When certain Democrats start attacking FDR,

[MannyGoldstein]

we know that the Third Wayers are getting desperate.

"See! FDR sucked too, so cutting Social Security is OK, right guys?"

We'll take our party back, we're on our way.

Regards,

First-Way Manny

[hifiguy]

1. It does sort of let the feline out of the satchel,

doesn't it?

[msanthrope]

3. Can you point out the satchel? A link maybe? nt

[hifiguy]

4. It all started with this post of mine on Saturday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025916723

[msanthrope]

7. I like the part of the thread where you support Gov. Dean...the self-described 'centrist.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5929061

[hifiguy]

13. Dean struck me as clearly the best alternative

of the then-candidates. The Dean of 2004 was quite a ways to the left of the Obama of today in most respects.

[JI7]

17. the dean of 2004 is the same dean of today

those of us who pay attention are not surprised he is supporting Hillary for President as he is very much like her.

[JDPriestly]

100. Dean is like Hillary?

Is Hillary going to organize a Dean for America group that works to support unions or implement a 50-state strategy?

[msanthrope]

31. Dean hasn't changed. nt

[msongs]

38. obama, the self described moderate republican...

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080

[merrily]

80. "From the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," according to Dean, not the DLC wing.

[msanthrope]

105. You missed the part where he called himself a "centrist?" His endorsement of HRC? nt

[merrily]

139. Nope. I quoted what he said when he ran for the nom. How is Dean making a living these days?

[msanthrope]

143. Apparently..he's endorsing HRC for 2016!

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/howard-dean-ready-for-hillary-113444.html#.VIhnX-oo7ML

[msanthrope]

2. Is there any context for this? A link? Are we supposed to turn on the tv right fuggin

now?

[sheshe2]

21. msanthrope~

Thanks, I needed that.

[msanthrope]

33. Malaise does these types of threads so much better. nt

[stevil]

30. That

made me laugh

[L0oniX]

130. You mad?

[msanthrope]

134. About Manny's malaise impression? Fuggin' no! I'm mad about Mike Brown. I'm mad about

Eric Garner. I'm mad about the torture report. I'm mad about shit that matters.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

5. Now, now, they'll have *protections* for the poorest...

because they're just *that* charitable. Or so I've heard from DU's Sensible Centrists...

[Cleita]

6. Or,

he was responsible for the Japanese internment camps in WWII. FFS all participants in WWII both AXIS and the allies had internment camps and usually the inmates were innocent and only there because of their nationality or ethnicity. No FDR made a mistake there, but it was because of the times.

I had a Dutch Indonesian friend who had been interned in a POW camp with her mother and sister by the Japanese when she was only four years old in Indonesia. They killed her father. Believe me, the Japanese camps were no picnic either.

[JI7]

9. but the japanese camps have nothing to do with internment of japanese americans by the American Govt

[Cleita]

11. You just keep telling yourself that.

I'll bet you tell yourself that our torture of Arab prisoners in Iraq during the Bush Administration have nothing to do with the kidnapping and beheading of Americans and other Europeans by ISIS today.

[JI7]

12. do you think they only torture and behead americans ?

[Cleita]

20. You obviously didn't read either of my post which tells me you aren't

interested in a real discussion. So I will no longer reply to you.

[JI7]

22. i read your posts, you are trying to justify what one side did by bringing up the other side

torture by the US would be wrong regardless of whether anyone else does it.

same goes for internment . and to excuse it by saying the japanese were worse is just weird.

[Cleita]

25. You quote to me where I said they were worse? n/t

[merrily]

73. No, the poster was not trying to justify torture by any side. Jeebus!

[merrily]

55. Was our torture before and after the Bush administration better?

[Cleita]

58. And this has what to do with FDR? eom

[merrily]

60. Beats me. I wasn't the one who brought up torture of Arabs on an FDR thread.

But, since someone did, giving the impression it happened only under Bush, I thought it worthwhile to point out that is not so.

It's too important not to.

[Cleita]

61. You missed the point but wth. eom

[merrily]

62. Nope, I didn't. Just did not want to leave a misimpression on the thread.

It didn't happen only with Bush. Same kind of general point I thought you were making by mentioning Isis.

[geek tragedy]

16. Race-based concentration camps are more than "oops" nt

[Cleita]

19. Any Europeans or European looking people like Aussies, Kiwis and Yanks were

rounded up by the Japanese, but only the women and children went to the camps, so you got say they were also gender based too. The men were starved and worked to death building roads and bridges through jungles.

[geek tragedy]

24. Fascist, racist dictatorships are not an appropriate baseline. nt

[Cleita]

26. My baseline is what happens in war and its a fact that all sides in that

war had internment camps. So don't introduce a straw man in here.

[pkdu]

51. FFS - saying "they all did it " is complete bullshit - stop it!!! nt

[merrily]

56. Germans and Italians were also "interned" though not in the same mind boggling numbers.

America has never been a stranger to racism since the first visit from any white people. Cortez and Columbus were racist.

[JustAnotherGen]

84. Good point merrily

My great great grandfather dropped the 'Von' during WWI - a third generation American whose first set of ancestors fought on the American side during the Civil War.

[jtuck004]

44. Well, except for Hawaii, where they were more scared of not having their money and work. n/t

[treestar]

75. But FDR was better than everyone else

Supposedly. And everyone else does it is not a justification.

[Cleita]

102. Of course he was and I'm fed up with so called liberals sweeping all the

good he did under the bus because he ran internment camps during a war. So did the Japanese, the British, infamously the Germans and Italians, etc.. It's well documented and itwas a big war and everyone was afraid.

[treestar]

106. That's a pretty major black mark usually

It's also surprising that liberals would excuse anything like an internment camp based on ethnicity and thinking that weighs anywhere near the economic problems of others.

[Cleita]

107. Well then put your energies into getting rid of the internment camps we

have now known as for profit prisons. Honestly I can't believe anyone would twist historical fact into a political argument and that's what you are doing.

[treestar]

108. Not comparable at all

People were being put in a camp for their ethnicity. Without having even been alleged to have committed any crime.

[Cleita]

112. Yes, they were on both sides. Everyone was guilty and that was seventy five

years ago.

[LeftInTX]

110. FDR was an awesome president and my favorite

(I wasn't alive when he was president, so it's based on historical stuff)

I'm always a amazed at his polio challenge and his willingness to lead and of course all the programs he implemented.

OTOH, times were different. He had a Democratic House and Senate. He even attempted to pack the Supreme Court.


Would Americans tolerate a strong leader today? I don't know. We have changed. We have more civil liberties. We have more outlets to complain and voice our opinions. (I'm not speaking for myself, but for the rest of America)

I would LOVE to have another FDR. But will it happen is another question.

It's not FDR bashing on my part, it's looking to the future and wondering how we can get back to where we were. Unfortunately, we're living in a Fox News society.

[Cleita]

115. Let's do a little more history.

FDR took over from Hoover after about twelve years of Republican rule had ruined the country. The conditions were almost the same as what we are going through today and FDR had a tough time at first but he said "I welcome their hatred" and proceeded to become a great President.

If you want to get a sense of politics of the time, read Upton Sinclair's "Oil", published in 1926 which presents what fueled the times in fictionalized form but about real people who got us into the Great Depression although it hadn't happened yet. I was gobsmacked how similar events are to today. I think we will get our FDR in time.

[LeftInTX]

117. I'll have to check out Upton Sinclair's book

I hope we can get an FDR in our time.

I agree with the similarities of economies of the 1920s and the current situation.

[Cleita]

118. It's actually on line for free.

I'm on a mobile device or I would give you a link but I'm sure you can find it.

[LeftInTX]

121. Thx - got it

[appalachiablue]

129. You may know U. Sinclair's 'The Jungle' 1906 about immigrant worker abuse and meatpacking

conditions in Chicago. Caused uproar and the first food safety laws. Sinclair wanted to reach people's hearts but he affected their stomachs instead. S.L. was an interesting US figure, sponsored an early commune in Depression CA called EPIC (End Poverty in Calif.).
Read Col. Smedley Bulter's work of the early 1930s and the coup to take over FDR.
Sinclair Lewis' 1935 book, 'It Can't Happen Here' about fictional fascism coming to America in the 1930s very interesting. Hope you don't mind input.

[LeftInTX]

132. Wow just wow - I found this online: The Plot to Sieze the Whitehouse

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13909.htm

Thanks so much for this. I had no idea that a possible fascist coup was in place during the 1930s.

The Jungle was required reading in high school. I'm glad that it was graphic because at that age I wasn't interested in the finer details of politics.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. !

[Vincardog]

15. !!

[hifiguy]

14. The only difference between the Turd Way and the

honest fascists on the reich wing is how fast they will boil the frogs in the pot - that is to say the rest of us. And it is the ONLY difference of substance, economically speaking.

[merrily]

57. The thing about boiling frogs: it has to be slow or they jump out of the pot before they're cooked.

If it's slow enough, by the time they realize they're about to die, it's too late for them to be able to jump. So, Third Wayers are much smarter about how to boil frogs.

[Segami]

23. BWHAHAHAHA!

[merrily]

72. LOL. Begs the question, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck?

[MannyGoldstein]

77. A woodchuck would chuck as many chucks as a woodchuck could chuck

then legislate sensible laissez-faire free-trade chucking laws.

[merrily]

78. LOL, but it's too late. We already had that "reform."

[Enthusiast]

91. Yup. Smells like an overgrown ground squirrel.

[Bobbie Jo]

133. Actually

It smells like the lunch room at the junior high.

This table looks pretty full.

[L0oniX]

135. "Smells like woodchuck" cooking over an open fire, chest nuts included.

[Faryn Balyncd]

18. We will.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. Democrats up to this point have only really tip toed around the idea of things like

chained CPI and other methods of "ensuring the viability of SS." I think the only reason they haven't actually gone through with it yet is because they know that is likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The Baby Boomers are large voting block, not to mention the generation that brought about civil rights and women's rights through mass protest.

[merrily]

59. According to Conyers, Obama put both Social Security and Medicare on the table, unsolicited

by Republicans. However, Republicans were in "Don't do anything Obama wants" and not about to take the bait. Next came the Grand Bargain Commission, which failed to reach agreement, though Ryan was one of Obama's appointees to that Commission and a mike caught Bubba telling Ryan to give him (bubba) a call if Ryan needed any help in getting Democrats on board with cuts. Then, people went into campaign mode. Then Occupy Wall Street took to the streets and the cry of 99% entered our consciousness big time.

In January 2009 before taking office, though, Obama did "pledge" to cut entitlements, something he had waffled about while campaiging. And, before Obamacare even passed, there was the Cat Commission, with a Republican at the helm. Moreover, there have been several cuts to SNAP, cuts to fuel subsidies for the poor. And, with his saying entitlements have to be cut, a bell has rung that can never be unrung. When Republicans cut, they now have plenty of cover. "For pity sakes, folks, even a Democratic President said they have to be cut--and started cutting. What part of "This is absolutely necessary for America to be viable" don't you understand? God bless Amurica!"

[bvar22]

126. You are correct:

"Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11."


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

Candidate Obama also promised to never cut benefits or consider a "Chained CPI".
Candidate Obama said that the best way to fix Social Security was to Raise the Cap

Of course, that was all forgotten in January 2009.

[merrily]

137. A poster insists Obama campaigned on cutting Social Security, so I googled.

Turned out, he was all over the map. So, what you thought he "promised" depended on which sound bite you heard or which interview you happened to catch. Unfortunately, I did not bookmark the link and the advanced search feature is just circling endlessly. However, he did say that he would not cut COLA. (When asked by a reporter while she was walking somewhere, Pelosi denied that chained CPI was a cut to to COLA. So, there you have it. Politicians!)

My source for Conyers: http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

Then again, does it really matter what a Dem campaigns on anymore? Or which promises get made or broken? No matter what the Dem candidate says or doesn't say, Dems are not going to vote for Republicans and voting so-called third party is problematic, at best. I could do that for President for most state offices in Massachusetts and it wouldn't matter in the least. The Dem would win and my vote would be purely symbolic. But, Massachusetts just elected another Republican Governor, a Romney wannabe, I think. Sending jobs overseas while trebling his own salary, etc.

So, welcome to LOTE voting, donating, volunteering, forever, unless I feel like casting a purely symbolic vote now and again. Is it really any wonder they don't respond to our efforts to "make yourself heard?"

[hrmjustin]

28. Do you have a link for this Manny or are you talking about in general?

[MannyGoldstein]

34. Someone else does, up thread. nt

[ReRe]

29. No, Manny....

What it means is that they are not really Democrats. They are indeed Republicons.

[Kermitt Gribble]

32. K&R! Anyone who attacks FDR

has no business calling themselves a Democrat.

[bluestateguy]

35. Ok. I'll just give him a free pass on that Japanese internment thing

nt

[merrily]

63. Same kind of pass Clinton, Bush and Obama get on torture and drone killings?

I'm sure FDR got plenty of flack for internment, including from Democrats of his day. Your free pass as to him is moot.

[marym625]

36. We get the party back?

Awesome. Where are we meeting? How far is it? Should we bring a hat and gloves?

I can't imagine we'll recognize it when we first see it. Going to need a ton of work. And fuck any cosmetics. Been there, done that.

Thanks, First-Way Manny. Glad someone is willing to go there! Wherever "there" is.

[merrily]

64. LOL. Love it.

Reminds me when they show the audience from Ed Sullivan show, with men in suits and women in hats. I bet they had their white gloves in their coat pockets or purses, too.

Giving you my best white-gloved pageant wave.

[marym625]

88. Thanks! :-) n/t

[WillyT]

37. K & R !!!

[99Forever]

39. Call them by any name they want...

... third way, new dem, bluedog, DINO, whatever. I will NEVER support or vote for one again. EVER.

Nothing sucks more than a two-faced liar.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Republicans is probably both the simplest and most honest.

[99Forever]

45. True that.

But what an awful thing to be known as.

[MisterP]

41. they're making a fatal mistake, of course: they don't understand that those *for* the New Deal

are almost without exception *against* the internment camps; BUT since they're personality cultists they actually can't comprehend that someone even could in theory be for somethings and against other things if the same person endorses/enacts both

the real lesson is, they really do think they've scotched Social Security defenders by bringing up the camps!

remember when they flipped out because Michael Moore made a criticism recently?: they literally said the lefties wanted everyone to be in 100% agreement with Moore and that the loyalists *weren't* 100% in agreement with Obama even though Moore's criticism was relatively mild

it's like the fundies trying to say evolution's a religion: there are definitely religions *of* evolution, but they're not in play in 92% of the cases: but their outlook is that these are two religions fighting one another, when in fact it's science (which doesn't need to be monolithic) and a theologically-bankrupt faux science that's indistinguishable from flat-earthism, but has become predominant only thanks to a series of historical twists and turns

[navarth]

46. excellent post. nt

[merrily]

65. Apparently, if you criticize a Democratic politician, you ae not a "real" Democrat because

everyone knows true leftists hate criticizing Democratic politicians and love the Twelfth Commandment as much as St. Ronnie loved the Eleventh.

[beerandjesus]

86. There's no ass left in the room. You just kicked it all with this post.

[Enthusiast]

92. We need to hear more from you, MisterP. More often and just more.

[MisterP]

111. eh, "Daria" made the point better

Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

but it's nice to be called a DU fixture

on edit: it's like the accusations that fans of 40s-70s air travel are racists, since air travel was racist then, without admitting that there are ways to be both anti-segregation but also against treating passengers like pigs being put on a truck for Kansas City

[appalachiablue]

131. I don't particularly like peanuts, does that mean I hate Carter? I like jelly beans so that means I

like Reagan? I flew on airplanes in the 1970s so I'm a racist? In the 1980s I married a black person but I must be a racist (from the flying). Because they also flew on airplanes in the 1970s I'm telling my spouse we must talk about Black Privilege. This board is getting too bizarre for my time-

[MisterP]

142. well, DU hasn't been too strong on the "fans of 'Pan Am'/'Mad Men' are racist" bandwagon

that's mostly reserved for airline fansites where a few people tell us how good we all have it: in fact, only North Koreans are told more often how good it is for them

[neverforget]

42. I find the need to tear down FDR to defend Obama and conservative Democrats strange.

Neither are/were perfect but each have done good things for the country. We're still living with FDR's legacy and the many good programs he created. Those programs have helped millions of Americans and need to be defended because Wall Street, Republicans and corporate Third Way Democrats want to privatize them and give them to Wall Street. Republicans want to privatize or kill them quickly while Third Way Democrats like to do it incrementally.

[merrily]

66. Unfortunately, we are living with a lot fewer of the good programs FDR created. Others are

on the chopping block for "reform." Ditto Great Society programs. And the dismantlers were Democrats as well as Republicans.

That is partly why we must blacken the legacy of FDR. (I think Vietnam took care of LBJ's. AFAIK no historians put him on the list of ten best Presidents ever though the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and Great Society legislation were no cake walk to pass.)

[neverforget]

128. These programs are being dismantled in the name of deficit reduction

with the help of the Third Way/No Labels crowd (see my Congressman Kurt Schrader D-OR).

http://schrader.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=100077

[merrily]

136. Yep. And "reform" never means anything good for the 99% anymore. But the dismantling

has been going on for decades. FDR signed some of it himself.

They feared revolution, ala Russia. They made sure it didn't happen with the New Deal and the Fair Deal (though I doubt it would have, no matter what). Then, they starting dismantling. Same thing happened in the 1960s, with the Great Society.

[mmonk]

98. +1000

[gollygee]

43. There are valid criticisms of FDR, and people don't have to hero worship

He did a lot of great things. I grew up in a home where his photo was on the wall by the front door. I bet a lot of people did.

If people mention a valid criticism, that doesn't mean they think it's OK to cut social security. The "good old days" weren't good for everyone, and nostalgia for those days is a bit painful for people whose families suffered during that time due to racism. They can say something negative and not want social security cut.

[mountain grammy]

47. Is there a source for that quote?

Just wanting to know which "certain Democrats" are attacking FDR?

[RiverLover]

48. See any of the last 3 FDR threads. Its crazy! Our best dem ever...

It really does make you wonder.

[mountain grammy]

49. I don't get "attacking" I don't see where not seeing an historical

figure as perfect and without any flaws is "attacking" that person.

[merrily]

67. I never see where seeing the flaws of any President is being a "hater," but that gets said here

all the time.

I have pointed out internment and other flaws about FDR many times and no one has accused me of attacking him.The problem comes when, for example, someone says FDR was much more effective than Obama in getting good domestic things done and the reply is some sarcasm about internment, which you can see on this thread and many others.

[Doctor_J]

50. I don't get why the fan club believes that pointing out FDRs mistakes makes Obama

less of a corporate water carrier.

[merrily]

68. They don't, same way as calling the left haters doesn't change anything. It's just easier

than rational debate.

[beerandjesus]

87. Let's lay it out in the form of a syllogism.

Obama supports TPP.
FDR set up internment camps.
Therefore, Far Left ODS RAND PAUL!!!1!

[merrily]

52. What do you mean start? FDR went under the bus years ago.

I'm not sure if Truman personally went under the bus, but his ideas about the ability of real Republicans to beat fake Democrats sure have. Landrieu sells out her constitutents, then calls them sexist and racist and also says on radio that she did not vote for the head of the Democratic Party for President, but the only reason she lost the election is supposedly that she was too left. So, the only solution, of course, is to go further right.

But, I digress. Anyone who gets held up as a traditional Democrat and what Democratic voters want and admire has been under the bus for a while now. There's probably a lot more room under that bus. It seems to be one of those self-expanding ones. But, I don't know how many more traditional Democrats are left who are not already under it.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. True enough

Obama himself has said on multiple occasions that FDR purposely allowed the Great Depression to get worse before assuming office in order to look better once in office, and that FDR didn't start Social Security for retirees.

Both easily-provable lies, designed to cram FDR firmly under the Big Third Way Bus.

[merrily]

54. I didn't know that. But, let me get this straight:

Obama, though a Democratic President with a Democratic House and sixty in the Democrat Senate caucus had his hands tied by Congress, but FDR supposedly let the Depression get worse BEFORE he was President? Do we have any idea how he managed that? Because we've been told the 2012 Republican sweep was the worst since, oh, wait, 1928. The crash was October 1929 and FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933, but that @@@##$@ heartless FDR deliberately let the depression get worse for almost 4 years even thought the very Republican Congress and a Republican President who couldn't stand the sight of FDR wanted something else?

Not to mention that, until FDR, no one thought the federal government had a whole lot of power under the commerce clause.

BTW, if FDR so very heartlessly deliberately let the Depression get worse all those years before he became President, just so he could look good, why did Obama and Hillary both put him on their list of ten best Presidents ever, right along with St. Ronnie?

[appalachiablue]

69. Are Third Wayers and their posters here refuse from the '90s- Clintonistas? Or slightly younger

Dems. like Arne D., Rahm who might work better in the GOP?

[merrily]

71. I would not use that framing, but I think there is a range of ages and types.

To me, the commonality seems to be mostly unconditional party loyalists, Hillary being very obviously the one the party PTB have been pushing.

It seems to me that, with a few exceptions, the ones who can tolerate no criticism of anything Obama does whatsoever--the ones who will through any Democrat under the bus for Obama's benefit, from FDR to Warren and Sanders, to their fellow DUers, are also the ones who are the most vociferous and persistent, and not infrequently nasty, Hillary supporters. And among the unconditional party loyalists, there is a range from sincere to highly disingenuous. Moreover, I think personal economic interest of some kind is involved with some.

That is how I see it anyway. Your results may different and things in the rear view mirror may look more distant than they actually are.

BTW, Rahm is very much a Clintonite, but sans drawl and claims of feeling your pain while he ends "welfare as we know it" and fights for Dem vote on repeal of Glass Steagall. I don't know about Duncan.

[appalachiablue]

120. The 1992 election of Clinton and Gore was like the skies parted and the sun returned

after 12 years of Occupation during Reagan and Bush. Their brains, youth and energy brought a new era, especially in DC where I was. That includes their hard working staff who put in long, long hours. Bill's exceptional political skills, intellect and charisma made us all proud, brought a lot of hope and respect then especially among Dems. I know. Later in 2012 Clinton's vigorous campaigning as the explainer in chief for Obama rallied confidence and support in that tense time to turn the tide in my view. Nobody was out there pulling for Obama that had anything close to Clinton's power as a national leader and top communicator.

The policies and allies of the Clintons now generating discussion in anticipation of Hillary's campaign is expected. Evaluating possible 2016 candidates including Warren, Sanders, O'Malley, others will continue for two years and bring out a lot. I'm learning and taking in as much as possible.
Seeing here again yesterday the video of Bill talking to Paul Ryan about social security cuts from a couple years ago is puzzling, especially added to Obama's Simpson Bowles Catfood Commission. Maybe there were strategic reasons for these moves but it must be understood it's enough to make a lifelong Dem, Clinton and Obama supporter and safety net believer like myself gasp. The news of Obamas TPP fast track also yesterday and its destructive impacts on US labor and sovereignty in these times is also troublesome.

Posts here on the differences between the times, the goals of FDR Dems and New Dems are becoming more frequent obviously. It's warranted as we deal with economic inequality, record wage stagnation, a declining middle class, creeping privatization and national security policies beyond what we have ever known. Failure to acknowledge and rectify the criminalization of minorities and the poor, and the massive student debt problem will impair any candidate and national progress for decades.

It's natural to me that Dems. look at Hillary and also Sanders and Warren, leaders with a more populist, progressive message in a society not yet recovered from the financial crisis of 2008 with decades of structural problems. 75 years passed since the country went through economic hardship like this, it's important to review how we got through that time and the policies that caused it and corrected it. I don't forget that my parents and grandparents lived through the Depression and two World Wars. Like millions they benefited from the reforms and leadership of Dems like FDR, JFK and LBJ, and so did I. We had the greatest, largest middle class the world has ever known. Now we're no. 2 behind Canada. Why that is and what action to take is critical to moving forward.

[beerandjesus]

89. Here's my non-sarcastic, non-snarky answer:

I think they're people who believe that the most important issues today are racism, sexism, and homophobia. Since Obama not only has a good record on gay and women's issues, but on top of it is black himself, Obama represents a huge triumph in the area they cherish the most, and his actual policies in just about every other area are secondary.

For this reason also, I suspect that they're disproportionately Boomers, who will be dead before the most horrific effects of Obama's economic policies are felt. They grew up in a world where Medicare, Social Security, and a modicum of upward social mobility were taken for granted, but where racism was rampant and homophobia taken for granted as a norm. They are (quite rightly) pleased with the immense progress our society has made in those areas, and see Obama's presidency as the crowning achievement of their generation's primary struggle (since the Vietnam War ended, anyway).

FDR is easy for them to dismiss because he looked the other way when the Democrats were indulging in racist excesses, and himself even set up the internment camps they love to trumpet. Since they took his achievements for granted--a luxury those of us born after 1960 are not permitted--it becomes quite easy for them to write him off as just another old racist. What they're much slower to note is that it was under FDR that African-Americans, for the first time, began voting Democratic in large numbers, because even though the New Deal was not specifically designed to help black Americans, and although it helped them nowhere near as much as it did white Americans, it still helped them immensely, since of course, black Americans as a group had suffered even more than white Americans during the Depression.

In other words, as much as they often piss me off, I think their hearts are in a good place, just not in the right place for the issues that actually face us today. It's 2014, not 1970. The Democratic Party, under their influence, has become the party of identity politics to the exclusion of all else, and if TPP is monstrous, it's a small price to pay in exchange for the repeal of DADT. We who are not yet retired, and for whom the promise of Social Security and Medicare is still decades in the future, are also less apt to take such pride in treating gay people as equals: For most of us (assuming we're straight), your first gay friend is sort of like growing pubic hair, it makes you feel good for a little while, but you outgrow that pretty fucking quickly and then it just seems normal. And the idea of not voting for someone based on the color of their skin is just plain unthinkable--whereas the Boomers remember a time when such an attitude was commonplace.

What FDR understood--and today's Democrats, including the fan club here, don't--is that the very best policies are polices that benefit ALL Americans. Having a black President doesn't do anything for the vast majority of black Americans any more than it does the vast majority of white Americans; it's the policy, not the symbolism, that matters. I grant that the symbolism is powerful, but 2008 is over, and progressive reform is LONG past due. And it's not enough to sit around, collecting your Social Security check, thinking about how great it is that you're so not racist. The racists are dying off anyway, but America is crumbling, and we have the likes of Ben Carson and Tim Scott helping the process along. Hillary would probably be a terrible President, but I can pretty much guarantee you she's not racist. Sorry, not good enough. We need more than the absolute, bare minimum--and we have a right to expect it from those who would presume to represent us.


EDIT: Just clicked around and found this, which illustrates my point perfectly: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025932236#post16

Note how the outrage (at least so far) is entirely about Native American lands being given away. Now, that's totally right, it's appalling that the Congress would do that. But the fact that the land's being handed over to a foreign company, thus far, hasn't made a ripple. The great divide on DU is between the identity politics crowd and the economic populist crowd.

[JimDandy]

101. Excellent analysis and explanation

including edit.

[LiberalLovinLug]

109. I think that's spot on

The progressive social issues that Obama has moved forward are only the surface. Even he would only go as fast as the zeitgeist caught up. (He once said he was against gay marriage). While its great to cheer those achievements on, I think DADT and endorsement of gay marriage, immigration reform, even the Heritage Foundation's private controlled medical insurance scheme that is the ACA would have been adopted eventually even by Republicans, as it was under Mittens in Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, the big issues that will mold the nation in this century are slipping through our fingers. Net Neutrality. TPP, the demise of SS, the rise of Charter schools over Public, fear to stand up to Wall Street criminals, the continual rise of the MIC and use of for-profit private mercenary armies, the militarization of local police, and the disregard for personal privacy and mass fishing expedition style public eavesdropping for corporate marketing and politically motivated police incursions. Non of that will change under Hillary... but it all won't matter for the personality cultists, because she will in their minds, move woman's issues to the forefront because she broke the ultimate glass ceiling. And those other issues will not be regarded as important in comparison.

[appalachiablue]

125. In no. 69 I meant refugees or remnants of the 90s, particularly those involved in

financial aspects connected to Greenspan, Wall St, Rubin and Glass-Steagall. I was in DC and a large supporter of Clinton & Gore as noted down thread. Apologies if offense for using refuse. Making a note not to comment late, after 11pm. Not a supporter of privatization of public schools increasing under Duncan and continued gentrification of cities like Chicago, NY, San Fran and DC by city govt. and mayors like Emmanuel.

[JonLP24]

70. There are fair criticisms

but there is a wolf around here that uses his/her DU team bashing progressives saying he wasn't good enough for the left but FDR made moves in response to the criticism rather than ignoring & starting from the right in policy negotations.

[merrily]

79. Too bad he's not a lone wolf.

[treestar]

74. If he were judged on the same standard by which you judge President Obama

He didn't do enough. SS didn't cover everyone. Not even any health plan. With that Congress and political capital, there should have been a health plan. And Wall Street still exists, so it must have survived the 1940s intact.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. What, pray tell, are my standards?

Thanks in advance.

[merrily]

81. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5932046

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Exactly right, but Treestar has a point

Is the speech you link to *really* that much different than Obama snarling that it's time for the little people to eat our peas, while demanding that Republicans join him in cutting Social Security such that 80-year-old widows would need to skip meals?

I am becoming increasingly aware of the double standards that we Purity Left measure by when it comes to dead white presidents vs. live black ones.

Let us all pledge, on this day, at this hour, to end this unfairness. Let us work together to starve and freeze old people, to cover up torture and hire the perpetrators, and to create free-trade agreements that give every member of the Predator Class a chance to buy a third yacht.

[merrily]

140. I didn't try to link you to FDR's speech, but to a post of mine on the same thread. Guess it didn't

work.

On hifi's thread, someone pointed out that the speech in the OP had been given 20 years into FDR's Presidency and was a campaign speech (kind of gliding right over the fact that a 20 year Presidency meant a unprecedented, jaw dropping number of election wins, but never mind that). And ended by saying FDR was good but not infallible or omnipotent. I tried to link you to my brief reply to that post, which said:

Before that, he was too busy saving the US while fighting the SCOTUS, Congress, and Hitler and

trying not to die of post polio syndrome and cancer. And it was far from his first good speech.

No one claimed he was infallible nor omnipotent.

I guess I could have included a reference to fighting all that while being paralyzed and wheelchair bound the entire time, too, but I forgot.

I don't see praise of Obama as race-based, though. I see it as unconditional party loyalty, some authentic and maybe some convenient, and making heroes and celebrities out of Dem politicians, especially Dem Presidents.

I don't see that Obama and his family gets any more admiration from DU than our white New Democrat President and his family get. I imagine--though that's clearly speculation--that the posts would have read very similarly had DU been open for business 1992-2000. JMO

[Bluenorthwest]

82. The destruction of the New Deal was Reagan's goal and that of his supporters. Memory is useful.

"The contrast between the fruit of public policies in the decades following F.D.R.’s New Deal and post-Reagan couldn’t be clearer, as the first graph below indicates. The New Deal included high marginal income tax rates, while Reagan cut taxes on the rich, but raised payroll taxes. The steadily rising blue line of median family income appears in the wake the New Deal, which included higher taxes on the rich (the red line), from the 1940s to the advent of Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics in the 1980s and beyond.

median family incomeThe “Reagan revolution” that reduced those top tax rates starts in the early ’80s with the second large drop in marginal income tax rates (Kennedy reduced top rates to around 70%, but tightened many loopholes). Before Reagan, median family income rose essentially without interruption from the late ‘40s until 1973, when oil shocks changed the economic playing field. Post-Reagan, the median income rise was considerably less vertical, and was interrupted more often, until most recently it went virtually flat."
http://www.laprogressive.com/reagan-fdr/



Reagan called upon two powerful American myths:

The Cowboy myth. This is actually a version of the myth of individual power. Americans portray the power of the single, dedicated individual to accomplish their dreams. The cowboy myth portrayed the power of the individual, even in his isolation, against the forces arrayed to destroy him.

The market myth. Americans also believe in the "natural" market in which some freely sell and others freely buy and value is attached in the exchange. That the market is the natural state is one of the oldest beliefs of capitalism. Ancillary to this believe is the believe that through its natural mechanisms, the market transforms individual selfishness into community good. In the 1950s, this idea was represented by Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness. Also current at that time was a linkage between the market and democracy: the market was a kind of way that people voted by using their money to favor the things that they wanted. Thus, the market became linked with the free choice that was democracy.
http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/comm461/lectures/reagan.html


So. There are mountains of material discussing the Reagnite attack on the New Deal, their constant mantra 'The markets, the markets, I cared only about the markets'.

"Over the past seventy-five years, the American economy has shifted between two different economic philosophies: Roosevelt's-New Deal, and Reagan's-Reaganomics. So I devoted some time researching the impact these two philosophies have had on the U.S. Economy."
http://comparedtowhatpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/03/roosevelts-new-deal-compared-to-reagans.html

http://comparedtowhatpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/03/roosevelts-new-deal-compared-to-reagans.html

[Enthusiast]

97. Thank you for sharing that, Bluenorthwest.

[DeSwiss]

83. K&R

[Enthusiast]

90. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Way to go, Manny!

[dawg]

93. I hope that most of these people (on DU at least) are only trying to defend Obama from criticism.

I would hate to think that they are really stupid enough to think that Social Security cuts, Medicare cuts, and labor-harming "free trade" agreements are actually good ideas.

[bvar22]

144. They don't think that far ahead.

Its an uncontrolled impulse thing:

Personality over Policy

I have read on DU more than once that President Obama is way smarter than anyone on DU ,
and has access to more information,
so I'll support anything he says or does.
Its a variation of the 3 dimensional chess thing we heard so often when his policies could not be justifited under a Democratic Platform.
We are all just too stupid to understand.


Here is an OP from 2012:

[font size=3]I don't think Obama is going to cut Social Security.[/font]

"I can't be sure, but either way he's got my vote.

The other guys really suck.

Who's with me? "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

[NCTraveler]

94. I have searched du and cannot find where anyone uses the quote you are claiming.

Do you have a link for it? I have a feeling the person who typed the quote you are using won't be welcome here for long.

[RoccoR5955]

95. If they start saying that

They should be ousted from the Democratic Party, and form their own damn party.
Personally, I get the thought that they should be drawn and quartered, for saying that about FDR, but hey.

[longship]

96. Those who attack FDR are no Democrats.

Here he is, from his greatest speech, the Four Freedoms, from 1941.

I have read posts here recently that FDR was a corporatist. What kind of people do they think we are that such a narrative would play here?

FDR. The greatest president of the 20th century.

[Zorra]

99. I suspect that most of them are the product of Reagan era brainwashing, and

the subsequent deliberate, and systematic, transformation of American society toward ignorance and conservatism that the intense, all encompassing blanket brainwashing employed by Wall St. during the Reagan era began.

Ever notice how many of them will gleefully trash FDR, but won't ever say a word about what an evil monster Reagan was?

I suspect that, given a choice between Reagan and FDR, that they would choose Reagan.

Just like their Reagan Democrat prototypes did in 1980.

[appalachiablue]

141. Thank you. This clarifies a lot, horrible as it is.

I don't suppose any of these admirers discuss RR's delay on aids treatment which cost many lives. But the well known FDR internment camps issue is brought up. And nothing about little entry for Holocaust refugees due much to old immigration laws. Pro Reaganites and anti FDR people on the same board is very strange.

[LawDeeDah]

103. I am beginning to get sick of hearing about FDR.

and how perfectly flawless a leader and human being he was.

-- No Way LawDD

[beerandjesus]

113. Thing is, I don't think anyone's doing that.

Fact is, his shortcomings are so obvious, they're pretty hard to overlook. But when he was on, man, he was ON.

[4Q2u2]

104. Where is Tip O'Niel when you need him

A man who is almost totally forgotten. He would not stand for this no matter who was in the WH.

Good read for all.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncarebu21.html

Howard Zinn

[MADem]

116. His name was O'Neill, and he's dead. And he is most certainly NOT forgotten.

His name is plastered, in enormous letters, on the tunnel running through Boston. He remains BELOVED.

You do know Tip and Ronald Reagan were working friends, even though they disagreed politically and Tip didn't think RR was the smartest guy in the room? Tip brokered more political compromises over a glass of whiskey than you could shake a stick at.

[4Q2u2]

122. Know it well

I helped build the tunnel.
He is Beloved here.
I wonder sometimes elsewhere, and are his ideals and lessons being learned by the next generation of Dems?
In the new age of the "Road to Canonize St Ronnie", lots of the Repubs are now stating that they did not work together and Regan did not need Tip because of all the Blue Dogs in the House that voted with the President. I always wondered about that. Who benefited from Union busting the most. Southern manufacturing? It always made me laugh when they started to complain about jobs being sent overseas. What is worse, stealing a job from a stranger, or stealing a job from a Fellow American? Am I supposed to support you after you stole all those jobs from the NorEast?

His name is one of the words i can never get right, like maintenance, it is my glitch.
TGf Spell Check

[McCamy Taylor]

114. Who attacked FDR? I must have missed this one.

[MADem]

123. The answer is no one.

That meme is a divide-and-conquer play, nothing more. You know how things are here--any discussion of a politician's stances, attitudes and decisions becomes an "attack" if everyone isn't all waving the pompoms in unison.

It's one of the things that makes this site less...academic than it used to be.

[wyldwolf]

124. Let me break it down for you

Clinton did good things, Clinton did bad things = EVIL!!!!
Obama did good things, Obama did bad things = EVIL!!!
FDR did good things, FDR did bad things = SAINT ROOSEVELT!

It's perfectly fine to point out the records and actions of any Democratic president except FDR. Doing that is heresy.

[cui bono]

119. And when they take praise of FDR as an Obama bash.

WTF is wrong with them???

They cray-cray.

[NYC Liberal]

127. It's not about FDR "sucking". It's about the hypocrisy of people who think Obama can do no right,

and claim he's some horrible right-wing conservative (while bizarrely lauding Richard fucking Nixon as a "real liberal&quot , but at the same time holding up FDR as the epitome of the Perfect Pure Liberal.

You have to take the good with the bad with any human being. For that crowd, though, Obama == All Bad, FDR == All Good. Sorry, that's not how it works. If you're going to use FDR to bash today's liberal Democrats (Obama being one of them), it is absolutely reasonable for people to point out his own flaws to show that neither is perfect. I'll take Obama over FDR every day of the week when it comes to civil rights, for example. He puts FDR to absolute shame in that arena.

[lovemydog]

138. Reminds me of someone claiming 'Ali is the best, Robinson was not a real boxer!'

then getting pissed off that there's 'pound for pound' discussion considering opponents and eras. Then complains that people are besmirching the good name of Mohammed Ali. Yeeesh. They're both great.

President Obama has tirelessly advanced liberal causes and so did FDR. They both put their money where there mouth is by improving the lives of working Americans. And even considering their eras, Obama is much better on civil rights.

I'm to the left of both of them. For example, I would like to see health care nationalized, income taxes tripled on the top two percent, capital gains tax rates tripled, military spending cut in half, big banks heavily regulated or broken up. I'm a realist too. I recognize that accomplishing these things isn't easy and will take time. I support anyone and everyone who is working toward progress. Big or small. What's most productive is that we get the most progressive candidates available on every ballot, and win elections.

President Obama has helped us recover from the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Millions more covered by health insurance, with the cost only fifty or a hundred bucks for many. Younger people able to be on their parents' insurance up to age 26. We have gained millions of jobs and manufacturing is coming back strong. Now we must continue that recovery via higher wages.