Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ok time for some mythj killing regarding FDR, the media

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
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:28 AM
Original message
Ok time for some mythj killing regarding FDR, the media
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 12:32 AM by nadinbrzezinski
and all that lovely thing

"Well we are in this hole since they media is no longer a fair trader, like they were when FDR came to power."

WRONG

The media back then was just as biased as it is today. In fact, the media back then had its own Rush Limbaugh, his name was father Coughlin and if you think Rush is bad... they were in the same league. And yes, Father Coughlin did his level best to help turn the average person against labor and the feds... his paranoia was legendary... here some readying for you

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

In fact, it was Father Coughlin and what happened in Germany under the nazis that led to the rise of the FCC... not a second before... so when you say that the media was fair and balanced, that is a myth, and why Rush (given US History he's got reason to believe it) fears that the Dems will bring back the Fairness Doctrine, which we can thank Father Coughlin (and ironically the Nazis) for. He knows, from history, that if something akin ot the Fairness Doctrone comes back... he's done.

FDR ran on the New Deal in 1932... not quite, and here is the platform for you to read... (Note to mods, this is public domain information)

*******

Democratic Party Platform of 1932

In this time of unprecedented economic and social distress the Democratic Party declares its conviction that the chief causes of this condition were the disastrous policies pursued by our government since the World War, of economic isolation, fostering the merger of competitive businesses into monopolies and encouraging the indefensible expansion and contraction of credit for private profit at the expense of the public.

Those who were responsible for these policies have abandoned the ideals on which the war was won and thrown away the fruits of victory, thus rejecting the greatest opportunity in history to bring peace, prosperity, and happiness to our people and to the world.

They have ruined our foreign trade; destroyed the values of our commodities and products, crippled our banking system, robbed millions of our people of their life savings, and thrown millions more out of work, produced wide-spread poverty and brought the government to a state of financial distress unprecedented in time of peace.

The only hope for improving present conditions, restoring employment, affording permanent relief to the people, and bringing the nation back to the proud position of domestic happiness and of financial, industrial, agricultural and commercial leadership in the world lies in a drastic change in economic governmental policies.

We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to have faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of the contract to which they are asked to subscribe. We hereby declare this to be the platform of the Democratic Party:

The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies, and reforms herein advocated, and to eradicate the policies, methods, and practices herein condemned. We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than twenty-five per cent in the cost of the Federal Government. And we call upon the Democratic Party in the states to make a zealous effort to achieve a proportionate result.

We favor maintenance of the national credit by a federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate executive estimates within revenues, raised by a system of taxation levied on the principle of ability to pay.

We advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards and an international monetary conference called on the invitation of our government to consider the rehabilitation of silver and related questions.

We advocate a competitive tariff for revenue with a fact-finding tariff commission free from executive interference, reciprocal tariff agreements with other nations, and an international economic conference designed to restore international trade and facilitate exchange.

We advocate the extension of federal credit to the states to provide unemployment relief wherever the diminishing resources of the states makes it impossible for them to provide for the needy; expansion of the federal program of necessary and useful construction effected with a public interest, such as adequate flood control and waterways.

We advocate the spread of employment by a substantial reduction in the hours of labor, the encouragement of the shorter week by applying that principle in government service; we advocate advance planning of public works.

We advocate unemployment and old-age insurance under state laws.

We favor the restoration of agriculture, the nation's basic industry; better financing of farm mortgages through recognized farm bank agencies at low rates of interest on an amortization plan, giving preference to credits for the redemption of farms and homes sold under foreclosure.

Extension and development of the Farm co-operative movement and effective control of crop surpluses so that our farmers may have the full benefit of the domestic market.

The enactment of every constitutional measure that will aid the farmers to receive for their basic farm commodities prices in excess of cost.

We advocate a Navy and an Army adequate for national defense, based on a survey of all facts affecting the existing establishments, that the people in time of peace may not be burdened by an expenditure fast approaching a billion dollars annually.

We advocate strengthening and impartial enforcement of the anti-trust laws, to prevent monopoly and unfair trade practices, and revision thereof for the better protection of labor and the small producer and distributor.

The conservation, development, and use of the nation's water power in the public interest.

The removal of government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and natural resources in the common interest.

We advocate protection of the investing public by requiring to be filed with the government and carried in advertisements of all offerings of foreign and domestic stocks and bonds true information as to bonuses, commissions, principal invested, and interests of the sellers.

Regulation to the full extent of federal power, of:

(a) Holding companies which sell securities in interstate commerce;

(b) Rates of utilities companies operating across State lines;

(c) Exchanges in securities and commodities. We advocate quicker methods of realizing on assets for the relief of depositors of suspended banks, and a more rigid supervision of national banks for the protection of depositors and the prevention of the use of their moneys in speculation to the detriment of local credits.

The severance of affiliated security companies from, and the divorce of the investment banking business from, commercial banks, and further restriction of federal reserve banks in permitting the use of federal reserve facilities for speculative purposes.

We advocate the full measure of justice and generosity for all war veterans who have suffered disability or disease caused by or resulting from actual service in time of war and for their dependents.

We advocate a firm foreign policy, including peace with all the world and the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; no interference in the internal affairs of other nations; and sanctity of treaties and the maintenance of good faith and of good will in financial obligations; adherence to the World Court with appending reservations; the Pact of Paris abolishing war as an instrument of national policy, to be made effective by provisions for consultation and conference in case of threatened violations of treaties.

International agreements for reduction of armaments and cooperation with nations of the Western Hemisphere to maintain the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine.

We oppose cancelation of the debts owing to the United States by foreign nations.

Independence for the Philippines; ultimate statehood for Puerto Rico.

The employment of American citizens in the operation of the Panama Canal.

Simplification of legal procedure and reorganization of the judicial system to make the attainment of justice speedy, certain, and at less cost.

Continuous publicity of political contributions and expenditures; strengthening of the Corrupt Practices Act and severe penalties for misappropriation of campaign funds.

We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. To effect such repeal we demand that the Congress immediately propose a Constitutional Amendment to truly represent the conventions in the states called to act solely on that proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the several states as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the states.

We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable the states to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their laws.

Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act; to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue.

We condemn the improper and excessive use of money in political activities.

We condemn paid lobbies of special interests to influence members of Congress and other public servants by personal contact.

We condemn action and utterances of high public officials designed to influence stock exchange prices.

We condemn the open and cover resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by Congressional Committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of the Government and to revoke improvident subsidies granted to favorite interests.

We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator in farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demands of domestic markets.

We condemn the usurpation of power by the State Department in assuming to pass upon foreign securities offered by international bankers as a result of which billions of dollars in questionable bonds have been sold to the public upon the implied approval of the Federal Government.

And in conclusion, to accomplish these purposes and to recover economic liberty, we pledge the nominees of this convention the best efforts of a great Party whose founder announced the doctrine which guides us now in the hour of our country's need: equal rights to all; special privilege to none.

******


Now you will notice that the platform is decidely populist, but nowhere is in here a detail that would hint to the new deal. In fact, Obama's platform shares some similarities with this. There is a decidedly change we believe in tone, but no specifics...

The court in 1932 was more conservative than the current USSC... just that many folks like to think it wasn't. Not until the 1950s did the court turn ahem liberal... but thorugh out most of the heady years of the New Deal FDR had a USSC that was all but friendly and the last bastion of the Hoover years.

So what is the point of this? Yes Obama is a centrist, as he stands right now. In the months before FDR was sworn in you wouold not be able to tell just what kind of a revolution was coming. I am not saying is FDR... that would be stupid. Nor do I epxect this coalition to be exactly the same as the coalition of the New Deal, again that would be the height of stupidity.

That said, the HISTORICAL pattern is very similar. The people FDR appointed to his cabinet were not liberals... they were centrist in current parlance. Some might have even been considered DLC in current parlance, never mind the DLC was nowhere to be found back then.

Why would a president do that? It is called manourver room. If you appoint ideoligical purists you don't have the kind of room you need. If you apoint centrists, who are mostly pragmatists, you get the room to manouver and the credibity to do such. Will this happen? I cannot guarantee it. but for god sakes, let the man take the office and at least give him six months... then start screaming

That said, the fact that they are pulling back from prosecuting war crimes, if the reporting is correct, gives me pause for other reasons.

Oh and one last myth that needs slaying...

NOT every piece of legislation that we know collectively as the New Deal was passed in the first hundred days, and some of it quite frankly stunk to high heaven...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. Lots of good info.
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 12:34 AM by BrklynLiberal
"the first hundred years" - Did you mean "hundred DAYS"?


I have read about Coughlin. He was the role model for all the RW fanatics of today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Corrected that, after you posted
and yes Father Coughlin was the exact model for Rush... to be exact

Some of his echoes can also be heard in Michael Wiener...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. It's almost impossible to exaggerate the degree of overt anti-Semitism prevalent then.
And Father Coughlin was one of the most effective practitioners of that. Most of the others were "tainted" as being extremist and/or Nazi-front. But Coughlin was NOT; he was considered quite respectable. And his radio audience frequently equaled or even surpassed FDR's!

There were reports of walking through certain neighborhoods in warm weather, when the windows were all open. The reporter could hear Coughlin's voice almost unbroken, as he proceeded down several streets!

Also of note: In the 1936 election, almost all the major newspapers were ANTI-FDR, some virulently so. And yet, FDR won, and by a landslide!

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. I expect the same to happen in four years
for the same structural reasons
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. But let us all HOPE for the sake of this country & world, that 2012 plays out like 1936 did!
Edited on Wed Nov-26-08 04:56 PM by pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. Great info and analysis, Thank You - NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. You welcome... The parallels are just astoundiung
and they say history doesn't repeat itself..... if I got a buck every time I heard this in Historiography class....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. History is one of our most important tools
Human nature doesn't change, evolving cultures may express it differently, by the driving forces remain the same.
Only an idiot would believe any human drama would be new and unique.

I only wish I had more formal education so as to be less surprised when the rerun is on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. There are a myriad of books on the subject
and these days, if one makes the effort, and can separate the wheat from chaff, there is plenty of good info on the web
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. I have been working on the self education thing since I was 16
Made some good progress in my mid twenties, slower progress since.
In my late 30's till now most of it has been technical stuff, learning to operate drafting and engineering software, CNC programs,
HTML, flash that sort of thing.

Work is always an impeding factor, especially of late, but I consider reading here "an open diverse classroom".

If you had one book you would recommend, what would it be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. hmm book, hmmm I have not read the actual historiography
of that particular period in much detail... for the moment a good bet would be anything from Krugman

His upcoming book is in my list of thigns to get
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Thank You :-) NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #13
37. Just for fun, you could try "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis.
It's a novel about the fascist overthrow of the US set in the 30s. Father Caughlin is a central character. It's available online for free through Gutenberg Australia:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html


(No affiliation, chat board monikers notwithstanding) ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Now you've done it... will have to download it
and READ it... myself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #37
54. I have heard many references over the years to that one.
Looks like I should finally find out for myself why it gains so much respect.
Thank You :-) .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
6. The Fair Labor Standards Act didn't come until 1938
Social Security came in 1935.

If DU was around back then, people here would have been whining on Inauguration Day about why their pet issues weren't being solved NOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. I know, but I will also argue that the people back then
as much as they had LESS formal education, understood what was going on better than they do today

But wait, if you ran a poll on DU, most folks do believe (why this is a myth) that social security and the fair labor standards law was passed in the first hundred days

And boy it wasn't and there were some turkeys that were...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. and then things changed....
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 12:56 AM by Two Americas
...mainly because of strong pressure from outside of the party by Labor and Left wing organizations.

A Rendezvous With Destiny


Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 27, 1936
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history. This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776 - an American way of life.

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-businessmen 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-businessmen, 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.

"Necessitous men are not free men."



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.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

"Freedom is no half-and-half affair"



Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

"In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."



For more than three years we have fought for them. This convention, in every word and deed, has pledged that the fight will go on.

The defeats and victories of these years have given to us as a people a new understanding of our government and of ourselves. Never since the early days of the New England town meeting have the affairs of government been so widely discussed and so clearly appreciated. It has been brought home to us that the only effective guide for the safety of this most worldly of worlds, the greatest guide of all, is moral principle.

We do not see faith, hope, and charity as unattainable ideals, but we use them as stout supports of a nation fighting the fight for freedom in a modern civilization.

Faith - in the soundness of democracy in the midst of dictatorships.

Hope - renewed because we know so well the progress we have made.

Charity - in the true spirit of that grand old word. For charity literally translated from the original means love, the love that understands, that does not merely share the wealth of the giver, but in true sympathy and wisdom helps men to help themselves.

We seek not merely to make government a mechanical implement, but to give it the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity.

We are poor indeed if this nation cannot afford to lift from every recess of American life the dread fear of the unemployed that they are not needed in the world. We cannot afford to accumulate a deficit in the books of human fortitude.

In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity.

It is a sobering thing, my friends, to be a servant of this great cause. We try in our daily work to remember that the cause belongs not to us, but to the people. The standard is not in the hands of you and me alone. It is carried by America. We seek daily to profit from experience, to learn to do better as our task proceeds.

http://www2.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm


"But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. First, there was more diversity of voices then.
There's no diversity in talk radio today and barely any diversity in the corporate press compared to that time. The range of debate was not so limited as it is now. And radio was more decentralized in ownership, which is something Obama pledged to restore.

Second, Obama had the more liberal record and platform of the first and second tier candidates running this time. I wonder if people who keep calling Obama a centrist have bought into the cynical Green Party idea that a liberal can't possibly get elected President so they choose not to accept Obama as one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. First we have the same diversity, just not in old media
radio was new media back then... today new media... you are using it... and there is quite a bit of voices on new media.

But the old media of the period was as fractured and controlled as it is today... in the new media, and some of the old media (papers, due to the nature of the business) you had voices of labor, (I get labor newsletters and action forms as well), and you had voices on radio, which again was the new media.

Second Obama IS a centrist by his record, you are repeating the often trotted lie that whoever is the Dem candidate is the most liberal democrat in insert legislative or gubernatorial seat here. This is a reality of American political life, our political scale is not as wide as other countries, and those elected to the Presidency, with few exceptions (see Bush) are not considered radicals.

Nos I go his record, and he is not a liberal... and until he was inaugurated and formally took office, Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York wasn't a liberal either... he was considered a safe choice by the famous powers that be. You might remember there was an attempted coup against him...

Facts on the ground forced FDR to do what needed to be done.. he was also much younger than his opponent by the way, another parallel, and I am willing to bet that Senator Obama will do whatever needs to be done, and he is also much younger than his opponent. Oh and being a centrist, that is the reality, and appointing centrists to his cabinet, gives him the maneuver room he needs. I don't expect the parallels to die there, and I expect his policies to be as radical and Keynesian as they will need them to be, but not a step beyond that.

He will do the same that FDR did, save capitalism from itself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Just because
Obama isn't a marxist doesn't make him a centrist. I'm fully aware of his record and it is liberal. I'm not repeating a line. You are repeating the Green party line that any Democrat who gets the Democratic nomination can't be liberal. That's not true this time.

Your sentences about the media contradict themselves and don't make sense. Was it fractured or was it controlled? The corporate press today is owned by a few companies and has a limited range of debate, far more than in the 30's. The existence of the internet does not change that fact. A person with a blog does not have the same voice as clearchannel radio's national network. There's no comparing the size of the audiences they reach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. I mever sad he was a marxist,
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 09:56 PM by nadinbrzezinski
by the way that is the talking point from the right

Nothing funnier than seeing a car today with that line on a bumper

Obama is a marxist

I'd like to ask both you (and the driver of that car) if either of you KNOW what the term actually means

As to the green party.

Who exactly called him a socialist (not that he could define the term either) Joe Lieberman, and John McCain, try that one again.

Oh wait, they even used the line, he is a marxist too.


Oh and I forgot, did the Heritage Foundation suddenly JOIN the Green Party? It was THEM who first called Obama, in true form, the most liberal member of the Senate... wait, who did they call way four years ago? Oh yeah, Kerry

Would you like to revise your talking points by now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-26-08 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #24
38. What planet are you on?
And who are you having a debate with? Because nothing you write appears to have anything to do with either of my comments on your thread. Is english not your first language?

I challenged your argument that Obama isn't liberal. So far you haven't responded to that or my other point. At all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. He is not, read his legislative record... if you cannot read his record
then we are indeed on two different planets

Or you have NO CLUE what a liberal looks like, free clue, it is not a marxist or socialist either.

and for god sakes STOP repeating RIGHT WING talking points and try to pass them to the left... like your green party lie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. I'm very familiar with his record.
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 12:37 AM by Radical Activist
So are the League of Conservation Voters, the AFL-CIO, and the ACLU that all give him high ratings for his entire career, and the National Journal that named him one of the most liberal Senators. You can cherry pick a few votes to make anyone look centrist if that's what you want to believe. I look at Obama's actual record.

How am I lying about the Green Party? They argue that Democrats aren't liberal, just like you are. That's not a right wing talking point. Its the Green talking point. They say it all the time. Its their reason for existence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. Yeah he gets high numbers from some groups... all politicos do
but he is not a liberal, he is a centrist, and he is also appointing CENTRIST personnel to his administration... or did you miss the names so far? Or do you even KNOW what exactly have all our Third Way economic mavens did during the 1990s? In some cases the 1980s (and the world bank)

There is a reason to that madness, read the OP... but he is a centrist, under the US Political System... and he is such a liberal that he voted the way he did on FISA, for example... and yes I know WHY he did it... the political reasons, but his record is center to center left best case, and that is the US Political scale... not the world scale.

Then again on the WORLD scale ALL our elected politicos, yes even Kucinich, are center to center right, with Dennis slightly to the left of center.

Look NO US president will be allowed to even make it pass the sniffing test if they trend too far to the liberal side, and you can thank Reagan for this...

I am still holding off on major judgment since I do KNOW that US history... and that FDR, the hero of the left, was a centrist when elected back in '32... and the people he appointed, just as Obama's appointees, are very much centrist (and pragmatists)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. There it is. The fatalistic cynicism.
You can't believe that Obama is a liberal because it would disprove everything you believe about politics in America. You can't believe a liberal can be nominated for President as a Democrat or ever get elected. You're allowing your preconceived notions to cloud your judgment about Obama.

I've named three groups that work on different progressive issues and the National Journal ratings as evidence that Obama is a liberal. I've been watching his career long before you had ever heard of him. Your only evidence is one vote you don't like, and even then, Obama preferred a progressive alternative. You have nothing but Ralph Nader talking points about how no liberal could ever get elected President. I don't share your negative and fatalistic attitude.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. No, it is a political reality
It is called POLI SCI 101

he is not a liberal

Neither was FDR

And it is this little factoid that ALLOWED FDR to act the way he did between 32 and 39... and exactly the same freedom that Obama will have

This is not cynicism... just HISTORY

Come on, open a book, read it, and find out why things are the way they are. The parallels to the 1930s are just astounding... even to the type of personnel appointed to the US Economic team... or are you telling me that Paul Volker is a Liberal? What about Geitner? Summers?

Neither of them is a liberal, they are all third way, though little known and truly inside baseball, Volker was a Keunseina BEFORE he became President of the World Bank in the 1980s...

So if you WANT to believe that Obama is a liberal (as it stands right now) go for it. I choose to take in the panorama provided by history, and the political history of this country.

This means I expect change, and I expect Liberal, even Keynseian policies, and they will be easier to implement PRECISELY because these guys are centrists.

They have the street cred to do this

And if this is being cynical to you... there is plenty of history to back this.

But make no mistake, he is just as much a centrist as FDR was the day he was elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. FDR is considered one of the most liberal Presidents in history.
I don't think we've ever had a far-left or radical left President, but if FDR's Presidency isn't liberal to you then none ever will be. I'm guessing your definition of liberal excludes at least half the people in America who call themselves liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. What part of I can distinguish between GOVERNOR
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 02:02 AM by nadinbrzezinski
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his CENTRIST, even center right wing policies as GOVERNOR of New York and PRESIDENT Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the MOST LIBERAL presidents we have had are you purposely missing I don't know... but I also know you are not alone. Many folks have a problem with this little fact. (And the same goes for TR for the same structural reasons as well)

I also expect the CENTRIST Senator to be replaced by a fairly to very LIBERAL President for the SAME STRUCTURAL REASONS... and they have all to do with the Economy. Hell, I said over two years ago that the next president of the United States would be forced to enact a New Deal kind of polices because those of us paying attention knew this train wreck was on its way.

But right now, the people Obama is appointing are centrist, just as the people FDR appointed to his Cabinet between November of 1932 and Inauguration day in March of '33

This is HISTORY... I suggest you try readying some history. And that is what the OP is addressing... HISTORY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Your FDR red herring aside
Edited on Thu Nov-27-08 02:08 AM by Radical Activist
You still haven't been able to make any real argument that Obama is a centrist. Organized labor, environmental groups, civil rights groups, the ACLU, abortion rights groups, and then National Journal all agree with me that Obama has a liberal record.
On the other hand, you have your cynical belief that Obama must not be liberal because no TRUE liberal could ever be elected President. Given a complete lack of argument on your part, I'd say you're full of shit. Why don't you take your own advice and look up Obama's actual record sometime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. You can believe whatever you want, including that red herring called
history...

I think we are done

Does not matter what evidence is given to you... does not matter

So he is a liberal and so was governor Roosevelt... whatever, never mind that pesky history

Yep, right whatever, have a good thanksgiving of course...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. How about giving me ANY evidence?
I can believe Obama is a liberal because I've watched his career for a long time and know its true.

Obama said change comes from the people. Pushing Obama to the left is a good thing. We don't need to unfairly attack Obama to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. His legislative HISTORY
DON'T NEED THE ACLU TO TELL ME HE IS A WHATEVER... my lying eyes can see that his VOTING RECORD is not that liberal

That said,

I EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY HE IS APPOINTING PEOPLE WHO ARE ANYWHERE FROM CENTRIST TO RIGHT WING WITH QUITE A BIT OF STREET CRED ON WALL STREET NOT MAIN STREET

You have still to address these facts. Nor do I expect you to know who Paul Volker is, or his history, for example.

Furthermore I AM NOT ATTACKING HIM. IN FACT GIVING YOU THE EXACT FUCKING REASONS WHY HE IS APPOINTING THESE PEOPLE. THESE ARE ESTABLISHMENT, CLINTON ERA (AND EARLIER) APPOINTEES, WITH THE STREET CRED THAT WILL ALLOW THIS MAN TO DO EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

Is this an attack? Apparently so, at least to you... use the google, find out WHO EXACTLY these people are.

So be it.

You seem truly incapable of processing this info without seeing an attack YOU WANT TO SEE THERE... because one is citing a FACT based on this pesky red herring called HISTORY... and AMERICAN POLITICAL REALITY

If he appointed Dennis Kucinich, or any other "hard lefty" there is no way in hell he'd have the maneuver room. Is this clear enough for you? Or do you need me to use the bold and italics next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. more importantly
More importantly, in the 30's we had powerful Labor and left wing political organizations to bring pressure on the government from outside of the party.

Also, access to the MSM is one thing, but even when we do have an outlet - right here - we are losing the debate with the conservatives among us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
14. What's missing today is the strong labor/left movements of the time
Most of what motivated FDR's "New Deal" was putting a boot to the neck of true left movements in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. exactly
Edited on Tue Nov-25-08 01:54 PM by Two Americas
And many of those arguing that Leftists are wrong, that FDR or the New Deal were not all they were cracked up to be, that electing Obama "is" change and that we should trust and believe, that we should be moderate and cautious, and that all dissenters and voices from the left should be dismissed and discredited as lunatics or dreamers, are doing so in response to those who are calling for building strong strong labor and left wing movements today to bring pressure on the government from outside of the party.

Some are trying to hijack the recent victories by the Democratic party and drive the party to the right, and claim the recent election of Obama as an endorsement for right-leaning politics, and as an opportunity to put a boot to the neck of the Left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. Correct., as one of my profs put it, to save capitalism from itself
though labor is STARTING to wake up and ahem organize

The silent one has been the Service Workers Internaitonal, the fastest growing union in the US
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
15. My mother taught me about Coughlin -- and a whole lot more
My mother was no good at traditional bedtime stories, so she would put me to sleep by telling me about the history of the 1920's and 30's as she remembered it. She was 16 when Roosevelt was elected and had been thinking about becoming a communist (except that she balked at the part about getting up early on Sunday mornings to sell the Daily Worker on street corners), but Roosevelt won her over.

So she would tell me stories about the New Deal, and the terrible, terrible names people used to call Eleanor Roosevelt, and how she cried when the NRA was struck down by the Supreme Court. And she would tell me about how the German Bund used to hold rallies and about how Father Coughlin would get the haters whipped up with his radio show.

She also told me about reading George Seldes to find out the stuff the New York Times was suppressing because they didn't want to get their advertisers annoyed. For example, during the Spanish Civil War, the Times would always point out that the Loyalists were backed by the Soviet Union but never mentioned that Franco's forces were supported by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

There may have been something like 13 daily papers in New York City in those days, but you still had to go to someone like George Seldes to learn the truth. My father told me just a couple of years ago that during the McCarthy era he and my mother were terrified that the House Un-American Activities Committee would get their hands on the mailing list for Seldes' newsletter and they'd be in real trouble.

That never happened, but I sometimes think it may explain why I tend to be on the tinfoil side of things today. The early 50's were a pretty nutsy time to be a little kid, especially since none of the grownups ever talked about this stuff to you directly.

The left in this country has a long, sad history of persecution and resistance, running from the Haymarket Riot through Cointelpro, but very few of us have ever learned more than snatches of it. I keep thinking it's time to reclaim that history and remind ourselves of who our real heroes are.

Actually, things being what they are, it might not hurt to start with a little of the history of the UAW:

http://www.uawlocal1999.org/UAWHistory/default.asp

The leadership of the UAW knew that if the automobile industry was to be organized, General Motors would have to be organized. On December 28, 1936, workers struck the Cleveland Fisher Body plant, a key plant which supplied the tops for nearly all GM cars. On December 30, 1936, at Flint Fisher Body, GM tried to move important dies to weaker union areas, but the Flint workers went on a sit-down strike. This was the action that triggered the General Motors sit-down strike of 1937. Within a few days, workers from other GM plants all over the country struck. By January 13, 1937, over 112,000 of the company’s 150,000 production workers were on strike.

The UAW made eight demands, one of which was to recognize the UAW as the sole bargaining representative. General Motors refused to consider any of the demands and took their case to court. They obtained an injunction ordering the strikers out of the plants. When it was discovered that the issuing judge owned a large amount of General Motors stock, the writ became unenforceable. Then it was decided to starve out the Flint sit-downers. This effort precipitated a battle between police and women, who had each day for almost a month brought food to their men and were determined that they should not be stopped. The police started shooting tear gas through the windows while the women were passing food to their men. The men inside the plant started to fight back with water from heavy fire hoses and steel hinges. At one point, police were firing point blank into the crowd that included women. Union sympathizers retaliated with stones, lumps of coal, steel hinges, and milk bottles. The strikers held their ground. The wind changed direction and blew the tear gas back into the police and after two hours the police retreated.

This conflict, in which 14 fell from gunshot wounds, was later called The Battle of Bulls Run. After this conflict, each day rumors that Governor Murphy had ordered the troops to clear the plants were circulated. Each day proved the rumors were wrong but the Governor was under much pressure to send in troops. In a telegram to Governor Murphy, the sit-downers told the Governor they had decided to stay in the plant and if this resulted in an attempt to eject them, their deaths would be his responsibility.

Brothers Walter, Roy, and Victor Reuther were all union leaders that helped facilitate these sit-down strikes. Finally, on February 11, 1937, a one-page contract was agreed upon by GM and the UAW. Without the help of President Roosevelt and the cooperation of Governor Murphy, there would have been more bloodshed and we would not have had a union at General Motors. After General Motors surrendered, the rest of the auto industry was soon to follow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. ThanksI LOVE primary sources
and your mom is one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 02:22 AM
Response to Original message
16. K&R A very good read. Thanks for this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
19. raised by a system of taxation levied on the principle of ability to pay.
This IMO is at the heart of their platform..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
20. I think this platform shows plenty of clues ....

to the New Deal Programs that lay ahead. The first one hundred days of the Roosevelt administration didn't just happen. They were planned. If you read the platform, you get an insight to some of the New Deal.

For example: " The only hope for improving present conditions, restoring employment, affording permanent relief to the people, and bringing the nation back to the proud position of domestic happiness and of financial, industrial, agricultural and commercial leadership in the world lies in a drastic change in economic governmental policies."

This part of the platform clearly shows what direction they were headed.

Also this: "We advocate the extension of federal credit to the states to provide unemployment relief wherever the diminishing resources of the states makes it impossible for them to provide for the needy; expansion of the federal program of necessary and useful construction effected with a public interest, such as adequate flood control and waterways."

No, Nadin, while it is true that no specific programs would be instituted, that is not the purpose of a party platform. A platform is intended to express the general direction of the party. I think that Roosevelt's policies pretty much mirrored the party platform, minus a mistake or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. He did not run on the New Deal, and that IS the point
or he would have been DESTROYED by the power elites... he ran as a centrist, or whatever it was called in his day.

They tried, with the coup once they realized what was afoot

But most of the work that LED to the New Deal came between ELECTION DAY and INNAGURATION DAY

You see echos of that RIGHT NOW

In fact, the echos are stronger since the inaguation day was moved from MARCH to January, for the same structural reasons george can still do a lot of damage to the US Econony. Pay attention, because in some respoects you are seeing the same event happen again

I should ask for me money back to all them profs who said history does not repeat... oh wait, what about Santayana's old dictum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
23. let's kill the myth of the "middle"
We can never achieve anything like the New Deal by starting in the middle. The moderate middle of the New Deal was a compromise between the forces of reaction, the desires of the wealthy few, and the needs of the working people. That could only have happened because there were strong and organized forces on the Left.

Yet you are using your portrayal of this moderate "middle" to discourage or discredit voices from the Left. If there is no dissent, of there are no voices from the Left, then the middle will be far to the right and if that had been the case in the 30's there could have been no New Deal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
29. Big difference. Then, in spite of a 4-wall media blitz (for that time),
there were still, literally, thousands of media sources with millions of consumers, today 6 corporations own it all.

The parasite class is not stupid and they learn from their mistakes.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. They don't OWN the new Media
why it is critical to keep the web free and clear

But what they owned and controlled, they used

Radio WAS the new media of the times

Remember that.

Those who control information HATE new media because it is a short circuit to message control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. We get news and information from the internet, but we are still a less than insignificant
fraction of a percentage of the whole.

IIRC, up through the 1950s something like 96% of American households subscribed to newspapers and each town had a choice of at least two different competing newspapers, larger cities had had many more, necessitating a difference in coverage and slant. Radio was successfully monopolized in that day and they are doing it again.

Yellow journalism is as old as the printing press, the Faux News of the day, but there were alternatives and they were utilized. Today we are indifferent, indiscriminate, and uninterested as a whole. Add television (drastically inferior to radio in that even radio utilizes the imagination, an active participation) into the mix and you have a thoroughly controlled media with a uniform message.

They do indeed hate the tubes, even though it is not truly significant yet, and that is why we are seeing it taken over by the same corporations that control all other media. The internet and especially the WWW is the new printing press and they will not allow it to escape their control. We are truly in the very beginning, embryonic if you will, stage of the next revolution in human communication and already we are seeing it stifled and controlled by the PTB.

MSN is a prime example. It is so proprietary that those of us that do not use M$ technology (if you can even call it that) simply cannot use it. Major media websites require the use of proprietary browsers and intrusions into the users systems to such a degree they are unusable to non-M$ (and it's subsidiary Apple) consumers without opening our systems to their intrusions.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Yes but also the media of the 1950s was the direct
result of the EXCESES of the 1930s and the Nazis

The FCC and the Fairness Doctrine would have NEVER ever come about without father coughlin (and other minor figures of the era that would have taken the place of Rush, Hannity and the rest of the boys on network radio)

Most fokks remember the 1950s and 1960s with reverence (and rightly so), but most people forget why they were the way they were, and that in many respects that was new media still

Today the new media is the internet, and as to tiny... the American people are the most unedcuated and ininformed population of western democracies. They are also the most religious of western democracies... the unfirmoed and proud of it, goes hand in hand with the religious part.

And until this anti intellectualism and pride in not knowing what happened last week, let alone last century, people will continue to be easily manipulated.

And that is another rant and another discussion

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. Second thread tonight with a bailout cheerleader giving history lessons.
my,my.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-25-08 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
35. Who funded Coughlin, nadin?
Don't look too close...just throw up the boogeymen...

fascism..."just happens"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
52. FDR enacted Norman Thomas' platform.
Norman Thomas was the socialist candidate in '32. Roosevelt campaigned as a centrist and then adopted the socialist principles to save the economy.



The American people will never knowingly
adopt Socialism. But under the name of
'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of
the Socialist program, until one day
America will be a Socialist nation,
without knowing how it happened.

--- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Candidate from 1928 to 1948


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-27-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. I know and partly because them commies did so well in that same
election

Wait, that is that pesky red herring called history.

:-)
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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:25 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