Did FDR make all those changes in support of working people because he was a nice guy?

[revolutionnow45]

Just wondering what you all think?

How did the change come about?

[leftstreet]

1. The Ruling Class feared the Left

period

[damntexdem]

16. Not period, but largely.

Still, FDR's struggle with polio may have made him more aware of the struggles that people face -- more aware than a typical child of the elite. And Eleanor really did believe in helping people.

[scarletlib]

27. I think he was sincere in his concern for others. However, he was also and

always a master politician. It was Eleanor who took him out of his aristocratic life and showed him the other side of life and the struggles of many people during the early days of their marriage as she was involved in Social Work before her marriage & she had a more thorough understanding of the struggles of ordinary people.

I also agree that the polio also made him aware of the struggles people face and when he was seeking various treatments he met many ordinary Americans stricken with polio and spent time with them.

To me FDR is the #2 greatest president, after Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln held the nation together during a civil war and FDR held the nation together during its greatest financial crisis. He and Eleanor are forever examples to me of what a great American is.

[Little Star]

28. +1

[scarletlib]

29. Thank you for your kindness. I really appreciate it.

[Brickbat]

2. Much of it was a sop to the left

to keep the communists and socialists from bringing the revolution.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Unemployment almost halved in FDR's first term

and GDP grew at 9% per year.

That's some powerful sop!

[Brickbat]

10. I know, right?

I knew sop was the wrong word. The far left was getting uncomfortably powerful and much of the New Deal was a pressure valve to keep some of that from boiling over into full-on revolution. Maybe "pressure valve" is a better word.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. But I genuinely think that FDR wanted to help working Americans

Between having Eleanor as his wife, and his fight with polio and his work at Warm Springs, GA, I believe that FDR was committed to helping the other 99%. He was only 63 when he died, but looked 83 - he gave his all towards doing the right thing. He was sometimes misguided (in my opinion), but he really wanted to do the right thing for working Americans.

[Brickbat]

14. Oh, I see what you're saying.

I don't disagree at all. He was one of a kind and I think the pressures he was dealing with from the banksters and bosses on one hand and a workers movement coming into its own on the other were much more than the political pressures Obama might feel today. Giving a shit makes you feel more strongly, too. I would have liked to have seen things go farther but I certainly don't want to downplay FDR's humanity.

[Starry Messenger]

3. They feared socialist upheaval

The New Deal functioned to stave that threat off.

[bluestate10]

15. Exactly.

With the country in a deep depression and banks being robbed, the last thing FDR needed was for law abiding citizens to go over the edge. If the country had elected John McCain instead of President Obama, we would have deadly gun fights in streets now. But instead, we make progress daily, however incremental.

[anarch]

18. well, to be fair, we still have deadly gun fights in the streets, in some places

just not, you know, all over the place

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. D. All of the above. n/t

[quinnox]

5. FDR from footage seems to have been a very dynamic and

powerful man, its not often a leader of this caliber is on the scene. Those kind of men can make huge changes.

[Burma Jones]

6. Don't discount Noblesse Oblige

I think staving off Soviet Style Communism as well as Fascism was probably the main goal though.....

He was really hated by the Rich, they saw him as a "traitor to his class" The Rich got smart though, bought themselves Reagan and made looking out for all Americans seem stupid at best....

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Americans voted for FDR because he'd been a Progressive Governor of NY

who worked hard to help working people, and had been successful.

And he continued as President, to be first a Progressive, then Liberal, always fighting hard to do the best job for the most Americans.

A great book that I read: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Nothing-to-Fear/Adam-Cohen/e/9781594201967

[revolutionnow45]

9. Okay, how about someone answering who has read The People's History by Howard Zinn?

nt

[socialist_n_TN]

21. Well, I read it, but I don't really remember many specifics..........

Was reply #20 correct according to Zinn? I've read so much, it's sometimes hard to remember specifics and what came out of what book, when. :)

[JDPriestly]

11. The stock market failed. The banks failed.

A federal commission, the Pecora Commission, I think, was organized. It had the power to investigate in a serious way (unlike the commission set up by the government this time), and the titans on Wall Street were publicly shamed.

So, events and a strong president eliminated the political strength of those who would oppose rebuilding the country.

Thanks to the bail-outs of the very crooks in the banks and on Wall Street and the City in London, the enemies of our country -- those who oppose serious economic reform and assistance to the American people -- are still in charge.

We will probably have to go through yet another boom and bust before they are finally unable to obstruct our nation's progress.

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

[nichomachus]

13. Part of the story

Prior to being elected, Roosevelt went to Warm Springs, GA in an effort to "cure" his paralysis. While there, he and Eleanor would drive around the countryside and meet the locals, many of whom were poor and struggling to survive. That opened his eyes to the effect of poverty in the country and brought about a change in his attitude.

Unaware of this change, many of the wealthy supported him, supposing he would continue policies to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of everyone else. This is why he was seen as "a traitor to his class," when he enacted the New Deal.

[Puregonzo1188]

17. No. Nearly a million people voted for the Socialist and Communist Party Presidential candidates

the same year he was elected. In 1936 several labor unions were considering forming an independent labor party, which is why most of the iconic New Deal legislation happened in 1935.

More importantly than electoral politics though was the strikes, direct actions, and large militant protests, many of them organized by the Communist Party, that took place during his administration.

The New Deal as we know it today (which is different than what Roosevelt campaigned on in 1932) was much more moderate than what many people were demanding. Roosevelt had to react.

[socialist_n_TN]

20. EXACTLY! The New Deal was a COMPROMISE...........

It kept the capitalist system in place while bringing in some socialist ideas. And it wouldn't have happened without pressure from REAL socialists and communists.

[Puregonzo1188]

22. It certainly was meant to keep the capitalist system in place and it certainly came about as

pressure from socialists and communist, but I wouldn't necessary say it involved "socialist ideas."

[socialist_n_TN]

23. Socialist Lite?

:)

[Puregonzo1188]

24. Socialism to me is about expanding democracy into the economic sector.

It's about workers control of the means of production.

Most socialists support reforms measures (this one included) as they are vital improvements in the quality of people's lives, but they don't really amount to socialism.

I don't know if any socialists as the time felt like the New Deal qualified as socialism. I know John Dewey did not. I'm unsure about Norman Thomas, but I would suppose he didn't either.

[socialist_n_TN]

26. True. Off my head in my original reply.....

They were REFORMS rather than radical changes. Although, state reforms that assisted the working class FROM the commons, was something closer to a socialist ideal than what went on before or, for that matter, what we have now.

But you're right. Not socialist because the means of production still remained with the capitalist class. But as you said and I agreed with, that was the idea OF the New Deal after all. To SAVE capitalism.

[TBF]

34. Yes, this is the correct answer. It had nothing to do with "feelings" -

FDR saved capitalism with his New Deal.

[Rex]

19. I would say no.

More than anything, he saw the country falling apart in pieces and wanted to make sure that didn't keep happening. He saved America, must to the chagrin of some lesser people.

[rucky]

25. It was based on sound economics. n/t

[white_wolf]

30. This thread touches on a very important issue.

The democratic party no longer fears the Left. I know a lot of people may not approve of Communism or Socialism, but it is a needed force in order to ensure that the politicians in D.C fear the people. When far Left is strong enough to provide at least the fear of revolution than D.C will respond with progressive legislation. The far Left has been pretty much neutralized in this country thanks to Cold War propaganda. Whether people like it or not Socialists and Communists are needed.

[SanchoPanza]

31. No.

In the respect that FDR didn't make those changes by himself or in a vacuum, or even based them on any kind of working political ideology.

The New Deal was an ad hoc program created through the negotiated settlements of the governing coalition. There was no real overriding ideology to speak of because, in many cases, the New Deal was a result of conflicting ideologies that gained and lost supremacy throughout the course of the Roosevelt administration. An administration that included the likes of Robert H. Jackson and Henry Morganthau, and had alliances among Northern Republicans and enemies among Southern Democrats. And this leaves out conservatives, reactionaries, and socialists who were not part of the coalition but still had an impact on its development and implementation.

Roosevelt's role was to essentially let various factions of the New Deal coalition fight it out in front of him and pick the winner, with the result being more "moderate" policy at the start of the New Deal, to more liberal policy in 1935-36, back to a more "moderate" policy prior to the 1938 midterms and lasting through the war and the Truman Administration.

For some odd reason the left seems to mythologize the New Deal to an unhealthy extent, painting it as a bold and decisive FDR crushing his opponents under his boot heel and ushering in a generation that would become liberalism's golden age. But in many ways it heralded the failure of modern liberalism more than it ever represented the height of its success. Anti-monopoly and labor movement liberals, for instance, two of the core groups of the New Deal coalition, ended up losing out big time by the end of the Roosevelt administration.

If you want to examine anything close to resembling true liberal success stories, post-war Britain serves as a much better and more useful example. Tangentially, the post-war period is where you see the big split between European and American liberalism, with American liberalism gradually accommodating the conservative mythos more and more while Western Europe created the social democracy that New Deal liberals always wanted but failed to achieve.

[TNLib]

32. I think voters at that time voted for Politicians that supported their own interest

Today people vote for whoever they think they can hangout with and have beer with. So politicians reward their big donors through policy and act like a cool guy so voters will vote them into office. It's what gets them into office and what keeps them in office. Voters don't seem to care about their own interest anymore.

[TBF]

33. No, the left (communists, socialists) had made inroads with labor -

FDR saved capitalism with the new deal.