General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This is what a REAL Democrat sounds like. [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)I mean, come off it. No one is claiming that he didn't do a lot of good. Why even lead with that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" type of "argument?" That's not news.
But he MADE HIS MONEY on WALL STREET. That's not up for debate, either. He didn't have a family-run railroad, and a family run coal mine where he sold boutique bags of souvenir coal all tied up with a pretty bow. He made his money off the backs of coal miners in a big way, make no mistake. That's where his family investments were centered.
And the people did elect him four times, the first time because they hoped he would do good for them, the second time because they knew he was doing good for them, regardless of his class or motives, the third time because in 40, we were all but in that war in Europe with lend-lease and it was simply a question of getting our war machine up to speed, and in 44 we were in the thick of a tough slog of a two front war and he seemed to be handling that in a competent fashion....by then, those corporatists were onboard, too, because they were making money hand over fist, supplying that war machine.
I had relatives who worked in a GIRDLE factory that was suddenly making all sorts of stretchy military gear and they had to work double shifts and a six, sometimes seven day week; people who worked in car factories found themselves working double shifts making jeeps and tanks; I had an auntie who was Rosie the Riveter, putting together airplanes. EVERYONE was working their ass off and no one was "poor" at that point in time, anyone who wanted to work could find two jobs if they wanted them, assuming they weren't called for the draft--they needed more workers to keep the war machine churning--that's why so many women entered the workforce in an era when one salary could support a small to medium sized family.
I'm not sure why you're crabbing about my use of the word pragmatic -- go on and look it up, I know what it means, maybe you want to refresh...? I'm not saying FDR wasn't a pragmatist, either--but he wasn't a dewy-eyed, on the ramparts socialist who would be at ease with some of concepts touted today, which is what some people want to paint him as. He was a very decent fellow, with some of the unfortunate biases of his era, who did a very good job indeed in a tough position during a challenging time in history. He deserves all sorts of kudos for that.
Let's not paint him as a cross between MLK and Ghandi, though. And let's not suggest that he'd be a liberal on issues that are important to people nowadays, like LGBT rights, women's equality, drug legalization, "integration" of the races, and things like that. He didn't come from an era that supported those kinds of things. He came from an era where there was a pecking order, racial and class divisions, and what were regarded as "appropriate" roles. Women, as soon as the war was over, were expected to take off their coveralls and get back to the kitchen, do those dishes, wash those floors, vacuum those rugs, dust that furniture, and raise those kids (no one counted on the women not liking that idea, though).
It's impossible to know how FDR would feel, these days and it's rather foolish to even try to pretend to know. If he were immortal, one might assume that it could depend on how well he managed his portfolio. And that's not being unkind, that's just being PRAGMATIC. He was never a sackcloth and ashes type of guy; he wasn't ostentatious, but he enjoyed the niceties of life.