Can we please enact FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights!!! (Lost Footage Found By Michael Moore!)

In 1944, an ill President Roosevelt(just about a year before his death), the war having taken its toll, addressed Congress in his 11th State of the Union message. At one point, FDR proposed a 2nd Bill of Rights, so to speak, that would cover American's rights where the The Bill of Rights had left off, or covered insufficiently. Of course, he did not intend for a change in the US Constitution, but rather these implementations would be enacted "politically" through legislative change.


Here is perhaps the most poignant message of the speech, as an introduction to his proposed bill of rights "addendum"...



Here are the rights that would compose this new proposition (The one's that I feel most important, I have highlighted)



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

I am mentioning this subject because, although it has already been mentioned time and time again here on DU, it will soon have much much more prominence given the fact that long thought to be lost, if not even existent, newsreel footage of FDR proposing this bill or rights has been found. And who found it you may ask? Well...





That's right, Michael Moore, and he includes this footage in his upcoming movie "Capitalism: A Love Story." http://www.7x7.com/blogs/screen-shots/michael-moores-capitalism-conflicted-love-story
I, for one, am ecstatic, being a bit of a history buff and an admirer of FDR. When FDR gave his speech to Congress, he was too ill and the address had to be broadcast from the White House to Congress and the Nation. However, he did request for newsreel reporters to film an entire piece of him proposing his 2nd Bill of Rights. So important was this proposition to FDR, he allowed himself to be filmed and recorded for this excerpt of his State of the Union, in spite of his illness.

I can't help but think of all the times this country has been robbed of the opportunity of real change, throughout its history. To name a few: There was Lincoln. Had he not been shot by Booth, things would have probably been a hell of a lot better for both black people and white people, especially in the South. There was also, of course, FDR. Had he not died when he did, he would have the clout of 3 terms and victorious leadership in a world war to push through his 2nd bill of rights, which included universal health care for all Americans. Had Bobby Kennedy not been assassinated, who knows what kind of change this country would have experienced through his presidency.

Instead, these opportunities for change have been railroaded and dumped to the wayside with the rise of corporate interests in the past 60 years. I would hope that this newsreel will be used to its utmost, spread throughout this country, through all kinds of outlets.

Maybe, just maybe, we can re-invigorate the message of change and opportunity, of universal health care, a living wage, an education, and true, fair capitalism, free of corporate abuse and dominance, once proposed by a dying President, and see his last great legislative "hurrah" for the American people fulfilled. It's been 65 years; I think we are well overdue.

Moore's film is a must see!!!

I for one, can't wait to see it, and although I have been wanting to see Moore's new film, this lost footage is truly a greater incentive.

I watched that wondering if they ever voted on or even discussed any legislation regarding that second bill of rights. Moore does explain what happened and then goes on to show how those rights were given to countries in Europe and Japan after WWII.

See the movie as soon as it comes to your town. It's great.

depressing when we learn that the US, which fought with her allies to deliver Europe from the grips of fascism, and allowed for the complete re-development of European society and the implementation of those rights in those countries after WWII. Unfortunately for us, we went in the complete opposite direction, despite having lead the way for a new democratic way in the world and despite even having proposed those rights that most of Europe now enjoys. (That's not to say that certain other Euro nations, such as in Scandinavia, didn't have those rights or something similar)

............had you asked...

:rofl:

:hug:

and loved how he used to call out the right wing and greedy corporations!!!

We need more FDR stuff on DU -- !!!

Thank you for doing this -- I saw MM on Larry King last night -- but we really
needed this thread!!!

I'm going back to my hometown next week, so hopefully I can see it with a few of my friends from home.

JFK had nothing on him.

He is my favorite president.

-- widely castigated here as some kind of corporatist stooge, by the way -- in 2004 produced a book-length treatment of this topic that is a wonderful read.

but forgot to add it to my post. It seems like a very fruitful, worth wile read.

are single and not part of families.

The meaning is actually quite clear when it comes to housing.

In other words, it's self-explanatory.

He certainly would have included single people should the legislation have come to pass.

Notice he call all farmers "he"s.

Hey, I would have taken you to Moore's film had I known. It's great and I hope it will fire people up to really get something done.
:hug:

Things look very different when you're in the category of those habitually left out.

And, sometimes, that being left out has disastrous consequences.

Do you realize that I, personally, can't get a place to live where I need to be because it's FOR FAMILIES ONLY?

reading way too much into this. The wording is from 1944, when the societal mores and implications would have been much different than today. In those days, more emphasis would have been placed on the family. Obviously this proposition for a 2nd Bill of Rights can be updated for 21st century mores. Regardless of the family vs single thing, the message of the whole thing is still pretty solid and clear, IMHO.

"his".

And we were told to "lighten up".

Isn't it interesting that ALL groups, when they begin to fight for awareness of their situation, face exactly this sort of isolation, and then dismissal when we point it out?

If you ever find yourself in my shoes, I can guarantee you that you will have your eyes opened.

And it won't be pleasant.

Hopefully, by then there will be more awareness, so you won't have to face what I have to face. And, if it happens, I hope you get more understanding that what I receive.

thanks for completely hijacking this thread and spiraling in down toward a completely machinated tangent. Why is it so difficult for you to simply observe this piece in the abstract instead of tearing it apart because of different, out of date wordings and societal implications. "Him" "His" "Families," you're grasping at straws here. Why is it so difficult for you to simply get the basic point of human rights out of his speech, of which we can apply and modify to fit our present, more advanced situation here in the 21st Century?


I am a gay single male with his eyes "wide open" and I am well aware of the world around me and the great pains and lengths certain groups go to keep me from my rights and advancing in society, so please do not lecture me on the subject of discrimination and civil rights. I am not trying to pretend that I have any understanding of what you have seen or experienced in your life exclusively, nor do I expect YOU to do the same about me and my life.

The purpose of this post is to simply express the hopes that a President had for the future of his fellow citizens. When you remove all dated wordings and expressions, out of it you get a basic and decent proposition; a list of rights that all Americans, from health care and a living wage, should share.
Don't criticize something that was spoken more than 60 years ago. We as a people and every government who has come since FDR are the ones who should be criticized. Little to nothing has been done to push these basic human rights, rights that are now shared by much of the modern industrialized Western world.

glib ignoring of a segment of this population.

Oh, and gays have never, ever "highjacked" a thread because something hurt or offended them, have they..............nope, that was different.

Isn't it interesting that "progressives" can have an opportunity to see something in a new light, and gain some awareness, and yet just go all DU on it and get defensive and blaming and critical and PERSONAL.

Ain't that a real kick?

What "highjacked" the thread, buddy, was your unwillingness to consider that something you were not aware of is DAMAGING to not only your fellow citizens, but DUers right here in front of you. Would it really be so impossible for you to hear and understand the pain of another, especially given that you want others to hear and understand YOUR pain?

Please do tell. I am sorry that you lack the ability to observe something historical, written over 60 years ago, and understand and analyze the differences and the change that has occurred from when it was written in 1944 and now in 2009. How dare FDR (a man from a completely different time and generation) and his glib ignorance of a whole segment of the
population, i.e. single people :sarcasm:

And when exactly was I personal? You are the one who made the first point of stressing that you are somebody whose shoes only YOU could fill, whose eyes only YOU could see through, and whose experiences only YOU could understand. You put yourself on the pedestal of a discriminated group of society, and thus claimed you were the only one who could understand the OP. Well, in response, I countered with my own response that I too am somebody who has his own life experiences and has had to live the life of an "oppressed" member of a segment of the population that only he could understand, and yet does not get all puffed up and offensive over something written over 60 years ago.

And talk about personal: "Oh, and gays have never, ever "highjacked" a thread because something hurt or offended them, have they..............nope, that was different." You are the sole purveyor of personal attack here.

What "highjacked" the thread, buddy, was your unwillingness or inability to simply extract the basic and fundamental good from what was proposed by a man 60 years ago, and simply put aside the different mores and technical expressions of another time and generation.

getting angry with me for pointing out something that is NOW hurting poor people just as much as it did then is showing that lack of awareness of the pain of others.

You see, by continuing to insist that I "drop it", which I'm not about to do anymore than I would expect you to drop YOUR demands for awareness from this society, YOU are the one continuing the "highjacking" that you decry.

Your awarenss and lack thereof is up to you.

At any time you can choose to soften up a bit and understand the pain of others, just as you want others to understand the pain that you have suffered. Being harsh with me, the proud use of sarcasm, etc., does nothing to increase understanding or build bridges, now does it?

Yes, it really is that simple.

to play the victim, claiming that "things look very different when you're in the category of those habitually left out," if you wish. I am well aware of the pains of others. You are the one who jumped to conclusions about me before you knew anything about me and then when I made clear that I too was somebody familiar with being "habitually left out," you went and attacked me for that as well.


You are right, my awareness is up to me, which is why I am not unaware or indifferent to or of anything, especially regarding this subject.


I truly feel sorry that you cannot take any good from this great speech in American history, and instead only choose to derail its importance through differences in language and dated descriptions of the American populace.

Look, we've had enough of the years of RW name-calling.

Get a new play book.

you have returned...you hadn't posted anything here in more than a day, I was getting concerned :sarcasm:

"Look, we've had enough of the years of RW name-calling." Damn right we have, and I hope you will abide by your own words and stop using such tactics.

Peace.

Now, when someone calling themselves "progressive" decides to use those tactics, I return the favor.

I don't start it, but I sure as hell won't eat just any shit someone decides to hand out.

"progressive" decides to use those tactics, I return the favor. I don't start it, but I sure as hell won't eat just any shit someone decides to hand out."

Well you took the words right of my mouth. You pretty much sum yourself up perfectly as someone who claims to be "progressive" and uses such tactics. I really appreciate the candor about yourself.

Hence, I return the favor, not with RW put downs or whatever you talk about or prefer, but rather with logic and reasoning.

So in summation...please go sell your "shit," as you so aptly put it, someplace else 'cause no one is buying it here. Buh-Bye!

It would have been very simple for you to recognize the issue when I first brought it up, acknowledge it and we would have both moved on.

But you chose to act all superior and dump on me.

You received the dump in return.

And yet you continue to act the part of the bad guy.

Next time, maybe you can do a little listening, understanding, and caring.

It is more "progressive" than belittling and demeaning and name calling.

and have compassion for those who are left out." Exactly, and as a progressive, liberal, lefty, humanist etc. I share that sentiment. You, on the other hand, I cannot say.

I acknowledged your argument, respected it, and I never belittled it, regardless of what you may believe. But you set up your soap box in the wrong post and started complaining about semantics and dated wording from an historical piece of text. I explained to you that that was the way things were written and accepted in 1944. I went on to explain that this 2nd Bill of Rights should be adapted to fit our much more progressed place in time here in the 21st Century and be all inclusive of all people, single, or family, straight or gay, etc et al. But you couldn't accept my opinion and continued to deride me and my OP.

"Next time, maybe you can do a little listening, understanding, and caring. It is more "progressive" than belittling and demeaning and name calling."

You're correct about that, and I would suggest you start abiding by your own rules. Maybe if you had not jumped the gun and started throwing accusations and false preconceptions at me; maybe if you had done some of that "listening, understanding, and caring" that you claim to practice, instead of bashing and deriding me, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.



So, once again, Peace. I hope you find a cooler head.

Your play book isn't "progresssive" and the rules dictate that I can't say what your playbook is.

I repeat... It would have been veryy easy and very progressive of you to understand what I said in my first post, and to show compassion for those who are left out.

I refused then, and you continue to refuse.

THEN you compound it with the personal attacks.

Is your mirror broken?

Regardless of what convoluted things you may think, I understand what you said in your first post, and I have compassion for those who are left out. YOU instead decided to read the OP as some kind of personal attack on you personally, and since you seemed to want to take some kind of superior moral high ground whereby default you and you alone will always win the argument, I simply leveled the playing field and mentioned my own background as a part of a group that is also "habitually left out." But YOU couldn't share any space with anyone else who isn't a "victim" like you. Only you can be the victim and no one else. And so you launched personal attacks at me.

YOU and you alone are the sole instigator and propagator of personal attacks here. When I simply made the point that the message was dated in some ways and needed to be adapted for our present day, you did not respond in a sane and lucid manner but instead chose to personally attack me and my OP.


Your Modus Operandi is to play the victim card, of which only you and you alone are the sole card holder. No one else's trials and tribulations facing discrimination and oppression are never as severe as yours. That is YOUR playbook.

Our society is less willing to take care of poor single people than poor families, the latter of which we do a pretty crappy job of to begin with. The reason is that it's very easy to make a political argument that children can't control the fact that they were born into poor families and therefore they shouldn't be punished. It's a lot harder to make the political argument that adults aren't impoverished by choice.

My Gawd - did he see this one coming or what

because it already happened. An era of unfair competition, monopolies, etc We call it the Age of Robber Barons, or the Gilded Age depending on who you are asking. The same can even be said of the so called Roaring 20s where the disparity of wealth is comparable to what we have now. And I think we all remember what concluded the Roaring 20s.

...however, what we don't have are guarantees.

Two easy examples:

You have the right to free speech, but you are not obligated to speak or vote.

You have the right to bear arms, but you do not have to buy or carry one.

You can walk into any doctor's office, but when the bill shows up, you'll be paying a significant portion of your bill for malpractice insurance and non-payers, in a similar way you pay for shoplifters when you buy retail.

It looks like some of FDR's rights were implemented by several anti-discrimination laws.

The anti-monopoly laws were circumvented largely by the government awarding huge contracts to certain corporations that destroyed the playing field.

While we have many rights, what we don't have is a government that looks after them they way they should. Deregulating our public infrastructure and turning it over to market manipulation has been a disaster. At the same time, giving the government complete control would lead to energy being directed to those who return the most tax revenue.

A free market has it's place, as do social institutions. Planned economies don't work very well, outside of the defense industry and even then, not so much.

without Health Insurance

They won't take your check and they will definitely check with your bank if you present a credit card

And NO the Anti-Monopoly Laws / Sherman Anti-Trust Act was circumvented by Ronald Reagan where by Presidential Degree he mandated the Federal Government to stop enforcing them. I don't know by which logic Democratic Prsedents since then never re-enforced them. But allowing Corps like WalMart to run rough-shot over the economy hasn't been a good thing for the country

..but I wasn't as articulate as you.

Reagan made the Anti-Monopoly Laws / Sherman Anti-Trust Act irrelevant for a reason. Handing out trillions of dollars to select players definitely had a huge impact. It vastly reduced competition. Reagan disabled the warning devices that should have gone off when the scales tipped over.

Allowing CEO's to collect government-funded bonuses based on statistically driven economic activity, rather than actual performance led to all the wrong kind of decisions. The CEO's looked after their wallets, at the expense of their businesses.

Something similar happened during the real estate bubble. Everyone who said the sky was falling got the "Chicken Little" treatment.

Health care will always cost money. What is not OK is when the health insurance companies are allowed to disqualify anyone who might actually need it, while giving people the choice not to participate. This leads to only the people who are likely to need health care paying into the system.

We'll probably have to make health care a not-for-profit program before we see any improvement. As long as they're focused on chasing dollars, rather than providing a service, health care will suffer.

the laws may be there -- the human will may be there -- but corrupt government

prevents it --

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.


-------------------

And that education has to be for the benefit of the individual -- not for the benefit

of the individual becoming a corporate robot!!!

That is . . . a LIBERAL EDUCATION --


MEDICAL CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT --

Michael Moore on Larry King last night, and I found what he said about an education very profound. And yes, health care is a human right, something FDR wanted codified in to law and made a permanent actuality in the US. Unfortunately, none of that has ever come to pass, and instead we are told that health care is a kin to a commodity or something, left up to the whim of the unregulated market.

Henry Wallace?

Pushed out four months before FDR died for the more right wing Truman . . .

Imagine all the misery America could have been saved had that not happened!!!

:)

when Truman took over after FDR died, most people believed that he would be too right wing and wouldn't pick up where FDR left off. Ironically, enough, however, he did just that. One of the first things he tried to push through Congress was universal health care. However, he simply did not have the clout and experience to push back the same nay sayers, including the AMA, that had shot down FDR's attempt at universal health care in the 1930s, that FDR probably could have beaten back the second time around with the clout of leading the nation victoriously though world war. Truman wasn't that bad of guy, probably more progressive than some of our most recent Dem presidents, but unfortunately, it seems FDR's shoes were way too big to fill.

and he paraded around with that fascist McCloy -- John McCloy -- wasn't that his name?

Again -- Henry Wallace was removed -- and Truman brought in --

had that not happened things would have been much different --

At that point, FDR may have thought he was going to be able to complete his term?

His death was a great gain for the right --

All I know is they have a poster up along with all the rest of the coming attractions, and a day in October is given. :hi:

Hekate

But -- California would be nice ---!!!

:)

That all of those assassinations may have been done with funding from the HealthCare industry. I might have just uncovered one of the biggest conspiracy's of our time. Now I fear for my own life.

Even more important for the 21st.

get back to the first premise. Yes the wording needs to be reworked, but the IDEAS behind the 2nd Bill of Rights is a great START, then where can we go NEXT...!

to enact these rights. It could quite possibly save our republic from the plutocrats and their plutonomy -- another gem unearthed by Michael. Michael is our Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson wrapped in one beautiful person.


LET'S START A MOVEMENT -- SHALL WE?

Repugs are no doubt hypersensitive to anyone rising with such clout and stature as FDR. That's one big reason for their paranoia and over-the-top criticisms of Obama.

:kick:

if Obama or any Dem pushed this with anything resembling resolve.

You think the calls of 'SOCIALIST' are loud now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, but the landscape in America is very different from when FDR, in his infinite and compassionate wisdom, proposed these rights.

Who on the Left can lead this with the energy and motivational power similar to what we see on the Right?

This would make the current healthcare debate look civil.

Thanks Libertas1776 - and keep those cards & letters coming!:yourock:

The fact that I can't even imagine that as a possibility suggests to me how far down the rabbit hole we've gone.

The language would also need to include the word "oligopoly".

Is there even such a thing as "fair" competition, and if so, what is that?

Let's say two businesses are in competition with each other, neither are oligopolies, but one is much larger than the other, so one can afford abundant advertising, but the other can only afford word of mouth advertising, is that "fair" to the smaller biz? So the larger one gets more business, whereas the smaller one may do better quality work, which also takes more time, but due to volume, cannot increases prices beyond that which the larger business charges for the service or product. The smaller biz would like to advertise, but cannot get a "volume discount" on it, that the larger biz can, so when they do buy some, it's on a back page somewhere, and the only response they get is a troll response (perhaps a biz competitor wanting to know what their prices are) that of course doesn't result in making a dime. Is this fair?

I guess I just don't know what fair is anymore. Far, far down the rabbit hole.

I'm going to go see it the first weekend it will be showing within driving distance - meaning most likely I'll drive about 50 miles(one way!) to Charlotte, NC; I don't know what weekend it will be yet though.

I absolutely love to see film of FDR speaking, and I had not heard about this. I think there is the potential that MM's new film could be the serendipitous meeting of the perfect suject at the exactly right time. To have film of this particular FDR speech in the movie is quite fortuitous IMHO.

Sorry about the thread hijacker above. What seems to be not understood is that FDR did not mean only families in his speech; it's a euphemism. If you look at the Americans he was concerned with helping during his almost 16 year presidency, single citizens were just as much a focus as "families." He was helping everyone. To be upset and take insult at the terminology and phrasing is to judge the almost 70 year old speech using today's standards of polite language. You can't always fit today's meanings into yesterday's words.