. When you look at the actual record of the man, those progressives who are complaining about Obama right now should not be lionizing FDR to the extent they do. I've already discussed Obama's record at length, and I've placed a list here. Let's look at FDR's actual record, or some of it, anyway.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a great president; I will never deny that. He came in during the worst circumstances in the history of the United States, and turned the country around economically in many ways. He instituted regulations that were necessary at the time to steady the financial markets and to let people know they could be trusted again, and he helped create the Social Security program, and such agencies as the Securities and Exchange Commission, to keep markets honest, which is the key to a thriving economy. But was FDR really a liberal? When you listen to the lionization of FDR, you sometimes get the impression that Roosevelt was a far left liberal icon; a stellar example of what all progressives should aspire to be.

skip...

During his run against Hoover for president, FDR took what some progressives might find to be surprising positions. One of his main complaints against Hoover in the 1932 campaign was the Republican's “huge budget deficits.” Given that most latter-day progressives, myself included, would like to see more stimulus to get us out of our current economic mess, which is not nearly as dire as FDR faced when he was running, doesn’t it seem strange that a presidential candidate who is seen as a “liberal icon” of sorts by today’s progressives, complained about budget deficits when more than a quarter of the population was unemployed? That sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat, doesn't it?

The entire article is here...http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/09/obama-just-as-progressive-as-non-mythical-fdr-1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Excellent article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
Thank you, dennis4868...I'm quite sure you will take a lot of hits on this, but as far as I'm concerned, you are right on target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I take hits everyday here...
but I will not stop doing my part in getting the truth out :-) so much bullshit posts here at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. Okay then. Let's talk about the "nonmythical" Obama!
Your move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama a progressive? Bwhahahahahahah!
thanks, i needed a good laugh. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I don't think Obama would consider that a compliment.
Never once has he claimed it, embraced it, or implied it. Not publicly anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. that was not the point of the..
article :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. No. But it's true nonetheless.
You're a thoughtful poster, Dennis. I like sparring with you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. same here :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. tell me which of these actions in the link is not progressive
www.whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuckinarut Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. he did these...
whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. still didn't answer my question
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Because of what he SAID in 1932? It's his actions that I wish O would emulate.
Okay fine. I'll settle for the non-mythical FDR. Obama still has a ways to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. And his actions...
libs trashed FDR in the day for not going far enough even with super majorities in congress...libs bashed FDR for worrying too much about deficits and not going all the way in terms of legislation...SOUND FAMILIAR? :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. I'll take it. That kind of presidenting. I'll take it.
You always have to ask for more than you'll end up getting. That's negotiating. Something it would behoove Obama to understand. Too many Dems ask so little of this president and hence the result we see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. And the libs were right. FDR in 1937 started listening to deficit hawks
--and cut spending to balance the budget. This crashed the economy until WW II spending ended the depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. His actions such as ...
acting as commander-in-chief of an institutionally segregated military? His actions such as setting up internment camps for innocent Japanese Americans?

I think you need to read the article again in its entirety. FDR was a great president, but he was not the mythical perfect progressive people here have built up in their minds. And comparisons between two historical periods are specious anyway. Every president must deal with the cards (and the Congresses, and the public readiness, and the competing interests) that are dealt to him or her. Those elements change over time.

We need more realism as expressed in this article, and less hyperbole and false equivalences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. We are just trying to give an historic example of good solid leadership.
Obama can't go to war with Japan and Germany. That's hyperbole, to say anyone thinks Obama should do every specific thing FDR did. Why is that even a subject of discussion? Just to say "Silly people. You are ignorant and live in a fantasy."? Yes?

No, we just want to feel we are in good solid hands and that our Democratic president is unafraid to face down those who want to exploit and destroy us, and stand unwavering on Democratic values. And if that's too much to expect from Obama, if that is your point, then the comparison stands with those two Democratic presidents in even sharper contrast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
8. So FDR put Social Security on the table to create it, Obama put it on the table too, What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. yeah...
and specifically what was Obama's plan for social security...STOP WITH THE GOD DAMN HYPERSPECULATION! Obama over and over said that SS is not the cause if our problems and that we need to strengthen it so that it is long lasting! Obama also made cuts to medicare in the affordable care act...he put it on the table alright but it strenghtens the program, not weaken it. SUCH UTTER BULLSHIT HERE...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Get back to me with that in about 3 months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. A Social Security that denied participation from many segments of society
Especially African Americans, because agricultural workers were specifically excluded. It was not a generous plan in its initial form; and it took decades to improve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. But covered the vast majority. FDR created SS, while
Obama's at war with it. Utterly differ scenarios.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. No, it excluded fully half of the workers in the American economy
Edited on Mon Sep-05-11 02:42 PM by frazzled
Agricultural workers and domestic workers (read: black people) among them.

And that is a cold, hard fact.


The 1935 act limited its provisions to workers in
commerce and industry (this is what is known as the
program’s “coverage”). This meant that the new social
insurance program applied to about half the jobs in
the economy.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Point is, FDR moved the ball forward, Obama is pulling it backwards. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. In your head.
He pulled the country forward with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Care Act, with the Affordable Care Act, with the rescinding of DADT, with the stimulus (yes, things would be far worse today without it), with new stringent fuel efficiency regulations, with declaring torture illegal by proclamation, by setting up the Consumer Affairs bureau, with signing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ... and a host of other things.

Did he fail to get some things done ,or compromise to get desperately needed short-term things like extension of unemployment benefits done? Sure. But as the article in the OP points out, FDR made plenty of hold-your-nose things, too.

Your kind of revisionist, fact deficient argumentation will not sway those of us who study the facts of both history and today's policy. So keep trying, but you're fighting a losing battle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. One step forward and two back is not moving forward
ObamaRomneyCare is unaffordable, which is why Obama's trying to raise eligibility to 67. Obama's been working hard to slash Social Security as well.

And so forth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Like when FDR caused unemployment to rise from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938?
You will not win this game, so don't even try. And I won't play it. Finito.

You try to fool some of the people every day, but most of the people, when confronted with the facts, come to realize that the venom and misrepresentations and hysterical headlines are just that: an attempt to inculcate falsehoods in their heads. Truth and rationality always wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. As I wrote, FDR tried Leftist and Rightist programs early on. That being said...
1. FDR took office and unemployment dropped almost immediately, from 25% to 14% in four years. This was due to the triumph of Leftist policies.
2. In 1937, FDR decided to move right and slash government spending. This did cause an increase in unemployment, but not so severe as your numbers indicate, e.g., http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/, because those in government-sponsored work programs (e.g. the WPA) are counted as unemployed, even though they were actually employed. (Fortunately, no President would repeat that mistake again, of cutting government spending in a difficult economic period. Oh wait...)
3. After this last experiment with a Rightist policy (his 1937 budget cuts), FDR went fully-Liberal as far as I have read.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-06-11 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #32
43. These look like facts to me.
Frazzled claims a fondness for such truth and rationality, but I'm pretty sure he's mad at you about something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
12. ......
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

A little hint--trying to tear down a liberal lion like FDR doesn't make President Obama look any better, comparitively. It just makes you look sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. +1
There is just no place they won't go, is there? The fact is, these sorts of over the top Obama praise sessions convince no-one, and serve only to stir crap up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
22. This FDR Democrat largely disagrees
First and foremost, FDR was about doing whatever he could to help as many as he could. It's true that he tried some rightist policies along with leftist policies, but abandoned the former when they were shown to be failures. Over time, he became a full-fledged Liberal because Liberal policies work best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
23. FDR's actions spoke louder than words. Sure, he ran on Deficit
Reduction, but when he got there and surveyed the
situation, he RECOGNIZED he had to do something
different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
28. Deficits are a problem for both parties. The difference is that the
rethugs think they can solve them by cutting spending and letting them work themselves out. FDR wanted to solve it by creating jobs that would pay into the government and eliminate the deficits. One other thing that he and Hoover differed on which makes him liberal is the role of government in the time of crisis. Hoover did not take action because he did not believe in government manipulating the economy. FDR did and he used the government as a tool to end the depression.

No he did not come out suggesting radical change in the campaign but it was almost immediately that he started using the government to fix the problems. Like Obama he had to fight for almost everything he proposed just because it was change. People are afraid of change, especially the rich and those less effected by the depression.

When we say we are FDR Democrats some of us are old enough to actually have lived then - like me. The so called myth you are talking about did not grow over a long period of time. I sat on my mother's lap listening to his funeral on the radio - the story was already almost fully developed. 5 years old and I will never forget the tears of every adult I saw that day.

Plus the biggest thing that makes me an FDR Democrat is that the programs he and his congress created have been the foundation that has kept my and my children's lives stable and secure for all of the 69 years I have lived on this earth.

As to President Obama his first 4 years have been rough and I am reserving judgment about what he can do if we supply him with a large enough majority in both house and senate. He will have only 8 years, as opposed to FDR's 12 years, in which to accomplish big things but if they do not come and if he continues down the road of compromise with rethug ideal we will still be in big trouble when he leaves office. We know that FDR's ways worked and we think that those ways are still the right ways to fix this problem. I hope the President Obama sees that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
30. You Are Correct - FDR Twice Ran On A No Budget Deficit Platform
...Both in his first campaign, and after his first term. FDR was trying to portray himself as a fiscal conservative, and even tried to balanced the budget in his second term. It was not a smart idea, but the American people demanded it at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
36. FDR would have been thrown under the bus by DU progressives...
for making such a stink about deficits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. He shifted left in 1934 because he was afraid of being thrown under the bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
37. Threads like this are upsetting to those with no perspective
They are not interested in the often revolting process of governing. They want their legends as glossy as possible. Very little interest in actual facts and history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
40. FDR thought of banksters as enemies
Obama kisses their buts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-11 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
41. Blog flogging
It's not just for the Guns forum anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scentopine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-06-11 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
42. FDR Revisionists are the worst. FDR Reminds me of what a great leader is like.
Edited on Tue Sep-06-11 12:54 AM by scentopine
Public health policy, REC, water quality, libraries, schools, it is amazing how much of FDR's infrastructure we use and take advantage of every day.

Was he perfect? No, but there was little compromise and deviation from his clearly stated goals and conviction to do the right thing in spite of political risk.

The idea that FDR wasn't a progressive or a liberal icon is the worst kind of misinformation. We see passing of a generation who can fight back against the revisionist lies, and revisionists are quick to toss out the easy lie - the lie of omission.

When Obama's term is over, he will be noted for his personal triumph, not as a great leader that changed the direction of the nation and brought wealth and security to the vast majority. Just the opposite. Few people remember FDR was a cripple, his personal triumph was also significant. FDR will be remembered as a great man and a great leader, even with his mistakes. Revisionists also argue that Japanese internment proves FDR was not progressive. However, we have torture, rendition, indefinite detention, wire tapping, three idiotic wars that have killed 100,000 or more, and we thousands of illegal immigrants in prison with no crime or representation, it goes on and on.

FDR's achievements far outshine his faults. This is easily verified and indisputable. Obama is proving to be incapable of dealing with a growing crisis - lost wealth and opportunity for the non-rich in America.

When I hear the FDR revisionists, I am reminded of the baggers who say "there is no consensus on global warming".

In terms of successful and proven economic remedies and principals of treating people as citizens rather than commodities, I am happy to be called an FDR liberal.

More to learn about WPA here:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296198-1

------
Here is FDR's inaugural speech in 1933. He aligned a divided nation and through passion and stick-to-it resolve in spite of a large Wall Street sponsored fascist opposition (FDR faced his version of tea baggers), (not to mention world war) FDR succeeded where Obama has failed. He saw the way forward and executed his plans brilliantly.

------

This is a day of national consecration. And I am certain that on this day my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

And yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

Yes, the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation is asking for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our great natural resources.

Hand in hand with that we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. Yes, the task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, the State, and the local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities that have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped by merely talking about it. We must act. We must act quickly.

And finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

These, my friends, are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the 48 States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States of America--a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others--the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress can be made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and our property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at the larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us, bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in times of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image, action to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple, so practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has ever seen. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.

And it is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me, I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded, a permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC