The Humanitarian Accomplishments of FDR

We are currently entering a period of intense efforts at revisionist history by the Republican Party and the wealthy right wing elitists whom they represent. These efforts are targeted at the man who is widely regarded by Presidential historians as the second greatest President in U.S. history – Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This is necessary to the cause of the right wing elitists because the ideology that they have sold to the American people since the Reagan Revolution of 1980 is in the process of being exposed for what it always was.

If Barack Obama has a successful presidency while emulating the policies of FDR, that right wing ideology is likely to be dismissed into the dustbin of history, where it belongs. But if they can successfully obstruct President Obama from instituting his programs for economic recovery, then when our nation fails to recover from its economic crisis in a timely manner they will place the blame on Obama and the Democratic Congress, thereby once again making themselves “relevant”.

Their current game plan is to claim that FDR’s New Deal, which pulled us out of the worst depression in our history, didn’t work – and by extension, that President Obama’s proposed programs won’t work either. FDR was re-elected by landslides three consecutive times and ranked by historians as the second greatest President in our history because… well, because his signature program didn’t work!

I have recently posted articles on DU showing that the New Deal did indeed work and describing the lessons that we should have learned from the failed policies of FDR’s predecessor, Herbert Hoover – whose failed economic policies are almost identical to those we have lived under for the past eight years and more, and which today’s Republican Party would like to continue.

But that’s not what this post is primarily about. FDR is best known for his New Deal (which DID work, btw) and for his leading us to victory in World War II over perhaps the greatest world-wide threat to humanity in the history of the world. Those things are well known to history, despite current Republican efforts to revise history. So, in this post I will briefly review the evidence that FDR’s New Deal did work. And then I will discuss the uncompleted humanitarian efforts for which he is less well known, but that nevertheless remain of great importance to us today.


A brief review of the evidence that FDR’s New Deal DID work

When FDR took office in March 1933 our nation was in the midst of the worst depression in its history. Our annual gross domestic product had been nearly cut in half since the Stock Market Crash of three and a half years previously. Unemployment stood at 25%. Great income disparity existed in our country, with the top 1% of individuals accounting for 17% of annual income and the top 10% accounting for 44% of annual income.

Within four years of taking office, GDP rose to about 90% of where it had been prior to the Stock Market Crash. In FDR’s first term in office our country experienced a 5.3% increase in jobs – the greatest percent increase in jobs of the past 20 presidential terms, from 1929 to 2009. As a result, the unemployment rate was approximately cut by more than 40% by the end of his first term. By 1941, prior to the onset of World War II, the unemployment rate had declined to below 10%.

The New Deal was so successful that it lasted for several decades, during which median family income rose steadily (in 2005 dollars) from $22,499 in 1947 to more than double that, $47,173 by 1980. This period has thus been referred to by Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman as the “greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history” – a boom that produced a vibrant middle class that only began to decline with the onset of the Reagan revolution in 1980, which began the dismantling of the New Deal. With that, median family income became stagnant (with a brief respite during the latter years of the Clinton presidency) and income inequality began a precipitous increase, resulting in today’s current record levels.


FDR’S LESS WELL KNOWN HUMANITARIAN RECORD

Anti-imperialism

FDR is one of our few presidents with an impressive record of anti-imperialism (Jimmy Carter is the next best example I can think of). During a period of two decades, from 1893 to 1913, the United States embarked on a period of overseas imperialism that brought great misery to the peoples of several other countries. So abrupt was this rise of American imperialism that a journalist for the London Times described it as “a break in the history of the world”. During this period we overthrew governments of the sovereign nations of Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines (in a vicious guerilla war), Nicaragua, and Honduras.

FDR made clear in his inaugural address of 1933 that he intended to reverse that process. In announcing his “good neighbor policy”, FDR said:


This was later affirmed by FDR’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, who said “No country has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another”. Results of FDR’s anti-imperialistic principles included the withdrawal of U.S. marines from Haiti and Nicaragua in 1934 and the annulment of the Platt Amendment, which defined our imperialistic control over Cuba.


The beginnings of a world order built upon the concept of human dignity

In the midst of World War II and the Nazi genocide, prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that led to U.S. entry into the war, the leaders of the only two countries in the world that posed an obstacle to Nazi Germany’s lust for world conquest, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, met on a ship in the Atlantic Ocean to discuss the great threat facing them and the world.

FDR and Churchill realized the importance of persuading the populations of their countries and other countries to enthusiastically endorse and support the effort to prevent Nazi tyranny from taking over the world. To those ends they realized that tough talk and threats were not sufficient or even desirable. Rather, they recognized the need to lay out a vision before the world that would clearly show the differences between them and their Fascist enemies. Thus, the Atlantic Charter of August 14, 1941, which announced the following principles:


The whole process is described by Elizabeth Borgwardt in her book, “http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.2/br_107.html">A New Deal for the World – America’s Vision for Human Rights”. The gist of the effort is described in the book jacket:



The creation of the United Nations

Following the Nazi Holocaust and World War II the recognition of the need for enforcement of human rights in the world became more acute and widespread. The victorious nations of the world, led by the United States, wasted little time in beginning to make the principles proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter into reality. The creation of the United Nations, conceptualized and led by FDR, was the beginning of that attempt. The preamble to the Charter of the United Nations annunciated the following purposes for its creation:


Since its inception, the United Nations has furthered the cause of human rights by adopting numerous conventions, such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Criminal Court, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, and the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Stephane Hessel, in a speech titled “Reform of the United Nations and International Humanitarian Law”, from “International Justice and Impunity”, puts in perspective the debt we all owe to the leadership of FDR:


Hessell then proceeds to discuss the large gap between the purposes of the UN and its application in the real world.


FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

Cass Sunstein, in his book, “The Second Bill of Rights – FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever”, describes the philosophy that motivated Roosevelt to fight for his radical (at the time) programs to benefit the American people:


FDR believed in those principles enunciated in our Declaration of Independence that never made it into our Constitution – that all people have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To him that meant, in addition to the freedom of speech and freedom of religion enshrined in our First Amendment to our Constitution, people also had the right to freedom from want and freedom from fear – and it was the responsibility of government to provide those rights. That philosophy provided the foundation for his New Deal. But he wanted more than that. He wanted the benefits provided in his New Deal to be enshrined as permanent rights, in what he called “The Second Bill of Rights”. In his 1944 State of the Union message he enunciated that principle:



Incorporation of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights into International Law after his Death

Following FDR’s death in 1945, his wife, Eleanor, led the effort towards international acceptance of numerous elements of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, incorporated into the |Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. These rights were then expanded further by The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which was ratified by 142 nations as of 2003. Paradoxically, the United States, where the Second Bill of Rights originated, has not yet signed that Covenant.

Furthermore, the commitment to economic and social rights throughout the world is manifested by their inclusion in the constitutions of numerous countries. And the European Social Charter, signed by 24 European countries, establishes such rights as the right to work for fair remuneration, health care and social security.


FDR’S LEGACY IN SUMMARY

FDR gave us the New Deal, which did much to pull us out of the Great Depression, build a robust middle class, and set the stage for several decades of the “greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history”.

He then led the effort to defeat the Nazis, following which he led the creation of an international institution the purpose of which was to establish a legal framework to ensure universal human rights and dignity and social progress and prevent war.

He meant all of these things to be permanent. The New Deal was to be enshrined in a “Second Bill of Rights”. And the United Nations was supposed to provide a legal framework to preserve international order, prosperity, and human rights and dignity permanently. Though FDR’s efforts provided immense benefits to his country and the world, they didn’t quite turn out to be as permanent as he would have liked.

In 1981 our country was taken over by right wing ideologues in the same mold as those who fought against the New Deal in the 1930s. By that time most Americans were too young to remember what the New Deal did for our country, and too ignorant of history to know better. They bought into the idea that the best way to prosperity is to let unbridled greed reign free and kick government out of the picture. That was the same philosophy that brought us the Great Depression of the 1930s, but most Americans were clueless about that.

Income inequality rose to new heights, leading to immense fortunes in the hands of the few, at the expense of the many. The concentration of immense wealth and political power in the hands of the few brought us the worst president in U.S. history. Not only did our middle class shrink during this period of time, but we ended up with a presidential administration that shredded our Constitution and violated international law at will, to the point where it became meaningless. The nation that had led the creation of international law and human rights was now the biggest violator of those principles on the planet.

But in 2006 and 2008, the American people began to wise up and vote the right wing ideologues out of office. Now the survivors of this claque, in a desperate effort to maintain their relevance and hold on to their shrinking power, are undertaking an aggressive effort of historical revisionism. The New Deal didn’t Work? Yeah, right, it began to stop working in 1981, when the right wing ideologues took over and began to trash it. Luckily we were able to retain some of it, like Social Security and worker’s compensation, or we’d be right back where we were in the early 1930s.

Thanks.

And right on! Some of the surviving elders of my family still remember the Great Depression and what Mr. Roosevelt did for them - and for my generation. My Dad spent the Depression years in a Civilian Conservation Corps camp after his family lost their farm. That may have saved his life. If Republicans of his day had had their way, he might have starved.

but were more fortunate than most. They had to scrape by, but were not in danger of starving. They were Democrats to the day they died.

Probably millions of additional Americans would have died if the Republicans had had their way.

I've been a lifelong Republican, and I agree with your assertion that FDR's New Deal was the right thing to do, and that it was effective.

That being said, I am also a believer in Reagan's "trickle down" theory. Our current economic crisis, if anything, PROVES how accurate it is. Laws such as NAFTA which encourage corporations to take their employment overseas has removed the American worker from the path of the "trickling down", and we are suffering the consequences of it now.

Personally, I think we need to take far more radical action than has even been proposed - or is even likely to be proposed since it would almost certainly be poorly received (ie, Tariffs, extra taxes imposed on corporations for every employee not within the US borders, etc). For far too long corporations have been allowed to let their greed control them. If this greed had been reined in 20 years ago, we wouldn't be where we are today and we wouldn't need to be taking these desperate measures.

I still believe in "trickle down" - but it's important to keep track of what's trickling and where it's trickling to. This has been ignored for the sake of profit. Short term profit. The economy has a similarity to that of a battery - if it's kept in shape, all it needs is a trickle charge to keep it healthy. But, if it's allowed to die (the way our economy is dying) it needs a "jump start" and a "fast charge."

Rational Republicans are rare. I disagree with you on "trickle-down," believing that it has rally been shown not to work--I prefer a Keynesian economic model. But discussion is important. This place is not monolithic; you may enjoy it, and all of us can learn from open debate.

I'm confused as to why you would agree with what FDR did and trickle down theory at the same time, since what FDR did was pretty much the opposite of trickle down economics. He raised the top marginal tax rates to the highest level they'd ever been, as high as 90%. They were kept very high for decades, and our economy did very well during that time.

"Feeding the horses so that the sparrows can eat."
Screw capitalism and the trickle down lie; people before profits like FDR promulgated during the depression.

if he'd stop helping the GOP destroy his programs....

Like you, all his talk of "bipartisanship" is disturbing to me. It just doesn't seem to me that "bipartisanship" is warranted in these circumstances.

On the other hand, Obama has proven himself a master politician, and certainly political good will will be necessary for the passage of many of his programs. He could lose control of portions of his own party if the blue dogs feel the political winds blowing against him. So maybe he is setting the political stage for a massive wave of progressive legislation.

It's so hard to know :shrug:

I mean, good God, less than ten comments & recs on something like this? Yu've about tied your last FDR thread with this one, I'd say.

FDR: Another picture of us!
ER: This one's not tooo bad...
FDR: We need to gin up support for this thread for Time for Change!
ER: Must you say 'gin' up, darling? But I DO agree!
FDR: Folks like pictures, Babs, not words!
ER: People are so busy these days, what with 'multi-tasking' - is that what it's called? or whatever they call it.

And the quality of the discussion is excellent.

FDR: Hey, give this thread a kick.
ER: But these are new shoes!
FDR: All for a good cause, old girl!
ER: Okay, heeeere goes!

I feel very flattered that you consider my post to be important enough to take an active interest in it, given your ... uh ... what must be busy schedules.

In large part I wrote it out of anger over the vile efforts of Republicans to revise history and minimize your many great accomplishments -- for the same reasons that they fought your efforts to revive our country when you were President and First Lady. The Republican Party is very similar to what they were in your day, but they're worse.

Best wishes,

Tfc

it's really useful to cover the debates - taking place TODAY - in Russia about what the New Deal was about. FDR is a hero to them, too, for a lot of reasons.

Their debate parallels ours and points out a lot of the same issues and views.

Why is he a hero to the Russians? -- other than that his part in the war against the Nazis probably saved millions of Russian lives.

The Cold War and all of our subsequent history would have been a lot different than it was. FDR felt little or no pressure to take the Cold War hype to the extremes that it was taken. It is very doubtful that he would have gotten involved in Vietnam, nuked Hiroshima, or allowed our CIA to go all over the world overthrowing governments. But of course his presidency had to end some time, and it's anybody's guess what would have happened if he had lived another ten years or so.

including when he was in office.

They say at some point he listened to them and the New Deal began to go off the track

and they he ignored them again!

Jimmy Carter is a whole other question though. Hard to figure . . .

Council On Foreign Relations -- some think GOP put him in office.

Also he issued some kind of an edict that still stands which says we have a right to oil;

no matter where it is. Suggests military intervention, as I understand it.

Of course, he did work for ME peace --- and for conservation of energy.

Re Afghanistan ... while he pulled America out of the Olympics because of Russia's attack

on Afghanistan, Carter well knew that America/CIA had financed the Taliban via Pakistan

and that we had gone into Afghanistan 6 months beforethe Soviets came in --and that we

had done so in order to "bait Russia into Afghanistan in hopes of giving them a Vietnam

type experience." Brzezinski speaks about this openly!




Here are more details on it --

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_interview_shor...



Here's another odd Afghanistan/US twist . .

The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.htm

Truth sure is stranger than fiction --- !!!

I look on Jimmy Carter more favorably than that. He did a lot to inject the idea of human rights into our foreign policy -- probably more than any other president since FDR.

He didn't exactly say that we had the right to other nations' oil. What he said was that we would "use military force if necessary to defend our interests in Persian Gulf region". Admittedly, that's very vague and can be taken to mean what you said. And it was out of character for him, and probably one of the worst things he did as Presdient. He said that in the run up to the 1980 election, in the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis. Undoubtedly, he felt the need to act tough in order to win re-election. If it would have caused him to defeat Reagan for the presidency in 1980, it would have been worth it. But admittedly it was not a good thing to say.

Certainly the way that we handled Afghanistan was short sighted, to say the least.

he didn't make a run for prez.

Two, remember the old joke that Carter got his start in politics winning an Eleanor Roosevelt lookalike contest? At times, it seems true!

Certainly the way that we handled Afghanistan was short sighted, to say the least.

I think he wouldn't have been the first to be betrayed/manipulated by spooks in government.

"baiting Russians into Afghanistan" . . . in order to give them a Vietnam-type experience "



Well, in the look-alike contest, I'm still laughing at what the poster who also responded
to this said about Eleanor Roosevelt. But in fact she's one of my most favorite people
and responsible for the United Nations Human Rights Agenda. Which, IMO, puts her ahead
of Carter.

You know . . .

He didn't exactly say that we had the right to other nations' oil. What he said was that we would "use military force if necessary to defend our interests in Persian Gulf region". Admittedly, that's very vague and can be taken to mean what you said. And it was out of character for him, and probably one of the worst things he did as Presdient. He said that in the run up to the 1980 election, in the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis. Undoubtedly, he felt the need to act tough in order to win re-election. If it would have caused him to defeat Reagan for the presidency in 1980, it would have been worth it. But admittedly it was not a good thing to say.

this thing he did has a name which I haven't been able to find. But, I agree on what you wrote
here.


PS: ALSO, just want to mention that re Carter's hostage rescue attempts, I always felt the
"failures" in the desert very suspicious. Later I found out that OLLIE NORTH -- and I think
Secord/? -- were in charge of those missions. The helicopters went down because they didn't
have an essential piece of equipment attached -- intended to keep SAND out of the engines!!!

Gary Sick later wrote "October Surprise" which suggests that he looked back and saw that
there were attempts to recruit him into this conspiracy.

His administration refused refugee Jews escaping Hitler to come in, so they settled in France. . .and were at the mercy of the Nazis after France fell.

I love FDR, but that action was inexcusable.

In addition to the St. Louis, there was the internment camps and the continued starvation at the beginning of the New Deal.

Nonetheless, even though he made some mistakes, FDR was a great president because he participated and encouraged other Americans to participate in our democracy along with him (except Americans of Japanese descent).

FYI, FDR signed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066">EO 9066 on February 19, 1942, the last camp closed in http://web.archive.org/web/20070619073757/http://www.lib.utah.edu/spc/photo/9066/9066.htm">March of 1946, almost one year after he died, and about six months after WW2 officially ended.

FDR was one of the greatest.

Even with all his faults; he was as human as the rest of us.

http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/documents/articles/challengetoamerican.cfm

I can well understand the bitterness of people who have lost loved ones at the hands of the Japanese military authorities, and we know that the totalitarian philosophy, whether it is in Nazi Germany or in Japan, is one of cruelty and brutality. It is not hard to understand why people living here in hourly anxiety for those they love have difficulty in viewing our Japanese problem objectively, but for the honor of our country, the rest of us must do so....

the French did everything possible to shield French Jews from the Germans but they could do little to shield so-called stateless people: Jews, Rom, exiled leftists; and, the Germans got many, or most, of them. Did the reviewer get it right?

scurried as many out of France as they could.

recently died.

His papers revealed how ER and SW worked doggedly under the table to get folks out.

Search the NYT for the past two years on this issue. Use 'Marseille' along with other appropriate terms and you should get his name and story.

another case where FDR tried to play the middle by choosing someone right wing.

Boy, was Eleanor PISSED at him for doing it. And rightfully so.

despite opposition from the usual suspects like Breckenridge Long, Gerald Nye and Sen. Borah.

Because they're not around to give first hand accounts of the great things Roosevelt's policies did and call BS to the republikkan lies.

We may begin to hear from a new group calling themselves New Deal-deniers.

The Nazi's were on the left.

Why do they say that now?
Most who survived the Holocaust and who faught in WWII are dead

That's why I say the GOP still controls education.

They cannot allow people to know a history that does not conform to their ideology.

We may have more seats in Congress than they do and we may have won the White House, but until we can get the GOP in the minority in education and the justice system, we will never be rid of their hate.

He would have had a lot more material for his book.

continuing where they left off.

Lot of work went into this one.

Recommended.

Don

in the heart of Appalachia, not too far from here I live is still in operation; there's still minor league baseball there; and, it's still a focal point for the community and surronding area. Construction like this pays for itself over and over unlike a tank or a fighter plane. A WPA project.
Obama will you listen?

"Dinner at the White House" about Churchill's last dins at the White House in Jan. '42, you MUST.

It's written by a fellow who wrote a dogged anti-imperialist book. And the R's invited him to that dinner just to tweak Churchill and let him know where the US stood on imperialism.

It's a short, fun read. AND, so accurate, Churchill sued the author - successfully - in British courts when it was published. I actually own a copy and read it periodically for his impressions of Churchill and the Rs.

I think you'll like it and it underlines something you've pointed out here that few folks appreciate: that FDR was very much against imperialism. It's one of those reasons it would have been great for him to have lived a few more years. He might have actually had time after the war to answer one of Ho Chi Minh's letters.

It's on my list and I will read it.

Don't forget, he got the ball rolling to stop polio too.

I just love reading about Ickes.

His Secret Diary is a laugh out loud riot at times. GREAT read for New Dealers!

He doesn't get enough credit for the Marian Anderson concert at the Lincoln Memorial.

has been about devaluing humanity, here in this country (and globally), especially the value of the American middle class/working class, labor issues are hand in hand with human rights, IMO. Thank you for this incredibly uplifting piece.

I have long felt the UN's being bashed was self-serving for the GOP, it's nice to understand the moral principles behind this very worthy institution. Thanks fr the refresher. I pray for a revitalization of these ideals, and hope, that once again, valuing humanity will be our collective goal.

The times are certainly changing, Time for Change, your name is fitting and this topic very timely, indeed. How can we go wrong with Obama? Finally, an admin. that will pave the way for honoring humanity and serving the will of the people. I hope the embracing of FDR's work will be swift, we can't afford to wait.

K & R!

Obama has quite a challenge in front of him. He will face tremendous pressures to "compromise" with the GOP on moral principles such as these . It will take a great deal of courage to face them down. No man -- or woman -- can do it alone.

we all can see what is transpiring. Never has it been so obvious that the GOP has been the party of gut and corrupt.