General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFDR, Obama and the need to stop comparing the two.
Obama is not FDR. He can never be FDR. There is a reason FDR is considered a top-three president of all-time and in the same ballpark as Lincoln and Washington - two leaders who, for the rest of our nation's history, will never be touched in terms of greatness. The fact Roosevelt is listed among them shows the enormity of his legacy and how much impact he had on this nation.
The fact, in our nation's 200-plus years, no president even sniffed that level of greatness shows just how difficult, and completely rare, even good presidents are considered that great.
So, to suggest he's failed in the shadows of Roosevelt is pretty much saying every president - even the very good - failed as well. That includes T.R., Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and other presidents whose leadership was lasting.
Obama isn't a failure because he wasn't another FDR. To accuse him of such is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because it implies Obama could be FDR.
Let's be honest: there is no way Obama was ever going to be the FDR the left created.
I say this because the way we've glamorized Roosevelt's presidency makes it nearly impossible for any president to lead like him - because we often forget the major pitfalls his presidency saw in favor of only looking at what worked.
Like, so many on the left deride Obama's cuts as absolutely wrong - suggesting it defies anything FDR or a liberal would do in a time of deep economic crisis. Economists even say Obama's deficit could be falling too fast and we needed more spending to get us out of the recession.
You know who didn't believe that?
FDR.
In the 1932 presidential campaign, Roosevelt actually attacked Hoover for being a big spender. He ran on a pledge to balance the federal budget - during a depression! He absolutely entered the White House as a deficit hawk and one of the first legislation he signed was the Economy Act of March 20, 1933.
The Economy Act of 1933 only passed with conservative support from Democrats and Republicans - the liberal wing of both parties voted against it.
Why?
Because it was intended to cut $500 million from the budget (that's $8.8 billion in 2009 dollars). Could you imagine if Pres. Obama, instead of proposing his stimulus, promoted a bill that would cut $8.8 billion from the budget as one of his first economic acts? There would be a revolt from the left! He would have been derided and attacked by every liberal on every site from here to Timbuktu.
Yet FDR did and got enough conservative support to get the act through - an act that slashed salaries of federal workers and reduced payments to veterans.
This was in the act:
Granted, the Economy Act of March 20, 1933 is but one of many bills that was part of FDR's New Deal.
But, like with FDR, we also glamorize the New Deal and forget that some of the legislation outright failed or was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - as was the case with the National Recovery Administration.
The New Deal did work, though. I think most would agree with that - so, this isn't to attack FDR or his policies.
The thing is - FDR had Republican support for many of his New Deal policies. Take the 1933 Banking Act (GlassSteagall), which passed the House 191-6. Nothing in Obama's early presidency, whether his stimulus or other economic actions, received nearly that level of Republican support. Yes, Democrats held healthy majorities in both the House and Senate in 1933, but Republicans still had 117 members at the time of this vote and only 6 congressmen (TOTAL) voted against it.
The President hardly had a hostile congress who, upon his taking the oath, plotted down the street that night about doing everything in their power to make him a one term president (as Mitch McConnell and his Republican brood did with Obama the night of the inauguration).
When comparing Obama to FDR, it also suggests there is a legitimate comparison between the 1930s GOP and today's GOP. It's not the case. Back then, political parties were far less ideological and almost entirely dominated by region. You had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. It wasn't that irregular for either major parties to nominate a candidate who was ideologically completely different than their last nominee. William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic nominee in 1896, was, for that time, a liberal. Yet the president during his election, also a Democrat, Grover Cleveland, was a conservative. Today, Cleveland would absolutely be a Republican on ideological grounds.
The Republicans saw a similar situation with T.R. and Taft. T.R. was a progressive firebrand who, in no shape or form, resembles anything in today's Republican Party. Yet his successor, William Howard Taft, also a Republican, was extremely conservative.
Today, there is no way the GOP would nominate someone like Teddy Roosevelt. Likewise, there is no way the Democratic Party would nominate someone like Grover Cleveland. That was the political makeup of America back then - you could get a conservative president from one party - and then a liberal one from the exact same party. Coolidge was a laissez faire conservative who deserves much of the blame for the Great Depression. The man who replaced him, another Republican, Herbert Hoover, was far less conservative in that regard. Hoover, today, would not be a Republican. There is no way he could win the Republican nomination.
You also had a Republican Party who turned around and nominated candidates, guys like Alf Landon and Thomas Dewey, who were moderates and not opposed to the New Deal. Even Eisenhower embraced much of its policies. Politics was toxic back then - but not at the level it is today.
Republicans rallied behind Kennedy and Johnson and were a huge reason Johnson was able to wrangle enough support for the Civil Rights Act. Obama couldn't do that today - not because he's a failed leader but because the opposition is completely and utterly against him and for, unequivocally, his failure ... even if that means bringing America down with him.
So, when you compare Obama to FDR, you're also suggesting both faced similar circumstances and similar congresses. It's not the case.
Obama's biggest obstacle has always been a congress that is limited on work. Even when the Democrats had huge majorities, and he was able to get through a whole host of legislation (unrivaled by any president beyond FDR), it was still through an ideological fight. Much of the Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008 were in areas Republicans generally won - which meant, on the whole, there were a lot more conservative Democrats to work with and hardly any moderate or liberal Republicans to help counter their defections and worry.
FDR and LBJ were able to count on those moderate votes to offset the losses the party saw with conservative members. Obama couldn't. For every southern Democrat or conservative Democrat who couldn't vote on something, or wouldn't step up to the plate to help pass a more progressive form of that policy, there was zero Republicans the President or Nancy Pelosi could go to for help.
Zero.
That's the reality. Yet, Obama did what he could do - and you can call it weak or tepid or not enough ... but it is what it is.
He's not FDR. He'll never be FDR. It's not fair to say, "FDR did it...Obama could have too."
No. FDR was president for three terms - and won a fourth! He guided America through the Great Depression, but he also cemented his legacy through World War II - which, also, helped lift the U.S. out of the Great Depression. FDR didn't have near the hostile congress, had huge majorities in 1934 (70 Democrats in the Senate!) and a nation that wasn't polluted by ideological warfare. That latter point is important, because back then, this country was far less ideologically divided than it is today. It goes back to the parties, too, as they didn't rely necessarily on ideological division to win. But in today's world, where this country is essentially split right down the middle it seems, every president is going to have a helluva time getting complete support from the people.
If FDR were elected today, I'm afraid to say it, and I know I would get push back here, he wouldn't go down as a great president (and no zombie jokes, please!) because the landscape we face today is ugly and bitter and its direct result is a divided government that doesn't work for the people ... no matter how hard the President does.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So comparison is out, but contrast is in. Got it.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's very difficult to compare two completely different things. You can contrast the differences between a car and a burrito - but you'll find it very hard to compare the two.
No, compare FDR and Obama - but do so with the whole picture. A lot of times, that doesn't happen here.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They both have/had huge obstacles to overcome. I'm only 43, but Obama is the best POTUS in my lifetime hands down.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)A hypothetical FDR today would be awesome!!!!
And Obama sucks cause he ain't doing what that make believe current day FDR would do.
If you don't agree you hate FDR and America.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Do we think that congress works with him?
I point this out only to highlight the importance of American society and it's effect on congress, necessary components of any such comparison.
Yet many here want to ignore differences in US society and in the make up of congress when they trash Obama in this comparison.
JI7
(89,247 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I'd like the haters to explain how a black FDR would be different from Obama today.
Angrier maybe?
I'd love to hear them explain how he'd be exactly the same as he was, except black.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Obama.
Both made decisions that displeased the Democratic base, But, Truman is considered to be a great President as I believe history will evaluate Obama in the years to come.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Folks seem to forget where this country was at the end of 2008.
History will remember.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)FDR had political obstacles to overcome, but nothing like what president Obama has had to face. The republican party is now a right wing, unified bloc in congress. It is nearly impossible to peel off votes for anything the president supports. FDR had moderate republicans to work with.
That said, I do fault president Obama for not realizing early on that his attempts at bipartisanship would go nowhere--in fact be counterproductive. Had he immediately realized what many here understood--the republicans weren't going to support anything he wanted to do--and used the bully pulpit to hammer the republicans, the debacle of 2010 might have been avoided, or at least lessened. He needed to take the fight to the republicans which in turn would have fired up the Democratic base and possibly swung some independents who saw him as weak.
Another area is Banking/Wall Street. The Obama administration failed to bring the criminals of 2008 to task. FDR went after Wall Street and the Banks. Obama seems to protect them.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)going in, that he would not get republican support for anything he wanted to do? His seeking Bi-partisanship is what has highlighted the republican obstructionism to the point that even republicans acknowledge it. So, no ... his efforts weren't counter-productive, so much as working the long game.
People keep talking about "bring(ing) the criminals of 2008 to task" ... and I keep wondering, to what end? Sending folks to jail would neither have solved the damage done, nor ended the corruption that led to the damage. Crooks steal because that's what they do; the threat of jail, has never been a deterrent. Corruption is endemic in corporations because it is profitable, not because individual executives are unafraid of going to prison.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)As far as the Wall Street/Bank crooks, I guarantee that if those culpable were pulled before the bar of just, there would have been at least a temporary end to the criminality.
What doesn't work is letting them get away with it. That's why we prosecute bank robbers.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)times of great trail for that state. It's not really something to hope for nor something to envy.
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)edhopper
(33,573 posts)dealt with financial regulation. FDR took on the Banks and instituted sweeping reform.
Obama brought Wall street into his Administration and did very little about the Institutions that almost collapsed the economy.
It is my belief (and admiringly just an opinion) that if Obama had a true progressive agenda and went after the charlatans on Wall Street when he first took office. If he listened to Warren and Krugman and Sanders instead of Geithner and Summers, there would have been no Tea Party and the Dems would have won in 2010.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)He did reform the system, but so did Obama. The thing is, FDR also had consensus Republican support for his banking regulations - Obama didn't even have Democratic consensus for that.
Did Obama screw up on bringing Wall Street into his administration? I think so. But I also think he realized how important it was to keep Wall Street from imploding - as that could have led to a financial crisis even worse than what we witnessed.
I disagree about the latter, point, though.
edhopper
(33,573 posts)impossible to know, but I felt that way when it was happening. I think there was genuine anger at Wall Street and the Banks, and Obama could have tapped into it, instead he let the Koch's and the Tea Party get the upper hand, which in the end stopped real reform.
Other countries did a better job of handling the banks without letting the guilty stay in charge. Look at Sweden and Canada.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Sweden's unemployment rate is 8.2% - higher than the U.S. and most other Nordic countries. They, along with Canada, also don't have near the economy the U.S. and, compared to most of Europe (because of Obama), we're doing a lot better.
Could he have done more? Probably. I think he should've fought for the reintroduction of GlassSteagall.
edhopper
(33,573 posts)without Glass/Stegall it could all happen again.
(Well that and I would have liked someone to go to jail, anybody at GS to start)
BumRushDaShow
(128,876 posts)Why didn't he put JP Morgan in jail?
edhopper
(33,573 posts)Why didn't Obama at least try to get Glass/Stegel re-instated. The ending of which caused the problem.
Are you asserting there wasn't massive reform under FDR?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)calling on Congress to re-instate G/S.
edhopper
(33,573 posts)But if he did, good for him.
Do you agree that he would have been better served listening to people other than Geithner and Summers.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The repeal of Glass-Steagall let retail banks run proprietary desks. That's about the only part of the financial sector that didn't implode in the past decade. And the fact that Glass-Steagall was repealed is the only reason the retail banks could step in and bail out the investment banks.
People get Glass-Steagall fundamentally wrong. It didn't "prevent banks from gambling with your money". Banks are always free to do that. It's kind of the point of a bank. Glass-Steagall kept retail banks from gambling with their capital (the bank's own money) by running a proprietary desk. The banks that fell were investment banks; the repeal of Glass-Steagall didn't affect them (except in that it theoretically would have let them open retail accounts, which none of them did).
edhopper
(33,573 posts)that Glass/Steagall allowed the big financials to trade in mortgage backed securities. It was all the cross dealing fueled the housing bubble. Which led to the implosion.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's been a lot of sloppy reporting on this. Barney Frank gave a good answer in a town hall on why he didn't think re-instating Glass-Steagall would have helped anything; I'll see if I can find that video again.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... isn't even halfway valid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)FDR ran as a fiscal conservative, and hell-bent on helping the 99%. Once he took office, FDR realized that nobody really knew the right answers for helping the 99%, so he tried both Liberal and Conservative policies. He had bankers, Socialists, and everything in between in his cabinet and Brain Trust.
FDR eventually saw for himself that only Liberal policies ever work (to help the 99%), so he became a staunch Liberal and the 99% had raging prosperity for the next 40+ years. It's clear that FDR wanted to do the right thing, and that he had the ability to get it done. He was a fighter who was OK with losing a few. "I welcome their hatred", he said of oligarchs of the day (what FDR called the "economic royalists" .
Obama ran as a Left-ish Democrat, then sprinted hard right once elected. Effectively, his policies have been overwhelmingly Rightist, from saving the bankers to preserving and making permanent 82% of the Bush tax cuts, keeping a bloated military, "free" trade BS, and so forth. And, as we'd expect given what's gotten done, the wealthy have done spectacularly well while the rest of us... as a group, we're doing terribly. A rousing failure with regard to the fortunes of the 99%.
Is it because Obama *wanted* Rightist policies? Or because he's too over his head to know how to fight for the 99%? It's certainly true that the White House is packed to the rafters with Wall Streeters. There's nothing resembling a Frances Perkins or a Henry Wallace within miles of the place, so Liberal policies never had a chance. But, it's possible that Obama wanted good things for the 99% but was simply too timid to even seek advice from Liberals.
In any case, perhaps Obama did not have the opportunity to become another FDR, but he did take the reins during the worst economic crisis *since* FDR, so I'd argue he had the opportunity to do things that were greater than any president since FDR. Why he didn't - timidity or choice - we may never know.
BumRushDaShow
(128,876 posts)But as a side-note - FDR WAS "the 1%" - a very wealthy man in his own right. But his medical condition (polio as an adult) had some big-time influence on his vision and determination. The fact that he was never or rarely shown in a wheel chair or with his leg braces, is a major major difference regarding how the media treated him vs Obama.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)That quote is the meat of your excellent analysis. The rest is gravy.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)FDR sold out people with disabilities and the League of The Physically Handicapped protested when the WPA discriminated against people with disabilities. Then there is the poorly written language that defines disability as unable to work and the 1938 fair labor act that allows Goodwill to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage.
Then there's the internment camps and unwillingness to support anti-lynching legislation.
An FDR with those positions today would be considered bigoted or, if given the benefit of the doubt, "gutless" and would most definitely not be well liked or remembered.
Obviously, it was a different time and he was not as bigoted as he would come across today. All the more reason that your argument is spot on.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Great speeches no real ideology to speak of. They were both cool and detached. Both really didn't get much accomplished although JFK had the missile crisis and Obama had ACA and bin laden.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)had done all he could do before he died. Even if he had lived he wasn't going to break congressional deadlock because he didn't know how. He might have stopped Vietnam but that's about it. Obama could've had one term and everything would be the same right now. Clearly all the big agenda items Obama could pass in office have already been passed. A second term is really just a holding action for most presidents anyway. I doubt anybody could name one president's second term better than their first.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm about halfway through it, and it's got a lot about the internal politics of the New Deal.