Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What FDR said, and what Obama has not.

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
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 03:38 AM
Original message
What FDR said, and what Obama has not.
Edited on Mon Aug-03-09 04:05 AM by ConsAreLiars
Thom Hartmann has played audio of this 1936 speech and others. This one explained the policies that both saved Capitalism and saved the people of the US from impending death by Capitalism. Looking for a link I found DUer 'Time for change' had posted excerpts in yet one more very-worth-reading post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2478176 . And s/he gives the source: http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/roosevelt/fdr_1936_0627.html

Here are a few lines from that speech. Would Obama ever say these words? Is he so naive or sold out as to never consider saying anything close. Would saying them be a death sentence?

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy-from the eighteenth century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own Government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people.. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution-all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers-the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor-these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age-other people's money-these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living-a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor-other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.


For the short attention span readers, go through it again and again. And maybe go back to the whole speech. This is where we are today, as then. I suspect that giving the parasites more blood is nort not the best answer.

(edit to substitute "naive" for a less appropriate word)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Obama is certainly not stupid
Whether he sold out is still an open question, but I hope not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yeah, that sentence was a deal breaker for me to read any further
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. You might want to read a bit futther, unless you regard FDR as some
Edited on Mon Aug-03-09 04:36 AM by ConsAreLiars
crazy left-winger. Or if you are just a self-blinded dittohead. Read what FDR said, and see if it is any less true today, and ask why Obama has not said anything close. No, I don't think he is stupid. Is he playing chess or just caving in to the real Masters? I don't know. Do you?

(edit tiny typo, as usual)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Oh that's convincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Read FDR's words. Think about that time and what FDR said. Think about what they would mean today
Edited on Mon Aug-03-09 04:53 AM by ConsAreLiars
if President Obama were to say anything close. OK, I know that's a bit much to ask, and I certainly can't require you to imagine Obama doing any close to that. I can't either, sadly.


(edit very tiny typos)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 03:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. If you can still edit this post, please do so.
You have some valid things to say, but using the word "stupid" is going to prejudice people against reading this, or start a flame war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. true stupid or stupidly will turn people off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Thank you. Done.
I think "naive" is a bit more accurate, but I never suspected that any DUers would imagine that the use of the "stupid" word was was intended to mean anything other than "he is obviously not stupid" and tsat is not an explanation/excuse. Obviously, some DUers (one or more) were incapable of seeing the obvious. No surprise they s/t/he(y read no further and just put their fingers in their ears, covered their eyes, and howled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 04:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. Speeches like that are why FDR will always be my hero.
Nobody in the modern political landscapes has the courage to say anything like that anymore. Now, all we do is worship wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. What FDR said then was the plain, honest, obvious truth. And today
Edited on Tue Aug-04-09 02:02 AM by ConsAreLiars
is is still more true. Things are far worse in terms of the powers of the Corporate Machines over humans than they were even then. Yet the many voices that point out that same truth FDR described are never heard, and those who have the power to speak AND be heard stay silent.

(edit to replace 'yet' with 'and' in the heading)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
8. Obama doesn't like making enemies with anyone
Since the beginning of this administration people have wanted to see him lash out at Wall Street, The Republicans, Corporations, etc. The fact is that that isn't his style. He wants to be the President of the entire country, including the major conservatives forces.

I'm frankly not so sure about the wisdom of that decision but one thing I've learned over the past two years is that it's generally not a good idea to underestimate President Obama, at least not in the long run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
11. What year was this? In the midst of the Depression, there..
was a common feeling that capitalism had indeed failed. We are nowhere close to that today.

Obama is not stupid or naive, and gives good speech up there with any of the Presidents. The problem is to outline the problems and the solutions to a public that doesn't agree on what the problems are. Or how bad they are.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. We actually WERE at that point, headlines last fall asked "Has Capitalism Failed?"
The problem is, we lacked the same kind of leadership that would side with the angry and displaced public against the economic royalist of our day -- instead our leadership essentially helped the economic royalists recover their grip on our society and quell the anger that had arisen in the public.

Obama - either deliberately or accidentally - missed the window of opportunity when the very value and necessity of capitalism was being truly questioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Sensationalist headlines, but no one really believed that, and...
we haven't been anywhere near the mess we were in during the Depression. Where were the Hoovervilles, the Okies, the dustbowls?

Where's the Communist Party, or its modern counterpart, gaining support as it did back in the 30s as an alternative to a failed system? Where are the breadlines here, or the starving masses in Europe?

Nah, it's been bad, but we've been through recessions before and worked our way out of them. If Obama, or anyone else, tried to claim the system had collapsed it would have meant instant career change. Ironically, the safety nets set up during and after the Depression have mitigated the damage and held off collapse.

If the system does actually collapse, we'll all know it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. If you're not aware of the "hovervilles" aka tent cities that we have RIGHT NOW
You need to log of DU and step outside.

Or, google keywords Los Angeles and tent cities. Or tent cities 2009 maybe.

I didn't say the system collapsed, I said we were in a place where the public was awakened, and in crisis, and had the choice been made to side with them, instead of to side with business interests, we could have been looking at some pretty powerful change...

As far as your "no one really believed that" thing goes - well that's your opinion I guess. I follow financial and business news pretty closely, and I'd not seen anything like what was being written during the six months after last September in thirty years...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-05-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. We've had cardboard cities under bridges...
around here since the 60s, and under the steam grates in the winter was a favorite place back then. Probably even before that. Twenty years or so ago the homeless living in the attic of the Staten Island Ferry terminal almost burned it down, and there are still forgotten subway tunnels and abandoned tracks under Grand Central Station where the homeless have lived for decades.

Does any of this prove anything, other than that there are a lot of homeless people around, always were and likely always will be? It's still not nearly as bad as it was during the Depresion.

The Penn Central bankruptcy, Whitehall Brokerage failure, and a few other doozies in the past when a billion bucks was a hell of a lot of money generated jeremiads all over the business press about how the system was doomed and we'll all be living in refigerator boxes and licking empty tuna cans for food.

Prophecying doom is not actually meeting doom, and even though the public saw its 401K's shrink in value and watched Lehman go under, it just WATCHED, and that is the point. Everyone was touched, but few were wiped out. Just like after the Penn Central fiasco.

Sure, the entire system is highly leveraged and in danger of collapse at any time, and the Bhat failure, attacks on the Lira and Sterling before the Euro, Chinese refusal to buy more debt... all and more of this kind of stuff could cause collapse. But, the point is that as much as people had fun talking about the end of civilization (and I daresay some HOPED for that end) the system ended up working and there was no collapse. Now, more safeguards are being put in place and that should put the end of capitalism even further into the future.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
12. Great quote in that speech
"Liberty requires opportunity to make a living-a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for."

I think I'm going to print out a copy of those words and hang them over my desk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-03-09 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
13. That Kind Of Real Leadership Is Too Much Drama For Obama
It's in that category that our once-great nation is truly "Necessitous."

We've gone from our Greatest Generation to our Lamest Generation is less than a single lifespan.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
15. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
16. Death to the Economic Royalists. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
17. FDR was no saint. But he DID recognize the necessity of his times.
Edited on Tue Aug-04-09 02:30 AM by Political Heretic
FDR entered political life very much a conservative - one might even call him a "pro business pragmatist" like Clinton described himself.

What FDR understood, based on his understanding of the crisis time in which he took on the Presidency, was that the only way to save the basic structure and establishment from complete collapse was to make dramatic concessions to an unruly and awakened working class. Personally, I believe that any serious biographical study of the life and times of FDR makes it impossible to suggest that his attitude remained purely pragmatic or cynical.

But FDR wasn't born a visionary who desired to craft a more social-friendly America. That's the mantle he took on in order to save the constitutional republic, to deter both fascism (as we know a bit about) but also communism, socialism or some other mechanism for disrupting the basic established governance and power structure.

One has two choices when it comes to considering FDR. Either one reads his speeches, personal letters, and public comments over the course of his life and claims that he was lying in his opinions about "economic royalists" and "welcoming their hatred" - or one instead sees a complicated man who certainly was not looking to replace American economic and political structure with socialism or something similar, who certainly was not leading a revolution of Bolshevikian style, or attempting to universally dismantle class or disrupt privilege -- but who also truly believed that the excesses of unrestrained capitalism were evils to be undone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-04-09 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
21. that is an awesome speech
I wonder if it would work the same today though. Thing about Obama's naivete, is that it is more than matched by that of most people. Unlike the people of 1936, we grew up in this system. It is pretty much all we ever knew. The people of 1936, many of themn were thrust into this system as they lost their farms or their formerly independent lifestyle. Now we have been brought up with that as 'just the way things are' and also that this is 'the best of all possible systems'.
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 Wed May 01st 2024, 03:34 PM
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