FDR, Obama and the need to stop comparing the two.
Obama is not FDR. He can never be FDR. There is a reason FDR is considered a top-three president of all-time and in the same ballpark as Lincoln and Washington - two leaders who, for the rest of our nation's history, will never be touched in terms of greatness. The fact Roosevelt is listed among them shows the enormity of his legacy and how much impact he had on this nation.
The fact, in our nation's 200-plus years, no president even sniffed that level of greatness shows just how difficult, and completely rare, even good presidents are considered that great.
So, to suggest he's failed in the shadows of Roosevelt is pretty much saying every president - even the very good - failed as well. That includes T.R., Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and other presidents whose leadership was lasting.
Obama isn't a failure because he wasn't another FDR. To accuse him of such is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because it implies Obama could be FDR.
Let's be honest: there is no way Obama was ever going to be the FDR the left created.
I say this because the way we've glamorized Roosevelt's presidency makes it nearly impossible for any president to lead like him - because we often forget the major pitfalls his presidency saw in favor of only looking at what worked.
Like, so many on the left deride Obama's cuts as absolutely wrong - suggesting it defies anything FDR or a liberal would do in a time of deep economic crisis. Economists even say Obama's deficit could be falling too fast and we needed more spending to get us out of the recession.
You know who didn't believe that?
FDR.
In the 1932 presidential campaign, Roosevelt actually attacked Hoover for being a big spender. He ran on a pledge to balance the federal budget - during a depression! He absolutely entered the White House as a deficit hawk and one of the first legislation he signed was the Economy Act of March 20, 1933.
The Economy Act of 1933 only passed with conservative support from Democrats and Republicans - the liberal wing of both parties voted against it.
Why?
Because it was intended to cut $500 million from the budget (that's $8.8 billion in 2009 dollars). Could you imagine if Pres. Obama, instead of proposing his stimulus, promoted a bill that would cut $8.8 billion from the budget as one of his first economic acts? There would be a revolt from the left! He would have been derided and attacked by every liberal on every site from here to Timbuktu.
Yet FDR did and got enough conservative support to get the act through - an act that slashed salaries of federal workers and reduced payments to veterans.
This was in the act:
All public laws granting medical or hospital treatment, domiciliary care, compensation, and other allowances, pension, disability allowance, or retirement pay to veterans and the dependents of veterans of... the World War,... are hereby repealed, and all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance are hereby repealed...
Granted, the Economy Act of March 20, 1933 is but one of many bills that was part of FDR's New Deal.
But, like with FDR, we also glamorize the New Deal and forget that some of the legislation outright failed or was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - as was the case with the National Recovery Administration.
The New Deal did work, though. I think most would agree with that - so, this isn't to attack FDR or his policies.
The thing is - FDR had Republican support for many of his New Deal policies. Take the 1933 Banking Act (Glass–Steagall), which passed the House 191-6. Nothing in Obama's early presidency, whether his stimulus or other economic actions, received nearly that level of Republican support. Yes, Democrats held healthy majorities in both the House and Senate in 1933, but Republicans still had 117 members at the time of this vote and only 6 congressmen (TOTAL) voted against it.
The President hardly had a hostile congress who, upon his taking the oath, plotted down the street that night about doing everything in their power to make him a one term president (as Mitch McConnell and his Republican brood did with Obama the night of the inauguration).
When comparing Obama to FDR, it also suggests there is a legitimate comparison between the 1930s GOP and today's GOP. It's not the case. Back then, political parties were far less ideological and almost entirely dominated by region. You had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. It wasn't that irregular for either major parties to nominate a candidate who was ideologically completely different than their last nominee. William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic nominee in 1896, was, for that time, a liberal. Yet the president during his election, also a Democrat, Grover Cleveland, was a conservative. Today, Cleveland would absolutely be a Republican on ideological grounds.
The Republicans saw a similar situation with T.R. and Taft. T.R. was a progressive firebrand who, in no shape or form, resembles anything in today's Republican Party. Yet his successor, William Howard Taft, also a Republican, was extremely conservative.
Today, there is no way the GOP would nominate someone like Teddy Roosevelt. Likewise, there is no way the Democratic Party would nominate someone like Grover Cleveland. That was the political makeup of America back then - you could get a conservative president from one party - and then a liberal one from the exact same party. Coolidge was a laissez faire conservative who deserves much of the blame for the Great Depression. The man who replaced him, another Republican, Herbert Hoover, was far less conservative in that regard. Hoover, today, would not be a Republican. There is no way he could win the Republican nomination.
You also had a Republican Party who turned around and nominated candidates, guys like Alf Landon and Thomas Dewey, who were moderates and not opposed to the New Deal. Even Eisenhower embraced much of its policies. Politics was toxic back then - but not at the level it is today.
Republicans rallied behind Kennedy and Johnson and were a huge reason Johnson was able to wrangle enough support for the Civil Rights Act. Obama couldn't do that today - not because he's a failed leader but because the opposition is completely and utterly against him and for, unequivocally, his failure ... even if that means bringing America down with him.
So, when you compare Obama to FDR, you're also suggesting both faced similar circumstances and similar congresses. It's not the case.
Obama's biggest obstacle has always been a congress that is limited on work. Even when the Democrats had huge majorities, and he was able to get through a whole host of legislation (unrivaled by any president beyond FDR), it was still through an ideological fight. Much of the Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008 were in areas Republicans generally won - which meant, on the whole, there were a lot more conservative Democrats to work with and hardly any moderate or liberal Republicans to help counter their defections and worry.
FDR and LBJ were able to count on those moderate votes to offset the losses the party saw with conservative members. Obama couldn't. For every southern Democrat or conservative Democrat who couldn't vote on something, or wouldn't step up to the plate to help pass a more progressive form of that policy, there was zero Republicans the President or Nancy Pelosi could go to for help.
Zero.
That's the reality. Yet, Obama did what he could do - and you can call it weak or tepid or not enough ... but it is what it is.
He's not FDR. He'll never be FDR. It's not fair to say, "FDR did it...Obama could have too."
No. FDR was president for three terms - and won a fourth! He guided America through the Great Depression, but he also cemented his legacy through World War II - which, also, helped lift the U.S. out of the Great Depression. FDR didn't have near the hostile congress, had huge majorities in 1934 (70 Democrats in the Senate!) and a nation that wasn't polluted by ideological warfare. That latter point is important, because back then, this country was far less ideologically divided than it is today. It goes back to the parties, too, as they didn't rely necessarily on ideological division to win. But in today's world, where this country is essentially split right down the middle it seems, every president is going to have a helluva time getting complete support from the people.
If FDR were elected today, I'm afraid to say it, and I know I would get push back here, he wouldn't go down as a great president (and no zombie jokes, please!) because the landscape we face today is ugly and bitter and its direct result is a divided government that doesn't work for the people ... no matter how hard the President does.
= new reply since forum marked as read
.
