2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRiverLover
(7,830 posts)Thanks for posting kpete!
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Before FDR, probably only 25% of the people in the US had a decent standard of living. Because of FDR's presidency, the great middle class was created, where more than 75% of the population lived decently. This was unheard of in the modern world at the time. And something that the rich thought was not only impossible, but downright irresponsible. But they were wrong. And FDR was right. And to think, it all got started in the depths of a depression.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Source.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)with him.
And THAT is when America became the greatest nation on earth.
Now, we're not.
FDR Had It Right
What We Can Learn From FDR
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Look FDR was a great president, probably the best in the last century, but a meme is just that, a meme.
The good and the bad.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)There. I corrected it for you.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Maybe not the best, but we can agree on good.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)In fact, it had bipartisan support, with both parties having anti-Asian planks in their platforms.
While the Japanese were interned, precious crops (and farm corporation liens) withered away in the fields.
But, wait! The farm corporations had a plan: government-subsidized dummy corporations would pick the crops and sell them back to the farm corporations at a low price. Any expenses would be billed to the Japanese.
This allowed for great profits.
AnAzulTexas
(108 posts)what 60 years of sane ideological progress brings to the ethos of a nation...
so if you're serious, take a look around
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)the way this "insider" who would be pilloried on any 1932 version of DU.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It't not where one comes from....it's what one does
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Yes, he was part of the wealthy class, so were the Kennedys. That's makes him such a great president. He didn't allow his great wealth to blind him to the needs of ordinary people. That's possible you know?
They're 'not all the same'. Did you think that all wealthy people were like the current crowd who are running this Government?
That is kind of a biased, to be kind, view of an entire group of people don't you think?
FDR is still the most popular president not just in this country, but elsewhere also.
Great to see someone from the Elite Class, not allow that to interfere with his policies, for a change.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)But he did do some great things. He also had HUGE majorities in House and Senate.
treestar
(82,383 posts)or "standing up to them" or "fighting" or all the usual BS trying to get around this fact.
Auggie
(31,061 posts)Without the Depression a lot of social programs and government regulation would have never seen the light of day. One could argue it was an early form of Disaster Capitalism/Shock Doctrine, except the programs put in place were meant to help people.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The majorities were mostly on-paper. Dixiecrats and Democrats were quite different.
FDR tried to pass single-payer, for example. Dixiecrats stopped him.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... if people want an FDR president we need and FDR congress
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)Republicans have us so fucking brainwashed these days that FDR wouldn't stand a chance
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)trying to negotiate with extremists or of caving or compromising on things that would harm the people. They hated him. Tried to assassinate him. Still he was able to fight them. That's what we need now, no 'compromising with terrorists' but someone who knows it isn't possible and engaging the people, as FDR did.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)My choice of Scottie dogs started with I was in grade school and I learned about FDR. He will always have my heart.
olddots
(10,237 posts)and ideals are what the materialistic fascists hate the most .
Human101948
(3,457 posts)"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expressioneverywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own wayeverywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from wantwhich, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitantseverywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fearwhich, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighboranywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb."Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)I do hope that Bernie starts drawing the parallels with FDR and his vision of Democratic Socialism. I think it would be a lot more effective than just presenting Nordic countries as examples.
We need a new New Deal that Bernie can promote!
We also need something else that FDR made possible...the rapid conversion of our manufacturing base from civilian to military for WWII. We need the very same or greater effort, except in this case to convert our fossil fuel dependency to renewables to fight the enemy that is climate change, as soon as possible!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Only now that Sanders is running does anyone call FDR a Democratic Socialist.
He explicitly said he was protecting the capitalist class. I mean, what more will it take to convince you?
He was not a socialist. At best, he was a social democrat. And really, not even that.
Definitions do matter. The term Orwellian gets tossed around a lot, but redefining a long-used term to identify it with something that it isn't--indeed, something that arguably means the opposite (capitalist protection)--strikes me as very much so. Especially with the gaslighting that tends to happen to anyone who disagrees.
I've gotten over Sanders calling himself that. It took me a while to warm up to the idea, but I can see good reason for it. Who knows--he might even be one underneath his social democratic policy. He also does seem to be mildly interested in pushing people towards true Democratic Socialism.
But calling FDR and other liberals Democratic Socialists is going too far, imo. Same with all the other redefining of "socialism" as happy liberal fluffiness around here these days go talk to the DSA--they'll say they're happy to work with people like FDR and Sanders, but they sure as heck aren't going to tell you his policies are what they advocate for. Socialism, even the non-revolutionary type, goes way further than a welfare state.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)become to a few Dems what he always was to Repubs.
But most people still view him as one the greatest presidents so far.
It's funny to come here to DU and see some of the same stuff re FDR I used to see only when I was arguing with Repubs.
FDR, one of the best Democratic Socialist Presidents we've had so far.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I said he explicitly wasn't a DemSoc...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Hugely!!!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)And guess who's winning?
This is a big reason the party is almost dead.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Here goes: It will take way too long to "change Congress to Democratic control" that we should give up and vote for HRC. Am I close?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)side has all the money, media, and police. Sadly, not only do We The People have to fight the Republicons that support the oligarchy, we also have to fight the Conservative Democrats that also represent the oligarchy. HRC says she wants some social justice changes, and maybe we will actually see them, but at what cost? Her billionaire backers aren't going to pay. Maybe we can squeeze more from the middle class. Goldman-Sachs doesn't care about the 16 million American children living in poverty.
We are in a class war and it's obvious that Sen Sanders and HRC are on opposite sides. Why Democrats would side with the 1% is beyond me.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's the little things that will trip you up.
brooklynite
(93,871 posts)Hmm, maybe we don't all fit a stereotype.
Bernblu
(441 posts)but fought for the working people. He was unapologetic and the 1% of his day hated him for it. There was no third-way in those days.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Oh the internet, such a lovely place.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)You a 1%er?