First I think the historian has it backward when it comes to FDR. He was wealthy and friendly to business interests, there was two new deals the first one addressed banks and only banks though it did include expansive regulations & restrictions. Far more than you see today, due to pressure from the progressives then came the second new deal with social security and so many other things probably the most meaningful & productive legislation of the 20th century & probably before and certainly since. There were notable significant economic figures of the era that had a lot of people's ear such as Frances Perkins & John Keynes that also had the right ideas but it was about politics more than anything or that he had their backs then turned on them. This is an example off what is mainly about
In 1935, Roosevelt called for a tax program called the Wealth Tax Act (Revenue Act of 1935) to redistribute wealth. But there was more rhetoric than revenue in that proposal. The bill imposed an income tax of 79% on incomes over $5 million. Since that was an extraordinary high income in the 1930s, the highest tax rate actually covered just one individual – John D. Rockefeller. The bill was expected to raise only about $250 million in additional funds, so revenue was not the primary goal. Morgenthau called it "more or less a campaign document". In a private conversation with Raymond Moley, Roosevelt admitted that the purpose of the bill was "stealing Huey Long's thunder" by making Long's supporters his own. At the same time, it raised the bitterness of the rich who called Roosevelt "a traitor to his class" and the wealth tax act a "soak the rich tax".[94]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Second_New_Deal_.281935.E2.80.931938.29
Its amazing how little things change but I see FDR more as a mythical figure than FDR that certainly deserves credit for the right policies & decisions. Thomas Friedman who wasn't pushing anything new, just a repackaged version of Hoover-era Republican "trickle down economics" which was the "Horse and Sparrow theory" in the 1800s. He also a new deal critic
Friedman was initially unable to find academic employment, so in 1935 he followed his friend W. Allen Wallis to Washington, where Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was "a lifesaver" for many young economists.[27] At this stage, Friedman said that he and his wife "regarded the job-creation programs such as the WPA, CCC, and PWA appropriate responses to the critical situation," but not "the price- and wage-fixing measures of the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration."[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
Not sure why there was a shift exactly. It certainly began with Truman though. FDR, I don't think he improved much if any for the rights of minorities and definitely the internment camps were a huge step backward though don't know much about this part of his Presidency but appointed an openly racist as his drug czar using all sorts of crazy nonsense about Jazz musicians and white women to oppose mostly marijuana and opium from what I remember though don't know the kind of influence he had that led to FDR signing the catch-22 Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
It is a shame Truman isn't on par with the mythical FDR & JFK figures (though his potential wasn't given an opportunity to see what it would become one way or the other) but known for the "Fair Deal" which including extending the benefits that were kept from minorities to please the Southern bloc but admired his courage & political risks pushing Civil Rights in an election year and a convention that shattered the party notable for Hubert Humphrey's defense of Truman's civil rights plank “get out of the shadow of state’s rights and to walk forthrightly into the brighter sunshine of human rights.’” JFK was against it in 1948 but changed positions earlier than LBJ who waited until he was his Vice President to change, he was very openly critical of Truman taking a "State's rights" stance focusing on the federal anti-lynching laws as part of his 10-point proposal.
Anyway, the best explanation I've come across was the Republican party was always the big business party. Before, with western expansion "manifest destiny" growing the size & power of the US government was to their benefit for rail road contracts, rail construction, things like that was to their benefit but when there was little left then the the less government, less regulations, etc was to big business benefit.
I do know "trickle down" or "supply-side" economics is responsible for the Panic of 1896 (the same year as the so-called shift)
Election of 1896
The United States presidential election of 1896 was the 28th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 1896. It climaxed an intensely heated contest in which Republican candidate William McKinley (a former Governor of Ohio) defeated Democrat William Jennings Bryan (a former Representative from Nebraska) in one of the most dramatic and complex races in American history.
The 1896 campaign is often considered to be a realigning election that ended the old Third Party System and began the Fourth Party System.[2] McKinley forged a conservative coalition in which businessmen, professionals, skilled factory workers, and prosperous farmers were heavily represented. He was strongest in cities and in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and Pacific Coast. Bryan was the nominee of the Democrats, the Populist Party, and the Silver Republicans. He presented his campaign as a crusade of the working man against the rich, who impoverished America by limiting the money supply, which was based on gold. Silver, he said, was in ample supply and if coined into money would restore prosperity while undermining the illicit power of the money trust. Bryan was strongest in the South, rural Midwest, and Rocky Mountain states. Bryan's moralistic rhetoric and crusading for inflation (based on a money supply based on silver as well as gold) alienated conservatives and especially German American voters. Turnout was very high, passing 90% of the eligible voters in many places.
For three years, the nation had been mired in a deep economic depression, marked by low prices, low profits, high unemployment, and violent strikes. Economic issues, especially silver or gold for the money supply, and tariffs, were central issues. Republican campaign manager Mark Hanna pioneered many modern campaign techniques, facilitated by a $3.5 million budget. He outspent Bryan by a factor of five. The Democratic Party's repudiation of its economically conservative Bourbon faction, represented by incumbent President Grover Cleveland, largely gave Bryan and his supporters control of the Democratic Party until the 1920s, and set the stage for Republican domination of the Fourth Party System and control of the White House for 28 of the next 36 years, interrupted only by the two terms of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
(this is so ironic I had to include this part though not part of info I wanted to include)
Republican attacks on Bryan
Increasingly, the Republicans personalized their attacks on Bryan as a dangerous religious fanatic.[23
<snip>
Financing
The McKinley campaign invented a new form of campaign financing that has dominated American politics ever since.[20] Instead of asking office holders to return a cut of their pay, Hanna went to financiers and industrialists and made a business proposition. He explained that Bryan would win if nothing happened, and that the McKinley team had a winning counterattack that would be very expensive. He then would ask them how much it was worth to the business not to have Bryan as president. He suggested an amount and was happy to take a check. Hanna had moved beyond partisanship and campaign rhetoric to a businessman's thinking about how to achieve a desired result. He raised $3.5 million. Hanna brought in banker Charles G. Dawes to run the Chicago office and spend about $2 million in the critical region.[21]
Meanwhile, traditional funders of the Democratic Party (mostly financiers from the Northeast) rejected Bryan, although he did manage to raise about $500,000. Some of it came from businessmen with interests in silver mining.
The financial disparity grew larger and larger as the Republican funded more and more rallies, speeches, and torchlight parades, as well as hundreds of millions of pamphlets attacking Bryan and praising McKinley. Lacking a systematic fund-raising system, Bryan was unable to tap his potential supporters, and he had to rely on passing the hat at rallies. National Chairman Jones pleaded, "No matter in how small sums, no matter by what humble contributions, let the friends of liberty and national honor contribute all they can."[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1896#Labor_unions_and_skilled_workers
The "Horse and Sparrow theory" led to the panic of 1896 but don't know how much has one to do to the other but wow didn't know about where modern campaign finance comes from. A shift indeed.
Anyway, took a break to shower and should go to sleep but I'll watch the rest of the video. I'm worried it could be overly-simplistic, missing key facts to include to the point they are trying to make. Certainly the Republicans haven't changed since the 1920s, that much is clear.
= new reply since forum marked as read
?w=480&h=320&crop=1
