Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How the New Deal was passed: Hint: There were a hell of a lot

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:01 PM
Original message
How the New Deal was passed: Hint: There were a hell of a lot
of dems.

By 1935 the Dem party held super majorities in both houses.

Sweeping change usually happens when one party hold a strong majority in both Houses.

Were dems more liberal then? Not from what I know, but it's much easier to effect change when you have a strong majority.

If dems can make strong gains in 2008, there's a real chance that some of the programs most liberals/progressives have been working for, will be enacted.

And that's why it's important that Dems be elected.

Link to site with numbers for the 73 and 74th Congress.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Big majorities would definitely make it much easier to pursue a progressive agenda.
Anything in the filibuster-proof range would be nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It would be very nice indeed
and I think that the argument that dems were so different then, and now they're just corporate puppets, is a lousy one. And I'm not denying the threat of creeping corporatism or the impact of corporate money on Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Unfortunately, big money is a political necessity.
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 10:29 PM by TwilightZone
I think that the "corporatist" label is grossly overused. Obviously, it takes serious money to win political races, so raising money from a variety of sources is a necessary evil.

Until we pass public financing and eliminate corporate donations, the influence of rich people and corporations is only going to continue growing, simply because before long they're going to be the only ones that can provide funds in the volume required.

Even state races are hitting the $10 million mark. It's tough to come up with that kind of money without involving corporate donations. Sucks, of course, but it's tough to hit numbers like that $20 at a time.

That's also why it's difficult to compare eras. With television and other media being saturated with ads, it takes more and more money to be competitive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I certainly agree.
Here in Vermont we've been struggling to keep big money out of our races. As you probably know the SC ruled against our strict campaign finance law.

And it is difficult to compare eras, but not impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. When Clinton was first elected Democrats had a quite large majority
Tell me what Liberal goals got accomplished.. "don't ask don't tell" ?????????It is no wonder Democrats were thrown out on their collective asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Roosevelt also had powerful allies in Congress
most notably, Sam Rayburn in the House, and Joe Robinson in the Senate, who put their energies into getting New Deal programs passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. And there were a good number of Dems at the time that were eerily similar to DLCers.
The former presidential candidate Al Smith was a ass-kisser of the business interests and loathed FDR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spike from MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
26. Like the American Liberty League for example.
The American Liberty League was a U.S. organization formed in 1934 by conservative Democrats such as Al Smith (the 1928 Democratic presidential nominee), Jouett Shouse (former high party official and U.S. Representative), John W. Davis (the 1924 Democratic presidential nominee), and John Jacob Raskob (former Democratic National Chairman and the foremost opponent of Prohibition), Dean Acheson (future Secretary of State under Harry Truman), along with many industrialists, notably Prescott Bush and members of the Du Pont family.

The League stated that it would work to "defend and uphold the Constitution" and to "foster the right to work, earn, save and acquire property." In its opinion, the Roosevelt Administration was leading the U.S. toward fascism, bankruptcy and dictatorship. The League spent between $500,000 and $1.5 million in promotional campaigns; its funding came mostly from the Du Pont family, as well as leaders of U.S. Steel, General Motors, General Foods, Standard Oil, Birdseye, Colgate, Heinz Foods, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. It reached over 125,000 members and supported the Republicans in 1936.

In the year of its founding, 1934, the League was allegedly involved in the Business Plot to overthrow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The plot is detailed in congressional testimony by Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler. According to Butler's testimony, the League was founded intentionally as a para-military coup vehicle, an 'American version' of the 1930s French Croix de Feu. Butler said that he was approached to lead a group of 500,000 veterans to take over the functions of government. The final McCormack-Dickstein Committee report agreed with Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed.(Spivak, Seldes, Archer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Liberty_League


Seems a lot of the Dems weren't exactly on board with the New Deal.

Much of the eventual opposition to Roosevelt's leadership came from members of his own party. Indeed, it was in the Washington office of Jouette Shouse, the powerful Democratic leader who helped to rebuild the Democratic party during Hoover's Presidency, that the creation of the Liberty League was first announced to the press in August 1934. Shouse with John J. Raskob, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 1928, and other conservative Democrats feared that the Roosevelt administration was veering too far to the left. Alfred E. Smith and John W. Davis, two former Democratic Presidential candidates, served as directors of the league along with three Republicans. The league was organized ostensibly as a nonpartisan venture to gather facts. Under that guise it even received the blessing of Roosevelt. Many Republicans, however, viewed the Liberty League as a front organization for their party. Neasweek saw the the issue clearly: "The Tories," it reported, "have come out of ambush." Soon Democratic leaders within the administration regarded the league as nothing but an organized endeavor to destroy the appeal of their party. Harold Ickes, secretary of the interior, professed to be delighted. The United States would have at last, he commented, two political parties divided on real issues. Harry Hopkins wrote cynically: "The League may be composed of right-thinking people but they are so far Right that no one will ever find them." By the close of 1934 the battle lines in national politics were clearly drawn.

http://www.jstor.org/view/00224642/di982286/98p0174t/0.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. During the 30s and 40s the House Leadership and committee chairs were made up of southern dems
of whom many were not receptive to the New Deal. So Thankfully those big majorities made it possible to pass progressive legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Rayburn and Robinson were both Southern Dems
I think Southern Dems would have been more receptive to the New Deal since much of the South was particularly hard hit by the Depression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
28. Your post just points up one of the major differences in the Dem party in the 30s and today.
The Dem Party lost its huge edge with the signing of the Civil Rights Act by LBJ in 1967. Goldwater's Republican Strategy scooped up all the southern racists. In addition, Reagan et al tried to destroy the union movement in this country and damn near succeeded. Thus, two very large and powerful voting blocs of the Democratic Party were effectively removed from the equation between the two parties. We are still trying to get our power back, by appealing to a less organized, but more populous group of voters, but they are not particularly geographically together. Let's just call them the suffering middle class...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whoneedstickets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. Anyone who wants to pretend there is no difference between D and R
Needs to revisit the history of the New Deal. If we elect enough dems we WILL get results. If we bail out and vote 'symbolically' for non-viable candidates we will never see a era like this again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. In the meantime, would it have been too much to ask for the Dem
Congress to at least BLOCK things like FISA, the Kyl-Lieberman monstrosity, and the stupid MoveOn resolution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Well, it certainly is disheartening to look at those
items, but let me remind you that every Senate dem voted for the Habeas Restoration Act and Webb's bill giving in country members of the military equal time at home.

The fact is when we get three more dems next year, we will see a difference. Habeas will be restored, the War Profiteering Prevention Act will pass, and we'll have an opportunity to pass meaningful legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Depending on who those three Dems are, you may or may not be right
There's a huge difference between getting three more Lieberman types and getting three more Wellstone types, although most are somewhere in between, which makes the wager even more iffy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I can tell you who they are:
Mark Warner of Virginia. He's a moderate but no Joe Lieberman, and not a conservative dem like Ben Nelson of NE.

Jeanne Shaheen of NH. She's fairly liberal.

Mark Udall of CO. He's a liberal progressive.

The first two are running 20 to 30+ points ahead in the polls.

Udall is running something like 5 up.

But let me again point out that ALL dems in the Senate, no matter how conservative voted for the Habeas Restoration Act and for Webb's leave bill. Only 5 or 6 pukes did. That's a stark difference.

And again, Conservative and moderate dems are easier to handle when there's a good size majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. I agree, Lydia
There was too much Democratic support for all that crap you mentioned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrotherBuzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. There was a growing communist movement afoot during that time, too
Some say FDR effectively nipped it in the bud buy advancing the New Deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
12. Some historians believe....
that FDR saved capitalism in the US.

Lots of folks were attracted to one totalitarian governmental system or another. Some Congressmen saw that it was compromise or chaos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
14. 1st rec, cali
Well done!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Thank you very much, Jeff
Edited on Tue Oct-16-07 12:29 AM by cali
Fact based posts are a good thing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. This place could use more of them, for sure!
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
21. No doubt we have to get more Dems in Congress, but...
we also have to get a decent Democratic President.

It was, after all, FDR who originated and pressed for the New Deal and got Congress to follow along.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Yes, but
even with someone like Hillary, legislation like restoring Habeas, SCHIP and many, many other bills that have been blocked by repubs, would pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. I have no problem with Hillary, and...
while I doubt she'll come up with anything new and earthshaking without a major crisis, she'll bring responsible management and common decency back into the White House.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
22. K & R with the dream a a blue future! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spike from MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
27. The New Deal coalition.
Looks like the New Deal came more from the left than from within the Democratic Party itself.


Destroying the Third-Party Threat

Beyond adopting leftist rhetoric and offering progressive policies in exchange for support from radical and economically depressed constituencies, President Roosevelt also sought to recruit the actual leaders of protest groups by convincing them that they were part of his coalition. He gave those who held state and local public office access to federal patronage, particularly in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York, where strong statewide third parties existed. Electorally powerful non-Democrats whom Roosevelt supported included Minnesota governor Floyd Olson (Farmer-Labor Party), New York City mayor Fiorello La Guardia (American Labor Party), and Nebraska senator George Norris (Independent), as well as Wisconsin governor Philip La Follette and his brother, Senator Robert La Follette Jr. (both Progressive Party).

This strategy had an impact. In 1937, Philip La Follette’s executive secretary told Daniel Hoan, the Socialist mayor of Milwaukee, that a national third party never would be launched while Roosevelt was “in the saddle,” because Roosevelt had “put so many outstanding liberals on his payroll . . . any third party movement would lack sufficient leadership.” The president told leftist leaders that he was on their side and that his ultimate goal was to transform the Democratic Party into an ideologically coherent progressive party in which they could hope to play a leading role. A few times he even implied that, to secure ideological realignment, he personally might go the third-party route, following in the footsteps of his cousin Theodore Roosevelt.

Franklin Roosevelt ran his 1936 presidential campaign as a progressive coalition, not as a Democratic Party activity. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. has described Roosevelt’s tactics as follows:

As the campaign developed, the Democratic party seemed more and more submerged in the New Deal coalition. The most active campaigners in addition to Roosevelt— Ickes, Wallace, Hugh Johnson—were men identified with the New Deal, not with the professional Democratic organization. Loyalty to the cause superseded loyalty to the party as the criterion for administration support. . . . It was evident that the basis of the campaign would be the mobilization beyond the Democratic party of all the elements in the New Deal coalition—liberals, labor, farmers, women, minorities.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4512566.html

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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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