Bernie Sanders

zazen

(2,978 posts) Mon Dec 21, 2015, 02:43 PM Dec 2015

see FDR, Clement Attlee: Wasn't economic security at home once seen as VITAL to national security?

I'm surprised Bernie isn't picking up on some of the themes of Interwar and Post War Europe in addressing this supposed dominating topic of "national security" (which I don't think matters as much to individuals as economic security but is being pushed by polls and the mainstream media).

I've been binge-watching a lot of great documentaries on WW1, Interwar, WW2, and Cold War lately (the 26-episode British World at War series was mind-blowing), and am struck by a few points that might resonate on the campaign trail.

1. Part of America's strength going into WW2, apart from not having to rebuild a post-WW1 homefront, was that the social and economic policies put into place by FDR had made us MORE resilient and probably placed us on a greater war footing than had the excesses of the 20s continued unabated. Public works programs easily morphed into widespread military preparation operations on the homefront.

Whatever the subtleties of that time (and I don't profess any deep understanding of them), a quick soundbite is that FDR managed to be great wartime president as well as rebuilding economic security at home. (He also interned American citizens, but no Republican is going to bring that up.)

When Bernie hearkens to FDR, he needs to argue that not only can building economic security and building national security co-exist in the same administration, but that one is the best precondition for the other. Invoking that era has lots of resonance for older Americans.

Which relates to

2. Clement Attlee was voted in (and Churchill out) after WW2 because Britain really wanted to focus on rebuilding, including building a national economic safety net (universal healthcare, unemployment pensions, support for the elderly, etc.). Whatever one says about whether this bankrupted them in the 70s/80s (Thatcher's argument), during the 40s, 50s and 60s Britain and other European states saw building an economic safety net for their citizens as one of the best ways to keep them from being suspectible to fascism and/or communism.

3. If I were Bernie's adviser, I'd have get him to say that St. Ronnie "defeated communism" at a time when the tax rate was 50% (or whatever figure) higher on the x percent than it is today. This "defeat" was precisely BECAUSE we had a social safety net and regulation in the post-war period that kept our country's form of capitalism competitive.

What's the difference today? We have unbridled capitalism. The safety net has been cut out from under American families. We can only be strong on national security when we have higher employment, security, and life satisfaction at home.

Maybe someone who is more pithy could weigh in here.

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

see FDR, Clement Attlee: Wasn't economic security at home once seen as VITAL to national security? (Original Post) zazen Dec 2015 OP

that was the time of the Red Scare Proserpina Dec 2015 #1

Perhaps something like.. Kentonio Dec 2015 #2

nice: "a beacon of hope in a world that all too often seems a dark and fearful place" zazen Dec 2015 #4

Yeah, back in the old days. Now, economic security at home just gives free Nay Dec 2015 #3

If your goal was to render America weak you would pack up whole factories and send them overseas. Enthusiast Dec 2015 #5

Proserpina

(2,352 posts)

1. that was the time of the Red Scare

Reply to zazen (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 02:48 PM

Dec 2015

the oligarchs lived in desperate fear of a Bolshevik Revolution on their front steps...and it came this close! The Great Depression was not PR.

What they failed to realize is you don't need Communism to have a revolution, and squashing Occupy was exactly the wrong thing to do. Our Great Recession (or as I prefer in the interests of Truth: the Greater Depression) is the driving force that will finish the job FDR started...not stopping halfway, either.

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)

2. Perhaps something like..

Reply to zazen (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 03:08 PM

Dec 2015

How can we project strength to the world, when our own people live in poverty? When millions of our children go to sleep hungry? When the working men and women of America work long hours and multiple jobs and still fear losing the roof over their heads and the educational futures of their kids? If we want a strong America, then we need a strong economy, an economy where no matter the colour of your skin, your gender or sexuality or the wealth of your parents, you can come into this world knowing that you have a fair and equal opportunity to life a safe and happy life. When we achieve those basic rights for all Americans, then America will once again be a strong nation and a beacon of hope in a world that all too often seems a dark and fearful place.