Blogs and Stories
Why The Right Should Leave FDR Alone
Franklin D. Roosevelt and his policies that led the country out of the Great Depression have been unfairly maligned.
As the current financial crisis has unfolded, Franklin D. Roosevelt has been frequently mentioned, both for his talent at rallying and reassuring the nation in crisis, which all concede, as well as for the economic policies he used to lead the country out of the Great Depression. In this second category, his name and record have often been traduced. Roosevelt’s historic reputation has suffered from his dying abruptly in office, leaving relatively uninformative archives, and not having a literary executor.
In the vacuum created by his death, a spontaneous coalition of McCarthyite Republicans, disgruntled British imperialists, and Euro-Gaullists propagated the Yalta Myth that Roosevelt had been swindled by Stalin at Yalta into handing over Eastern Europe to the USSR. Social Democratic leaders in the West, such as Willy Brandt and Pierre Trudeau, acquired the irritating habit of claiming that Yalta had legitimized the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe (and their own truckling to successive Soviet leaders). In fact, the Yalta Agreement promised freedom and independence for Eastern Europe. If Roosevelt and Churchill had given Stalin everything he wanted, he would not have needed to violate every clause of that agreement as he did.
FDR had his faults, but he was a great leader at a time when America and the Western world had to have a great leader in the White House, and the American loony right should aim their spitballs elsewhere.
It has taken until the last few years for later historians, working from primary sources, to drive a silver stake through the heart of the Yalta Myth. FDR had no sooner been relieved of that affliction than a new assault has come down upon him like a second wave of incontinent and nasty pigeons fouling a Roosevelt statue. It has been alleged by some supply-side economic purists that he actually prolonged the Great Depression in the US.
In 1933, there was great disagreement about how to deal with an economic recession or depression, and Roosevelt’s administration, and he himself, had conflicting impulses. Hoover had made the worst possible selection of policy options: higher taxes and tariffs and a shrunken money supply. The unemployment rate was approximately 33%, about five times what it is now, and there was no direct relief for the unemployed. They could beg, steal, or starve, though Hoover claimed that they prospered selling apples.
On Inauguration Day, 1933 (then March 4), there were machine gun nests at the corners of the great government buildings in Washington, for the only time since the Civil War. All banks in 32 states had been closed sine die. Six other states had closed almost all their banks. In the other ten states and D.C., withdrawals were limited to 5 percent of deposits, and in Texas to $10 per day. The New York Stock Exchange and Chicago commodity exchanges had also been closed, indefinitely. The financial system had effectively collapsed, and was threatening to take the life savings of millions of people and what was left of the world’s financial system with it.
In a fever of activity, Roosevelt guaranteed bank deposits, made the federal government a temporary non-voting preferred shareholder in thousands of suddenly under-capitalized banks—more than half the banks in the country—refinanced millions of residential and farm mortgages, tolerated cartels and collective bargaining to raise prices and wages, increased the money supply, effectively departed the gold standard, repealed Prohibition of alcoholic beverages (wrenching one of the nation’s largest industries out of the hands of the underworld), and legislated reduced working hours and improved working conditions for the whole work force. In the next two years, he set up the Securities and Exchange Commission, created the Social Security system, and broadened the powers of the Federal Reserve to equal those of other national central banks, in what became known as the Second New Deal.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Murdoch's Italian Offensive
Conrad Black is the author of biographies of Maurice Duplessis, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Richard M. Nixon, was the publisher of the London Telegraph newspapers and Spectator, and founded the National Post of Canada. He has been a life peer in the British House of Lords as Lord Black of Crossharbour since 2001.
I Was Right
Conrad Black is the author of biographies of Maurice Duplessis, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Richard M. Nixon, was the publisher of the London Telegraph newspapers and Spectator, and founded the National Post of Canada. He has been a life peer in the British House of Lords as Lord Black of Crossharbour since 2001.
Bring It On, Michael Wolff!
Conrad Black is the author of biographies of Maurice Duplessis, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Richard M. Nixon, was the publisher of the London Telegraph newspapers and Spectator, and founded the National Post of Canada. He has been a life peer in the British House of Lords as Lord Black of Crossharbour since 2001.
I consider myself to be fairly well informed, and I am not aware of any attacks on FDR. Granted, I am not acquainted with the "loony right" -- but normal journalistic and academic standards would require some context in the light of that kind of perjorative.
Who are these people? What have they said about FDR? How in the light of these attacks does FDR's record support or refute them? Enlighten me please.
Absent those details, Black's article reads like something a high schooler pulled down from Wikipedia for a term paper, hoping that his leftie leaning teach would swallow it wholesale because it's the kind of thing teach likes to hear.
Is Black pandering to what he believes is a leftie leaning TDB readership? I am an Independant/Democrat and that doesn't mean that I check my brain stem at the door when I am reading. I can hold opposing views in my head simultaneously without my brain exploding. Perhaps some of these loony rightists have a point or two? How can we decide given that Black denies us the opportunity to decide for ourselves?
Please don't insult our intelligence like this again.
smdunne Black is considered to have written the definitive biography on FDR so I'm guessing that some of what is on wikipedia is probably ripped off his book... http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGMyMzIwNTE1ZWY5ZDI2NTlkZjdkNzQ0NWJj ZmI3OWU=
who is insulting whose intelligence now?
beastette -- I was unaware that Black had written a book about FDR and I think in the interests of fair disclosure that detail should also have been included in his article. Now it reads as if he is reviewing his own book.
As for a definitive biography, well did you even read the article you quoted? David Farmer says:
"The other thing that needs to be said is that Black is my friend. In some eyes, that might disqualify my opinions about his book."
Call me picky, but yes, in my eyes it does disqualify his opinions.
That said, Black's book does actually sound like an interesting read, and not knowing he had written one I never claimed it wasn't. I simpy stated that he had not proved the premise of his article which is that FDR is being attacked by the right.
smdunne let's hope that Black responds to your criticism with some substance on the record.
smdunne final note - point about the national review reference was that there is little chance that this is an article from a leftie to a left wing audience. that this was a rave review from "the" neo con mag underscores the point. and yes frum says he was a friend of black's but this does not in any way diminish his weight as a critic of great biographical works.
beastette - Thanks for correcting me, my apologies it was David Frum, not David Farmer.
Given that we now know that Black is an expert on FDR I would love to hear more from him on the subject -- and would welcome him taking the time to prove his point.
We'll have to agree to disagree though, I feel one's friends should not be reviewing one's work.
Black did an awful job of stating how his post was relevant to the news of the day, but I think I see the connection he is attempting to make.
This is what he left out:
The attacks by the Right on FDR that he is speaking about is the 30 year long conservative quest to repeal FDR's New Deal.
The buzzword of the current financial crisis has been "deregulation", right?
Well, the Right has been opposed to the regulations and safeguards set up by FDR, and has been trying to peel as many of them as they can back for a long while, starting with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated banks and their holdings. The entire goal of Reagan and Bush economic policy has been to repeal the New Deal economic policies.
It has been argued that the financial crisis we are currently in is a direct result of all of the deregulation (read: dismantling of the New Deal). In particular, the speculation of mortgage backed securities and related instruments that was once outlawed by New Deal reforms has been cited as a chief factor.
Who are these people on the Right that have been so against FDR and his policies? See: Phil Gramm (the same guy who repealed the Glass Steagall Act and top McCain economic advisor) and anyone from the Keynesian school of thought (think Milton Friedman).
But I think that laissez-faire economics is dead. It doesn't factor corruption and greed into the equation. I think we can all agree now that in order for the game to run smooth there has to be a good set of rules for everyone to play by.
smdunne perhaps you could google fdr and socialist and then get back to us. FDR has been attacked by the right for years as a socialist, a fascist, as a president who dragged the country into ww2, caused the depression and on and on.
Furthermore if you knew anything about Lord Black you would realize the last thing he would ever do is pander to the left.
Dear "smdunne" (re; 10-22-08 10:37pm entry)
The repeated "attacks" on FDR that I have seen in recent weeks are by the McCain Campaign with most comments actually being from John McCain.
McCain's "dis" on FDR is related to McCain's "take" on how "much" Government will be created under an Obama Presidency; that Obama's proposals constitute "the biggest expansion of Goverment since FDR's 'New Deal'".
Even McCain latest "love stump speech " is that Obama wants to "spread the wealth around" (as if it were some communicable disease) "like he told 'Joe (Sam) the Plumber' " is what I see and hear over and over in campaign footage clips (visually smircking and hyperblinking much like he does in debates) and interviews from McCain during his recent weeks as his polls continue to slide down.
We already practice "Socialism" to certain degrees and I argue that it IS a valid part of the American Way.
What would have actually happened and where would we be as a humane, civil even properous society WITHOUT FDR's "New Deal" policies?.
Kinda scary if you really think about the possibilities.
The entire concept of "employer based" health/retirement benefits DID NOT exist prior. It was what employers developed to attract/retain desirable employees at a time when there were "pay freezes" in place. Legally you could not increase salaries but you could route "compensation" in these manners.
All that's been going to the dogs fast because there IS NO incentive other than for the reasons above and maybe even "traditional" expectations that employers value not only long term contributions, even life-long contributions from those they employ and WANT to keep them in good health with good access to care for them AND their families and share the benefits of the growth, product of their work over the years by offering a "stake" in their work/company's progress, a retirement "nest egg" as motivating participation in sucess and as a "thank you" retirement send-off.
It became a "given" in a good portion of our work force that such benefits were inherent in most F/T employment as I grew up not thinking there were any other possiblities as we live here in America of course.We WON'T have SSI, Medicare, etc, in not that far away future. What we have grown up with to understand how our America/society works (ie; general work, college careers or build a business while building your retirement, pay into "safety net" SSI, Medicare, pay off your home, be able to afford old age and/or illness etc, and that still was the American dream.
Grandma and Grandpa were able to live comfortably enough in their own homes as long as their health permitted and when serious illness was the case they didn't "lose everything" due to it, you could still go to grandma's and play in her garden and eat her fudgecake even when she was 88 yrs old and was taking care of grandpa who had to be seen at the Dr's 2 even 3 times/month and after his latest 2wk long pneumonia hospitalization.
The world didn't fall apart just because they were old and living with "old age" realities.
The forces are leaning the other way now just as a "great deal" of the "New Deal's" direct or indirect benefits to our culture/society are being either systematically stripped away due to govermental policies or lack of, that promote this very "American" tradition/way of life.
Regulations are on the side of the "Insurance Gods" as they have the $$$ "that keeps "government" out of their profits/actuarial tables. The $$$ spent on keeping it/making it more so that way is a drop in the bucket compared to the loss of their insane profits by not doing so.
Of course we are going to spend the next 10 days listening to how the Dems are going to "Socialize America" but we already are and have been for a long time but in a number of "good for society" ways.
Our banks have been FDIC insured (the "S" word) since you and I have been alive, elderly who can no longer work have some protection from losing everything they worked their entire lives for and can receive medical care that shouldn't strip them of everything, including their home, and put them out on the streets although that has drastically been changing too.
Pure Capitalism doesn't work for 95% of society unless you are at least in favor of "euthanasia" because most people (that I know of), regardless of age, who cannot provide a living for themselves nor necessary medical care and if the only other option after medical/personal bankruptcy/loss of home/ housing means they essentially have is to roam streets and suffer from over-exposure as a means to an end, most would prefer to have the "dignity" of "choice".
Sounds harsh but we already see the exact thing everywhere especially in urban settings; the untreated mentally/physically impaired who have fallen through "the cracks" , with no effective oversight nor government to approach/help resolve their "certain death" on the streets, sparse nights available at the shelters and some meals.
Imagine if we were a purely Capitalistic society. Under that rule, those who do well live well, those who do very well live very well, etc. NONE have ANY obligation to anyone else in their communty stricken by blight even if they were one of the "Do-Well's" for a length of time before they were knocked off the Capital ladder.
The inevitable problem is that the "Haves" always become wealthier and wealthier and fewer and fewer per se (ie; currently in the USA the "top 5%" OWN as much "wealth" as the next highest (45%-95%) income bracket earners in America and that "Top 5%'s Annual Income" is the SAME as the REST of all the 95%'s Annual Income COMBINED.
There is no "median" income earner in America.
ONE HALF of all wealth and continuing income is had by the top 5% alone, the OTHER HALF is divided amongst the remaining 95% of America's population.
The "Goose that Lays the Golden Egg" has been starved/squeezed to death by this top 5% (where do you think their wealth comes from? The 95%'s work, labors, monies, former properties, etc).
This is where it get's "tricky" for them (top 5%).
When the rest of the productive society begins to break down to any significant degree then the top 5% begin to lose their sources of wealth and have to find alternative resources (labor driven) in order to keep their established wealth and income and become at risk if they are American residents as their preeminent wealth becomes more and more the subject of controversy as opposed to their former "behind the curtain" handlings and they are specifically brought to subject on each individual basis.
The "extra wealthy haves" can only exist "behind the curtain" and once enough unrest unfolds from the "killing of the Goose" then the very nature of their existence is even more so threatened.
Yes, it is "Patriotic" to pay each one's/corporation's "fair share" of taxes. Why wouldn't it be?
Who thinks that everything other than what they own doesn't cost money?
Our society makes AND costs money.
If those who can afford a staff of CPAs and/or influence Capitol Hill about the amounts they are required to "give back" in way of our "community pool"-taxes, are willing to appropriate their "own budget" for the same infrastructures, societal safety nets, the education systems that produce the cardiologists who wind up doing their triple bypass surgery, community safety, fire, police, SEC costs, air/food quality control, cancer/a host of other aging related disease research, air traffic control, FDA research/safety of their array of daily meds, foreign relations/defense, etc', then I don't think they'd be particularly happy about what it would cost them either to enjoy all the "good" benefits of living in/being an American citizen.
Let them go to Canada or France and let our remaining 95% take on the challenge of restructuring America without them.
I still think we'd be better off.
Any thoughts?
Dear smdunne- forgot to respond directly to your apparent confusion/concern as to "why" the article was not "making the case" of attacksby the "Right" which I can see would be one way of interpreting the title, but just the title.
I believe this article assumes more than just a read to incorporate the meaning of it's title.
The RNC (basically, mostly, soley John McCain) has been referring to FDR's Great Society/ New Deal Policies as relevant to our current economic collapse but mostly to point out how "much" government resulted from FDR's "Socialistic" approach to resolve society's Great Depression.
McCain has repeatedly blasted this great growth of government involvement and oversight of the economic collapse almost to the direct reference to it being "Liberal Left" doings and therefore warning all America that our current Democratic Elect will do the same.... increase government's oversight to lead us out of the current economic crisis and pending depression.
Yes, the author is assuming that anyone reading his excerpt is already familiar with the ongoing 2008 Presidential campaigning and the slurs as well as the repeated attacks on FDR, The Great Society and New Deal policies.
BTW- not to be a total bummer but it's not Capitalism that we have lived under during our lifetimes at least. There's not a name for it that I am aware of but we are definitely in a blended "Socialistic/Capitalistic/Non-Democracy.
Nope, we don't even live under a "true' Democracy either, never have with the "Electoral College Vote" as America's "go-between" wacky way to elect our highest officials.
""True Democracy" is "One man, One vote", with the popular vote determining the election.
Here in America we have a rather "random assignment" of indirectly voting for a candidate via Electoral College and even that's no guarantee that your vote will go the way which the electorate indicates.
Can a candidate win more than 50% of the peoples' votes and still NOT be the one elected? You bet.
It's happened more often throughout history than you'd believe.
Didn't Gore win the "popular" vote (majority of American citizens voted for him) for President in 2000 but George W Bush became President based on electoral college (or was that 2004?)
Just wait til you find out how the Supreme Court now has the Power to "Appoint" a candidate to the WhiteHouse (oh yeah, THAT was how George W Bush got back into the Whitehouse and without the majority/popular vote).
In America we follow the rules until they're inconvienent and then "we" (I mean Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches) make up our own, so we really aren't True Blue anything to speak of.
Wait until you check out Habeas Corpus and all the other new and not improved stuff we're doing especially these last 7 years, it'll give you a whole new scare other than your 401k and sky high mortgage costs/plummeting property values,
just in time for Halloween...Boo!
I've enjoyed the comments. I guess what I am getting at here is that party affiliation need not determine one's appraisal of a great politician.
I am well aware that FDR was considered a traitor to his class and was despised by the Right. Perhaps I misunderstood Black, and the article is meant to be an historical overview of the Right's hatred of FDR. If so, he still doesn't make his case in this article.
One of the best political biographies I have ever read was Roy Jenkins' magnificent "Churchill." He was a Labour and then Social Democrat politician in England, who much to his own surprise, came over the course of his research to admire Churchill immensely.
It would seem that Black, as a conservative, had the same experience with FDR and I will look forward to reading his book.
The truly great, in any sphere, will always defy narrow definition.
I am very pleased to know that Conrad Black is contributing some of his many talents to various blogs and websites. As Publisher of KTF Media Group, I am proud to announce that Conrad has contributed to our site (ktfmediagroup.com) since early this year. In fact, Conrad has been the inspiration behind KTF Media Group. We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to interview Conrad, who was featured in a piece that we call 'Lord Black: Keeping The Faith', located in our 'Key To Faith' section. Please stop by and read some of our many wonderful articles, contributed by some amazingly talented aspiring writers, who experience the excitement of appearing in a publication with someone as talented as Conrad Black appears.
While it is true that Hoover made the tragic mistakes of advancing Smoot Hawley, raising taxes and shrinking the money supply, it is also true that Roosevelt strongly supported these measures. In addition, Roosevelt went to war against big business. Big business responded by reducing investment dramatically. Increasing taxes had the effect of reducing tax receipts. The net effect was that the Depression became the Great Depression and lasted almost 11 years because of the bi-partisan wrong head collectivist ideas and policies of both Hoover and Roosevelt.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.