Simply put, we need another Roosevelt

[AZ Progressive]

Maybe not a blood Roosevelt, but someone to the level of Theodore and FDR.

This is our only last hope. Someone with such a mega presence as both of them (in being able to wake up and mobilize the American people) is what is needed to create a political wave lasting decades that can break the grip that the rich have in America. Theodore's Progressive wave lasted 20 years and FDR's lasted almost 50 years. We need someone to break the Ronald Reagan wave that we've been living under for the last 35 years!

Of course though, Theodore became president by pure luck and FDR entered when America's economy was near collapse. So it could've been that America was just lucky enough to get those two Roosevelts in the presidency at just the right times. However, it just amazes me how much influence both of those presidents had on 20th century America.

[pnwmom]

1. Roosevelt wouldn't have succeeded like that without a Democratic Congress. He also packed SCOTUS.

To compare other Presidents to his situation isn't really fair.

[Art_from_Ark]

7. Roosevelt did not "pack" the Supreme Court

He wanted to add 3 more justices to make an even dozen, because the court was thwarting his New Deal program, but he was unsuccessful in that attempt. He did nominate 8 justices to the court during his 12 years (the first one being Hugo Black in 1937), but 8 justices were also nominated by Republican presidents in the 12 years preceding his 1933 inauguration. So in his first 4 years, FDR had to deal with a Supreme Court that had 8 out of 9 members appointed by Republicans.

[Blanks]

94. That's not quite right...

He wanted to appoint 6 in order to prevent 'hardening of the judicial arteries'

http://constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw09_12207.html

Excerpt:

...just weeks after being reelected by the largest popular vote in our history, he unveiled a plan to change the Court. He proposed adding one new Justice for every Justice over the age of 70. That would mean six new Justices nominated by FDR.

[whathehell]

8. No, he tried to pack the supreme.court, but he didn't succeed.

[merrily]

77. You don't know that he tried it. You know he threatened it. You don't know

his entire game plan or his motive.

We do know that his threat got him what he wanted and felt he needed to stop America from doing down the hopper--and without adding a single Justice to the Court. Which the constitution allowed him to do anyway.

[pnwmom]

91. No President could make that threat today because the Constitution doesn't allow it. n/t

[merrily]

97. So? FDR made it. Not sure the Constitution doesn't allow it, either. Which provision forbids it?

Last edited Thu Feb 19, 2015, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

ETA: You may be thinking of the provision that limited Presidential terms, passed because FDR won so many elections. I really don't think the Constitution limits the number of SCOTUS justices.

[merrily]

78. His Democratic Congress was bitterly divided and he did not pack the SCOTUS.

[Art_from_Ark]

95. For example, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia opposed many of FDR's reforms,

such as FDIC, while another Southern Senator, Joe Robinson of Arkansas, played a key role in getting many of FDR's reforms passed.

[MrScorpio]

2. A wealthy scion of an elite political dynasty, who's well versed in party crony politics...

Who'll be able to betray his/her own economic class to create a massive social safety net, while leading the nation in a global conflict with the benefit of his/her own party controlling Congress, as well as receiving favorable coverage from the media for more than two consecutive terms and enacting one of the largest public works projects in the entire history of mankind...



Yep, that's the ticket. Sign 'em right up!

[cheapdate]

6. Nicely done.

Extra points also awarded for possessing 1939 Lincoln Convertible.

[whathehell]

14. You have a problem with someone born into wealth "betraying" their own economic class?

Are you for real?

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Is that what you took from that post? n/t

[whathehell]

19. What did you take?

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. The entire description of the circumstances that led to FDR's success ...

which included that he was crazy wealthy, which gave him the access to the seats of power that he used to push through the New Deal.

[whathehell]

28. Yeah, sure..

You do know that he narrowly avoided an assassination attempt by his

fellow "crazy rich"" people, right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Yes ... And? n/t

[whathehell]

72. No "and" needed by most.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. What? n/t

[whathehell]

75. I'm sure you'll figure it out..

in the meantime, I've got this thing called a day to attend to

so I'll be going now. Buh bye.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. No. I probably won't ...

but not because I don't want to or because I can't understand the words; but rather, because it would require me to make too many assumptions.

[whathehell]

89. Yeah, I'm sure it would, so it

might be best if we just go "bye bye".

[merrily]

82. I got an attempt at a massive false equivalency between FDR and Hills.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. I still don't understand ...

Not what happened to you, nor how it relates to what I had written.

[merrily]

85. No worries. I just gave an interpretation of the same post that was different from the

interpretation you stated.

[MrScorpio]

24. My, my, aren't you touchy.

Sounds as if you think I was criticizing the Roosevelts.

Trust me, I wasn't.

[whathehell]

27. Nah, I just asked a question

which you still haven't answered..Want to try again?

[MrScorpio]

30. Actually, you asked me two questions, with just this last third… Yeah, I'll try again.

Do I have a problem with the Roosevelts betraying their class?

No, I'm glad they did. Although they could only go so far to save American capitalism from the excesses of their own class counterparts. Who were an ungrateful lot, mind you. They tried to smear Teddy and overthrow FDR. These oligarchs didn't know a good deal, a fair deal or a square deal from their own pampered asses.

But it's not like the Roosevelts were trying to create a social-democratic paradise, right? No need to give away the ENTIRE farm.

So, betraying their own class was necessary, for the sake of saving the nation. Good luck finding another politically connected and savvy scion of the oligarch class who's willing to put their family name on the line as did the R's in this day and age.

Was I being real?

You bet your sweet bippy, I was.

[whathehell]

38. Your skepticism is duly noted.

and you can bet YOUR sweet bippy on that.

Sorry he disappointed you by not, in your view, trying to create "a social-liberal paradise".

[MrScorpio]

49. The Roosevelts were not saints, they were pragmatists...

And they practiced their pragmatism within the limits of their own time.

Again, these are not criticisms, it's just an admission that they were anything but perfect in all the good they did perform… As well as stating that they didn't go as far to change the fundamental nature of America. They put America on a correction to save it from destroying itself.

[whathehell]

53. Who said they were?

and sorry, I don't believe these are not criticisms, much as you seek

to deny it -- Just defining them as "pragmatists" and nothing else,

shows you resist the idea that they actually MAY have had good hearts along

with political savvy.

I fail to see, for instance, how FDR's proposal for a National Health Care

system was particularly "pragmatic"...If nothing else, sixty years of failed

effort on the part of Dem presidents to enact it should convince one of that.

[MrScorpio]

56. It appears to me that you're offended by my lack of worshipping them

I've merely pointed out that they were products of not only their own class, but of their own time as well.

Plus I'm saying right now that any notion of finding and electing aristocrats, no matter how well intentioned and politically savvy, in this day and age, it might be a tad unrealistic.

Such people would be more invested in protecting a social and economic system which grants them their vast wealth and power rather than overturning and sharing it for the sake of their lessors.

Noblesse oblige only takes one so far.

[whathehell]

57. It appears to me that you're trying to start a fight, and

I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested.

[MrScorpio]

59. You go out of your to confront me...

Then get some answers to your questions that you didn't appreciate...

And I'M the one trying to start a fight here.

Riiiiight.

[whathehell]

61. HAHAHAHAHA!

Of course...You keep telling yourself, that.

[MrScorpio]

64. Dude, you're the ONLY person in this entire thread that's having a beef with anything I've posted.

Look around.

[whathehell]

66. They may have a beef,

but know from experience that discussions with you are futile, given

your refusal to address what's said, choosing, instead, to view everything

from your "noblesse oblige" standpoint, and your deeply held resentments.


P.S. Speaking of "noblesse oblige", it's interesting that you

could only imagine me as a male, which I'm not, LOL.

[MrScorpio]

68. My apologies about calling you "Dude"

But really, tell me, what am I missing here?

[whathehell]

70. No need for apologies, it was just a "heads up"

regarding 'privilege' -- Hint: You don't need to be rich to have it.

In FDR's case, his wealth didn't give him the 'privilege', of being

an able-bodied man, for instance. He was in pain a great deal of time,

and many think, in fact, that it was his polio that allowed him

a greater empathy for the downtrodden.

Apart from that, and the other points I've made,

I'm afraid I can't help you regarding what you are "missing".

[MrScorpio]

83. I'm not disregarding his ailment and how it affected him...

I'm quite sure that his polio allowed him to reassess his own role in this world and perhaps even his own mortality. Perhaps it even knocked him down a notch from his well known penchant for being an entitled prick as a younger man. We all grow as we age and our experiences impress changes upon us… Some for better or even worse.

I've never said that FDR was a bad guy. And whether or not his empathy for the downtrodden was genuine or contrived for politics sake, or even both (due to his pedigree and lack of economic adversity), I really don't think it's an important point if it true or not. It's what we tell ourselves about him, it's what we loved about the guy. That's very much our narrative and we own it as Democrats.

And about Teddy, I have to tell you that I've always admired the guy, that blustery blowhard of a warmonger. He was a real man's man. A self made man in every since of the word. A true outdoorsman, for whom we appreciate his efforts to preserve the American west. We loved how he stood up to the trusts and how he spoke in plain, forthright language to the American citizen.

Do I hold it against him that he was the VP to a President who started a war with imperial intentions, that was responsible for leading to an insurrection against our occupation which slaughtered a quarter million Filipinos?

Nah… I share a birthday with Ol' Teddy, I can't hold that against him.

My point in the beginning was that, in their time, they were quite the right men to step forward to help preserve America. But let's not disregard that they were also aristocrats whose main object was to prevent the existing system, a system which extended their own families vast wealth and power, not to fundamentally change it and make it fairer for all. Out all all the good that they've done, we were still left with a country that had poverty and inequality, especially for minorities. The rich were still getting richer. The owners of America only gave up part of their power and have snatched it back ten-fold.

If anything, the Roosevelts merely postponed the negative trends of American oligarchy, even if they came from that ilk. They didn't smash it and rebuild from it. Asking an oligarch to do such a thing, not matter how well intentioned and empathetic they are, it would be like asking someone to voluntarily cut off a limb.

Do we really want to elect aristocrats today, those who would do nothing more than to prevent a socioeconomic system from collapsing in on itself? Is that that what we want from some modern day "Roosevelt," or do we want more?

Perhaps we've evolved from needing a "Roosevelt" today, even as we honor their efforts of the past and the legacy that they've extended to us. Those men saved America, when they could have easily stood by those in their own class who were abusing and destroying it.

We appreciate that. I appreciate that.

I'm just saying that, in this day, merely preserving an unjust system isn't good enough. We need something better.

[whathehell]

88. LOL..

Do you always contradict yourself this much?

"I'm not saying FDR was a bad guy" vs. ".perhaps it even knocked him down a notch from his well.known penchant

for being an entitled prick"

Got a link for that last supposedly "well known" assertion?

I ask because if true, I've honestly never heard that, in fact what I did hear suggested the

opposite: He was not accepted, not "one of the boys" in school because he was too friendly.."like

a golden retriever" said one of his classmates, a TRULY "entitled prick".

You might want to provide a link there, Scorp, otherwise it may sound more like "wishful thinking"

on your part. As for the rest, I can only say that if you think you can find a candidate better than FDR, you should

go for it.

[MrScorpio]

90. His prick period was an albeit short one during his college years...

But as I've conceded to you, people do change. Check out the 29:00 mark:

[whathehell]

93. Um, yeah, very short..

even, one might say, too short to mention.

[joshcryer]

33. Do you think it can't happen again?

[whathehell]

35. You may be addressing the wrong poster. I'm not the one expressing skepticism.

I do think someone like Roosevelt could be elected again.

[joshcryer]

36. I am asking about a wealthy Roosevelt type.

Who then winds up being a decent supporter of the poor and downtrodden (note: I think that FDR destroyed labor with good intentions).

[whathehell]

39. Okay..

How did he, in your view, "unintentionally destroy labor".

[joshcryer]

43. NLRB = legitimized Norris–La Guardia

Would it be, oh would it be, that yellow dog contracts were attempted by modern corporations. The working peoples would be able to litigate their way to pure corporate takeover. Instead, the NLRB enabled Norris–La Guardia to prevent anyone from having any say whatsoever. There is a hierarchy, if some subordinate is displeased with the labor conditions, they have to differ to the representative, they can't, on their own, call for something else.

[whathehell]

46. Aw gee..

He wasn't perfect -- Damn those humans!

[joshcryer]

48. I appreciate his flaws.

But I think he never wanted full labor unionization. Read his comments on federal level union strikes. He strictly forbid it.

Oh well.

[joshcryer]

29. +1, it's like nobody ever saw The Roosevelts.

They were 5x more wealthy than the ... Clintons.

[MrScorpio]

31. I know...

Where the hell do these people think I got this stuff from?

[joshcryer]

34. "The Roosevelts" is a great documentary.

But it's not about some grassroots guy becoming powerful, it's about an uber rich guy helping the rest. And he was still a total failure on some issues (Jesse Owens ).

[RiverLover]

40. I have that series on DVD now.

Highly Recommend!!

[joshcryer]

47. Yes, agreed, his view on southern lynching is important.

Since he didn't think it was important. Shows that he was a calculating politician.

[MrScorpio]

41. The Roosevelts were American Economic Brahmin

Driven and arrogant, entitled with an innate sense of noblesse oblige.

Descended from aristocratic New York Dutch patroons.

These weren't the kind of people you'd have a beer with at all.

[joshcryer]

50. Yeah, they'd be seen as Koch Bro's this day and age.

Or to be more fair, the Soro's or Buffet's. But the Koch's at this point in time hold more political power. The Soro's, Buffet's, Gates' donate to charity, not to politics. The Koch's put their money into winning elections. Would it be that the leftist billionaires tried Koch-level manipulation... they're too busy trying to find the cure for AIDS, malaria, and providing clean drinking water to hundreds of million of people.

[whathehell]

55. My ass, they would be...Kochs are not noted for their liberal views or actions

Yes, it would not only be more "fair" to compare them to Soros or Buffet, it

would actually be more CORRECT.

[joshcryer]

62. I'm saying the Buffet's try to benefit the world.

Rather than enrich themselves in American politics as the Koch's. They have a worldwide perspective. The Koch's just want to destroy all that is good about America.

[whathehell]

65. Is that what you were saying?

could have fooled me, your last post said they'd be "considered Kochs".

Whatever...I like your new post, anyway.

[whathehell]

52. Aw gee..

NOT a grass roots guy becoming powerful and still totally failed

on some issues?...Oh well, fuck him then!

Damn those human beings again!...Why can't we have Perfection for once?!?

Or maybe just grow up a little.

[joshcryer]

58. You'll be endorsing Hillary then?

Unlikely.

[whathehell]

67. Yeah..uh huh..sure..whatever.

[whathehell]

42. Yeah, these days people like that are are called..

Republicans.

[joshcryer]

45. Or George Soros.

Or Warren Buffet.

If either decided to, you know, run for office. But they don't seem to want to do so. They could. Back then, FDR was a Warren Buffet. And he ran. And won.

[whathehell]

54. I hear that response from conservatives all the time..

As if George Soros and Warren Buffet are the "norm" when it comes to

the uber-rich.

[joshcryer]

60. They're top 0.001%ers.

So if anything they're above norm.

[whathehell]

63. Uh huh

and they have the MEANS to help progressives -- What's the problem?

[merrily]

80. FDR's political dynasty was not Third Way. FDR got Glass Steagall enacted rather than repealing

it. One action helped save a nation from the hopper. The other pointed several nations, included this one, right back to the hopper.

Massive false equivalency implied.

[msanthrope]

3. Maybe without the detention of Japanese-Americans in camps this time? nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. And, maybe, a re-thinking of that opposition to the Anti-Lynching Bill.n/t

[msanthrope]

26. Yes.....have you noted the rose-colored glasses modern

Progressives like to put on when writing about the pre-Civil Rights era?

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. "Pre-Civil Rights era"???

Heck, all of history! George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were great egalitarian patriots that fought for the freedom of all men ... never-mind that whole slave owning-Female ignoring thing, it was just the times!

Dr. Martin Luther King was the greatest of civil rights warriors ... never mind that he was the "lesser of two evils" (with respect to Malcolm), until, of course, 30 years after his death when progressives "discovered" his "Poor People's Campaign" ... and then, only when the could shift the emphasis from PoC to themselves.

And don't get me started with the whole Income Equity will magically moot racial inequity.

[F4lconF16]

92. +1000 nt

[ColesCountyDem]

4. Roosevelt was unintentionally 'liberal'

One can make a good argument that the 'alphabet soup' of Roosevelt's programs, plus his early flood of executive orders, were fundamentally conservative actions. FDR saw American society on the brink of total economic collapse and social revolution, and took steps to preserve our experiment in republican democracy and free enterprise.

Those who claim to be 'conservative' today are, in fact, reactionaries, social and economic recidivists.

[whathehell]

10. Initially, perhaps. He certainly wasn't when he proposed a National Healthcare system.

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 08:18 AM - Edit history (1)

He died before he could pursue it further.

[ColesCountyDem]

11. I agree.

Roosevelt evolved, although he never took his eye off of the ball. His 'long game' was always about preserving 'the American way of life', to use a trite phrase.

[whathehell]

12. He certainly did evolve, and what he meant by

"the American way of life", I don't know, but I'm betting it resembled something

a lot closer to the present day "European way of life" than what we have now.

[ColesCountyDem]

20. In a very real sense, he did whatever it took to preserve/conserve, much like Lincoln.

Roosevelt never let the perfect get in the way of the perfectly good, which is one of the things that made him such a marvelous President.

[whathehell]

21. Sounds good to me. n/t

[cstanleytech]

16. You forgot they are also anarchists.

[marlakay]

96. From what I read most of it was Eleanor not him

And he wasn't happy she pushed him into doing stuff.

She would have made a great president.

[Sancho]

5. We need to get rid of some tea party governors!

Not to mention a pile of legislators. The turn out by Democrats to vote is abysmal. No President can do anything with Congress and so many Governors stacked against him/her.

[charles d]

9. Or Another Revolution

The troglodytes and their moneyed backers have become entrenched. It's going to take something very serious to dislodge them.

[DinahMoeHum]

25. "Something very serious" to me means. . .well. . .

. . .it's not fit for further discussion here.

[charles d]

32. Not Something I Would Choose

But the teabaggers have been prepping since 2009, and may want to force the issue. You know that's the truth.

[cstanleytech]

13. No, what we need is to kick the asshole Republicans across the nation out of office both

at the state level and the federal level because as long as they are in office not even Roosevelt himself could probably get much if anything done.

[whathehell]

17. If we'd had anything close to a Roosevelt in the last 30 years

we wouldn't have asshole Republicans in high places all over the country.

[RiverLover]

15. I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Democrat & not support the amazing work of FDR

The Democratic Party became a liberal party largely through the "New Deal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression.

Before FDR, "laissez-faire" or "free-market" policies were the only policies acceptable to America's ruling elites. FDR's New Deal policies used government spending power to create jobs for the masses of unemployed, and used payroll taxes to provide retirement security through Social Security. FDR also created regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to avoid another financial crisis.

FDR's liberal policies were supported by Democratic and Republican administrations until Ronald Reagan began a conservative counterattack against FDR's policies in 1981.

After 8 years of Reaganism, conservative Democrats began embracing the Reaganite assault on liberalism, and called themselves "New Democrats" to distinguish themselves from traditional FDR-inspired liberals.

These "New Democrats" drew support from large corporations that wanted a return to "laissez-faire" policies to get out from under regulations.

http://www.democrats.com/new-democrats

[Telcontar]

37. I wish theyd bring back the CCC

Our infrastructure could use it, massive jobs program, and look at the national parks we got out of it last time.

[NightWatcher]

44. Teddy and the Bull Moose 2016!!!

[B Calm]

51. That's why I support Bernie Sanders!

[treestar]

74. Yep because all we need is the right President

Congress will blindly follow the right President and so will the courts. No need to bother with those Congressional or state elections. It will all fall into place if we just have the right President.

[L0oniX]

76. FDR pisses off all the right people.

[mmonk]

79. At this point in history, I agree.

[merrily]

86. FDR had massive faults. However, he was genius in the way he saved the nation and the speed with

which he did it. And won a war. And while paralyzed to boot. And ill. Toward the end, someone said he looked the worst of anyone she had ever seen who was not already dead.

And yes, his coattails long outlasted him.

PBS did a program about either FDR or Hoover, I am not sure. (Not the recent series on the Roosevelts, but earlier than that).

The claim was that people who had followed the campaigning thought that Hoover campaigned to the left of FDR. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I found it interesting to contemplate.

[madokie]

87. And made things better at it