Wash. Post: Obama like FDR? Not at all, it turns out.

[alp227]

Washington Post intern Alexander Heffner wrote this for the Friday opinion page at the Post:

Remember when Barack Obama was supposed to be the second coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt?

As the president took office, historians and columnists reveled in the comparison. Historian William E. Leuchtenburg, the author of “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal,” told NPR that he heard echoes of FDR in Obama’s inaugural address. Before that, Time magazine featured the president-elect on its cover, smiling and, FDR-like, smoking a cigarette in a 1930s roadster. “The New New Deal,” the headline proclaimed. And in the essay inside, “The New Liberal Order,” journalist Peter Beinart likened Obama’s coalition to FDR’s and posited that “if can do what F.D.R. did — make American capitalism stabler and less savage — he will establish a Democratic majority that dominates U.S. politics for a generation.” Just like FDR.

We still don’t know exactly which former president Obama will most closely resemble. But now, after he has putcuts to Social Security on the table as part of debt negotiations with the GOP, we can finally and definitively nix Roosevelt, the liberal lion of the 20th century, from the list of parallels. Our 44th president is not a champion of liberal reform a la FDR, nor does he live in a political universe in which “bold and persistent experimentation,” as FDR promised in 1932, is even possible. Obama may turn out to be like any of his 43 predecessors — just not Roosevelt.

Not convinced? Begin with FDR’s record.

From his first day in office, Roosevelt was the father of reform. In his portrait of the period, Leuchtenburg, a professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina, defined FDR’s New Deal as a critical turning point in American history. It offered, as Leuchtenburg describes, “deficit spending, a gigantic federal works program, federal housing and slum clearance, the NRA, the TVA, sharply increased income taxes on the wealthy, massive and imaginative relief programs, a national labor relations board with federal sanctions to enforce collective bargaining” — not to mention Social Security.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-like-fdr-not-at-all-it-turns-out/2011/07/20/gIQAgSXYTI_singlePage.html

[woolldog]

1. Great article.

Thank you

Apparently he prefers to model himself to Reagan as opposed to FDR. That should've been a clue when he lavished so much praise on Reagan.

[myrna minx]

2. K&R -I was mistaken. n/t

[Kaleva]

3. Apples and oranges

The Congress in FDR's day was a different creature then it is today. Back then, party line loyalty was held at a premium. You wouldn't have freshmen congress critters operating with any independence from the party leaders and such tactics as filibustering in the Senate was very rare.

[Fearless]

7. And that is different today??

[Kaleva]

9. Sure

The threat of a filibuster is common today and even just a threat to use it can stop a bill. In the past, a filibuster was extremely rare and one who did so actually had to speak the whole time he had the floor.

[Fearless]

12. I've said it a thousand times...

Make them filibuster. Call the bluff. Especially on the debt ceiling. It'll show Republicans for what they are.

[Recursion]

25. That's still not true despite being repeated over and over again

The Strom Thurmond reading from a telephone book thing only ever had to happen if one Senator was against a deal that both parties had agreed to (like the Civil Rights Act). The minority party, if it was sufficiently large, never had to send speakers up there; they just would vote not to end debate.

[Kaleva]

35. Repubs didn't have enough votes in the Senate to keep debate going

There were just 36 Repubs in Senate after the 1932 election and it was further reduced to 25 Repubs after the 1934 election. Thus FDR was blessed with a super-majority in the Senate.

Even before FDR won in 1932, Dems gained control of the House and reduced Repub control of the Senate to 1 vote after the 1930 election.

[ProSense]

11. There were

fewer filibusters then, a sign of more cooperative Republicans. In 1935, 16 Republican Senators voted for Social Security.

[Fearless]

13. I'd be curious to do some research on those Republicans...

Particularly if they were RINO's, descendent of the Republican party of Lincoln et. al. But it is interesting nonetheless. Granted I'm sure we'd have a few Republicans voting against removing SS completely had it come up today.

[alp227]

16. to be simple the Republican party was a decent party until Reagan

Eisenhower was a good Republican. Nixon (yes, I said Nixon) was even a reasonable one. Ford was sensible. Reagan...all downhill from him.

[Fearless]

32. I mean those who voted for SS not today's republicans.

Whether or not they were descendant of the Lincoln version of the Republican Party or were actually members of the party we recognize as Republicans prior to the neo-cons.

[Recursion]

24. Remember that in the 1930s Republicans were still the progressive party

With the exception of "progressive" Democrats like... wait for it... Strom Thurmond. Supported by "progressive" organizations like... wait for it again, the Ku Klux Klan. And this isn't a simple inversion of the sense of the word -- when you look historically the lineage of "progressivism" is fairly interesting.

[Kaleva]

36. Strom didn't become a Senator till December 24, 1954

[Recursion]

39. He was a judge and state senator in the 30s

And my point is he was somebody we still know today representative of "progressive" (rather than Bourbon) Democrats in the 30s.

[ProSense]

4. FDR would have

been called a sellout if he were in Obama's shoes.

FDR's statement on the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act of 1935

IT WILL be exactly four years ago on the fourteenth day of this month that I signed the original Social Security Act. As I indicated at that time and on various occasions since that time, we must expect a great program of social legislation, such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding. These amendments to the Act represent another tremendous step forward in providing greater security for the people of this country. This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations. In addition to the worker himself, millions of widows and orphans will now be afforded some degree of protection in the event of his death whether before or after his retirement.

The size of the benefits to be paid during the early years will be far more adequate than under the present law. However, a reasonable relationship is retained between wage loss sustained and benefits received. This is a most important distinguishing characteristic of social insurance as contrasted with any system of flat pensions.

Payment of old age benefits will begin on January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, 1942. Increase in pay-roll taxes, scheduled to take place in January, 1940, is deferred. Benefit payments in the early years are substantially increased.

I am glad that the insurance benefits have been extended to cover workers in some occupations that have previously not been covered. However, workers in other occupations have been excluded. In my opinion, it is imperative that these insurance benefits be extended to workers in all occupations.

The Federal-State system of providing assistance to the needy aged, the needy blind, and dependent children, has also been strengthened by increasing the federal aid. I am particularly gratified that the Federal matching ratio to States for aid to dependent children has been increased from one-third to one-half of the aid granted. I am also happy that greater Federal contributions will be made for public health, maternal and child welfare, crippled children, and vocational rehabilitation. These changes will make still more effective the Federal-State cooperative relationship upon which the Social Security Act is based and which constitutes its great strength. It is important to note in this connection that the increased assistance the States will now be able to give will continue to be furnished on the basis of individual need, thus affording the greatest degree of protection within reasonable financial bounds.

As regards administration, probably the most important change that has been made is to require that State agencies administering any part of the Social Security Act coming within the jurisdiction of the Social Security Board and the Children's Bureau shall set up a merit system for their employees. An essential element of any merit system is that employees shall be selected on a non-political basis and shall function on a non-political basis.

In 1934 I appointed a committee called the Committee on Economic Security made up of Government officials to study the whole problem of economic and social security and to develop a legislative program for the same. The present law is the result of its deliberations. That committee is still in existence and has considered and recommended the present amendments. In order to give reality and coordination to the study of any further developments that appear necessary I am asking the committee to continue its life and to make active study of various proposals which may be made for amendments or developments to the Social Security Act.

link

Some of those excluded:

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.<13> Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.<14> The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.<15> These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.<16> Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population.<15> Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.<17><18> At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”<18>

link

Imagine implementing legislation that left out large segments of the population, claiming it could be fixed later, and with implementation dates five years out.

<...>

FDR’s initial response to the Great Depression provides an interesting case in point, for Roosevelt came into office as something of a fiscal conservative. In keeping with the fiscal orthodoxy of the time, he called for a balanced budget during his campaign, was reluctant to deficit spend once in office, and even pressed for the successful passage of the 1933 Economy Act as one of his first major pieces of legislation-an act which cut federal spending by nearly 250 million dollars during the first months of his administration.

link

That would have gone over big!

On edit, FDR's legacy includes the FDIC.

Obama's legacy will include the CFPB

Not bad!

[JTFrog]

6. Indeed.

Socialists accused FDR of preventing a real socialist revolution in America. I can only imagine what it would have been like had there been a DU back in the day, lol.

[Dr Fate]

53. Socialism used to be centrist back then. Today's malcontents are JUST LIKE FDR's opponents.

The people who oppose tax cuts for the Kochs, funding billion dollar, undeclared wars, oppose off-shoring, etc- are JUST like the people who opposed FDR.

Just as crazy, just as irrational, just as FAR LEFT.

[Empowerer]

8. Thank you for this - it is important and you are dead on

FDR - in today's parlance - "caved" to Southern senators, who refused to allow the passage of any social welfare policies that included black workers. When it was clear that the Social Security Act and Fair Labor Standards Act could not be passed out their votes, FDR acquiesced to their demands and agreed to exclude domestic and agricultural workers - who were overwhelmingly minority and female - from their protections. This resulted the vast majority of the black labor force remained outside of the scope of protection of these laws. It was NAACP General Counsel Charles Hamilton Houston - who, along with his protege Thurgood Marshall, later devised the strategy that led to Brown v. Board of Education - who who uttered the eloquent quote you cited.

It is fair to compare President Obama to his predecessors. But in so doing, it is necessary to compare him to the real persons and circumstances, not some revisionist view of what we imagined they were in hazy, romantic hindsight.

[Dr Fate]

52. EXACLTY! FDR's pragmatic racism PROVES he was centrist, not some crazy liberal.

n/t

[whathehell]

17. Bullshit....Obama should be trying to PRESERVE the New Deal programs

instead he's helping facilitate their destruction.

Obama came out and basically said that the "New Deal" was too liberal:

"We can't have a New Deal..We need businesses, and all"...

As if there were no "businesses" in FDR's time.

Neither Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) are worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as FDR.:eyes:

[ProSense]

18. Bullshit back at ya

Obama expanded Medicaid, strengthened Medicare and enacted free preventive care for seniors.

Then there is the issue of sigining a health care law, after 100 years of attempts, and extemding coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoePhilly]

48. +100 ... FDR has become the left's version of the "mythical" Reagan.

Each perceived achievement is multiplied by a factor of at least 10, and each weakness, failure, or flaw has been totally erased as if it never occurred.

[Dr Fate]

51. Exactly. We must imitate FDR's flaws before we can do any of his Liberal stuff.

That is what the far left does not get- we we need to be inspired by FDRs pragmatic "flaws" before we can imitate any of the "good" things he did.

[JoePhilly]

64. "Recognize" his flaws. Rather than use a mythical version of the man

as a comparison point.

Unless the goal is to create a false standard, one that never existed, just so the weak minded can crow a little on a message board.

The same way the GOP reveres the mythical Reagan.

[Dr Fate]

65. I'm with you- we should imitate FDR's pragmatism, not his socialism.

The the only thing we need to crow a little about on this message board is FDR's racism and his pragmatism.

Anything else is a false standard for weak minded Liberals.

I agree with you- we need to tear down this myth of FDR so that Liberals dont expect too much.

Centrists of today are better off continuing to imitate the mythical Reagan than going back to imitating the mythical FDR's racism.

[JoePhilly]

67. You appear to be the only one trying to tear down FDR.

As for Racism, the current GOP and tea party have that more than covered.

[Dr Fate]

68. We simply agree that the FDR myth and the Reagan Myth are comparable.

and we both know that Centrist DEMS imitate Reagan's economic policies more than FDRs.

Unless we are now going to say that Obama Is really more like FDR than Reagan or Nixon. I'm for whatever the other centrists are saying.

[Dr Fate]

50. Exactly. Socialism used to be centrist. Obama should imitate FDR's pragmatism, not his socialism.

The people who opposed FDR are just like the malcontents of today who oppose off shoring, tax cuts for the Koch Brothers and funding undeclared wars.

The same type of crazy-ass people who oppossed FDR then oppose today's centrists.

Thank you so much for posting this, again.

[xchrom]

5. Recommend

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

14. Funny that, isn't it. Thanks for the reality. nt

[Recursion]

20. And FDR was less willing to push against the blue dogs of his day than Obama has been

There's a reason civil rights got precisely nowhere under FDR despite being a big cause of his.

[Dr Fate]

57. FDR's pragmatic racism PROVES he is a centrist, not some nutty Liberal.

All you have to do is look at the New Deal to see that the Blue Dogs of his day went un-opposed.

[Jim Lane]

26. FDR wasn't afraid to call out the Republican obstructionists

If Obama had been speaking and acting like Roosevelt from the beginning, it's likely that the 2010 elections would have turned out very differently.

[ShadowLiberal]

15. Obama can't be FDR because of congress, when FDR was in office democrats were 80% of congress

The problem with FDR and Obama comparisons has always been that the situations were vastly different.

FDR came to the power when the public finally grew sick of a century of Washington dominance by Republicans. Before the great depression Republicans controlled over 2/3's of the seats in both houses of congress.

People became so sick of Republicans in congress that 80% of seats in both houses of congress were controlled by democrats by the time FDR was elected. FDR's coattails were so powerful that he helped nearly 100 democrats unseat a republican in the house, which also helped give FDR many loyal democrats who likely owed their jobs to FDR, making them more likely to vote for his legislation.

Really, it's no competition comparing the two, FDR was pretty much freaking invincible the entire time he was in the white house. Obama doesn't have that advantage, as democrats aren't looked at as favorably as they were in the 30's and 40's. Another problem for Obama is he took over the white house just a few months after the great recession melt down started, while FDR had the advantage of republicans having full control of Washington for FOUR years after the great depression started, four years in which the republicans utterly failed to end the depression.

[Dr Fate]

58. And DEMS DID NOT get such majorites by acting like carzy, far left liberals either.

They got there by imitating Hoover and other conservatives who came before.

[Recursion]

19. FDR had a majority *THREE TIMES THE SIZE* of Obama's

And that was with a smaller Congress.

Seriously, this is just silly.

A better analogy is probably Nixon, who worked tenaciously to the right within the confines of the New Deal and Great Society; Obama is working tenaciously to the left (yes, he is. Shut up if you are too ideologically blinded to see that.) within the confines of the Reagan/W revenue starvation we're in.

[boxman15]

22. Very true.

FDR wouldn't have gotten much more out of these Congresses than Obama has.

[Dr Fate]

63. And FDR did not get his DEM majorities by steering the party left either.

He and the other DEMS got the majority by imitating Hoover, Coolidge and other conservatives from before, not by being far left.

Just like Obama is imitating Reagan, Nixon, etc.

AKA CENTRISM.

[Dr Fate]

54. Just like FDR worked within the confines of what Hoover left him. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

56. And DEMS DID NOT get such majorites by acting like crazy, far left liberals either.

They got those majorities by imitiating Hoover and trying to be centrist.

[boxman15]

21. Why can't Obama be the first Obama?

I was rolling my eyes when I saw all these comparisons in 2008 and early 2009 to FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. It was maddening. Obama is living in a completely different timeframe than those greats. He has to deal with completely different Congresses out to get him, a bloodthirsty media, an extremely polarized political culture, etc. AKA something FDR had almost nothing to deal with. He had vast public support, meaning New Deal Democrats were elected to Congress with ease. The media was actually concerned with the truth, not like it is today.

Obama is like Obama. He's dealing with the shitty hands he's been dealt and gotten a lot done with them.

[Recursion]

23. Shh... in DU it's always 1934...

But, yeah, I share that frustration. I also am frustrated with the mass certainty that what worked 80 years ago is what's going to work today.

[Dr Fate]

59. Silly Liberals, always basing strategy on the 30's or the 60's.

They don't see that we have a modern strategy based on the failures of McGovern in 1972, the failures of Dukakis in the 1980's and Clinton's successes of 1990s.

[treestar]

38. + 90 million and a half

Who cares what FDR did, he dealt with a completely different country. And it was much easier for FDR, too.

[Dr Fate]

62. Exaclty- Obama has much more adversity to deal with than FDR ever did.

Obama has to contend with a mean old media and mean old elected Republicans.

All FDR had to contend with was a Great Depression and a World War against Nazis.

Phshaw! Obama has 3 wars- not one. Let's see FDR top that one.

[unblock]

28. i've heard him called the democrats' nixon

in nixon's case, republicans thought they were getting a strong conservative because of all his red-baiting.
but they he gets into office, refuses to dismantle lbj's great society, goes to china, and even creates the e.p.a.

republicans were pissed at him, which is why they didn't defend him when watergate bit his bum.

[themaguffin]

40. i think that he is and here's why

He came in a wave of change - the party who has been largely in control for a couple decades is changing, divided and yes had and have extemists. If you look at the 60s, Democrats were divided over the war, and protests, campus turbulance etc - you know the things that the GOP has hung on Demcrats for since Nixon... well now it's the GOP that has over reached - yes they have for a while, but the 2000s were and are bad. Nixon was a SOB but also a political pragmatic. It's interesting that Eisenhower came in the middle of the liberal years and were generally good years (well for white America) and Clinton came in during the conservative years and also good years, both saw the previous party return to power and go through a peak and then decline with a pragmatic leader of the other party to step in.

Obama is not the new FDR. I think the continued mess that we are in and GOP extremism will set up the moment where one does arrive. I have no idea who it, but we need him or her badly. This is not a statement on Obama, but clearly centrism will not suffice for the sustained changes that we really need.

[unblock]

43. obama couldn't possibly have been the new fdr simply because the public isn't the same

fdr was only the liberal lion we remember his as because the public was hugely behind him, and he had huge, i mean HUGE majorities in congress.

there was NEVER any way obama could have possibly come close to achieving anything fdr-like because had nowhere near the kind of support fdr had.

people try to pin far too much on individuals. the people at the top meerely ride the wave. sometimes they can steer a little bit, but mostly if they don't go where the wave goes, they just get tossed aside.

without a groundswell of organized, visible, popular demand for left-of-center governance, there's no left-of-center wave for obama to ride.
these days the only wave takes us ever further to the right.

[Dr Fate]

55. And Democrats DID NOT get those huge majorities for being Liberal.

They got those majorities from imitating Hoover- AKA being centrist.

[blueclown]

29. The comparisions between FDR and Obama are way too early.

And the comparision to FDR seems to be based on the "mythology" of FDR, not his actual record. It's the same type of intellectual laziness that many writers use with Ronald Raygun.

I would think that President Obama would have to be re-elected before there is even a valid comparison, and even then it's too early. FDR was in office for a decade. President Obama has been in office for 2 and a half years.

[whathehell]

34. What "mythology"?

You mean the "mythology" that he instituted

Social Security, along with the National Labor Relations

Board, and the rest of the New Deal policies

which brought millions of Americans into the middle

class and which the right wing and their toadies

are now trying to destroy?

Give me a break: The only "mythology" being created

here is by the Obama Loyalists who would

kiss his ring no matter WHAT he did.

[blueclown]

45. Sorry, but I'm not an Obama loyalist.

I'll criticize him when I feel that he deserves it. I'm not a loyalist, but I'm also not a diehard critic.

There is no question that FDR is in the Top 5 of American presidents. But there is a mythology about him that ignores many of his mistakes during his presidency, such as tabling civil rights legislation, interning Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II, cutting spending in 1937, etc...

[whathehell]

46. You don't have to be, and by the way,

FDR is not just in the "top five"; historians have listed him as "third best", ranked after only Lincoln and Washington.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/presidents-cspa.html

No offense, but you might want to check a dictionary for a definition of "mythology"

as the faults you've listed for FDR do not turn his many good deeds into "myths",

they simply indicate that his imperfections, as a president and a man.

[woo me with science]

31. Kicked and recommended. nt

[treestar]

37. Who cares?

Why does Obama have to be like any prior President? The world has changed considerably since then.

[Dr Fate]

66. Comparing presidents to other presidents is mainly for elitist intellectuals.

I agree that looking at anything that happened that long ago is never really helpful at all.

[cottonseed]

41. FDR is a Deity who's story as told today is impossible to match.

He can be torn down by simply reading some history books, but that would just be a waste of time. Obama, during his tenure will never live up to the legend of FDR as we share it around here.

[whathehell]

47. Not a deity, just the third best president in American history, according to historians

ranked only after Lincoln and Washington.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/presidents-cspa.html

[Dr Fate]

60. And it is very important that we DO tear down FDR as you suggest.

Liberals need to see that we can build up Obama by tearing down the so called "good" things FDR did. Not a waste of time at all.

[Beacool]

42. Seriously? I thought that he was a combination of Lincoln and FDR.

At least that is what the tingling leg media kept repeating in 2008. Now they have come to the realization that he's just an average politician: self serving and opportunistic?

Well, knock me with a feather........

:eyes:



:rofl:

[Armstead]

44. More like Jimmy Carter or GHW Bush Sr.

[Dr Fate]

61. No no- more like Nixon- which is a POSITIVE thing. (see above)

n/t

[Dr Fate]

49. FDR's Socialism may have been a good idea back when it was centrist.

But now it is too far left.

This explains why we should have been for it then, and why we should NOT be for it now.

Obama should imitate FDR's pragmatic centrism as opposed to the things that did not really work.