Historians on twitter are destroying the claims in this column. Eric Rauchway in particular:
"In the NYT @jonathanalter says FDR "ran in the fall [of 1932] as an upbeat fuzzy moderate… Even after Roosevelt took office at the depths of the Depression, he had no unified plan, just a vague commitment to 'action and action now.'" This is wrong.
One of the reasons we know it's wrong is that Herbert Hoover knew what Roosevelt's plans were, and it's not because Hoover was privy to the Roosevelt circle's inner workings but because Roosevelt—as Hoover complained—made "constant promise" of his plans. Through the course of the 1932 campaign Roosevelt gave a series of speeches, each addressing a specific issue. You can find them in the NYT's own coverage."
Detailed thread here...https://twitter.com/rauchway/status/1142148046362255360
7
Why the insulting tone of this opinion piece? Last time I checked it wasn't 1946, so perhaps the new deal liberalism of then is not the new deal liberalism of now.
6
Very nice beginning but I was looking for names and examples... like NBC's "My Big Idea." Exactly what do the top 20 Dem candidates believe in or pretend to believe in.
I hope The Times can avoid doing a hatchet job on the decent Dem candidates-- like they one you did on Bernie is it already four years ago? (Hillary should not have run!!
OTOH a piece like this tells me nothing.. I kind of know about Bernie -- went to one of his rallies -- and free higher education was for all who qualify-- I wonder if that included law school -- I saw an ad for online Kg-12 (wonder if they teach the "myth" of Creationism as a theory? (Texas standard). Just saying.
2
I'm getting all ready to read dozens of comments by outraged hard-core intransigent Sanders supporters. This column is another example of the Times's bias against Sanders! It only publishes negative articles about him! It's part of the corporate news media! It represents the corporate Democratic establishment that will do ANYTHING to bring down Sanders! Yawn.
1
We get it, NYTimes. You despise and fear Bernie Sanders. But you seem open to Elizabeth Warren. It is hard to side a playing card between the policies that the two are advocating. So what is it, exactly? Is it that scary word, "socialist"? I must say, your editors are risking the credibility of your paper by this weird campaign against Senator Sanders. If you want to preserve it, you really need to curb your plutocratic tendencies.
5
What a click-bait headline and subhead.
Alter does a fine job of recounting FDR’s decisions and his “resume.” And he connects the dots between the current candidates and FDR.
But there’s nothing in the piece that answers the questions or addresses issues posed in the headlines.
Try again, headline writer. Try again.
3
The one item of the early 1940's that gets me is the fact that we had such miserable military leaders and advisers; our entire Pacific Fleet AND all the Pacific arena was just sitting ducks for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and other Pacific targets.
We do have rather lax oversight today, at a time when we do need to keep a good vigilance while Trump stages a supposed conflict with Iran to build stock as a smart seasoned wartime leader. Sadly the present and Trump pick civilian and military leaders are all following in, as no persons of proven quality wants to touch anything in this present sham. The GOP has long manipulated the horns of war to keep the WH.
Sen Warren has proven time and again that she does the homework like none of the others, she learned the lessons of FDR before this contest began, that is why she has the sound, well thought out plans ready before the rest finish taking their first press photo shoots. The 2020 election and Global Warming are our existential crises of all time, if we lose either, we will, with almost certainty, lose both. Only Sen Warren has plans to win on the Climate as well as keep democracy viable.
4
Bernie, with AOC as Veep. Or Elizabeth, with AOC as Veep. But two women on the ticket probably is too soon. Aside from how much better off the country would be, can you imagine the entertainment value we’d get from watching the establishment and the moneyed libertarians panic. It’s coming.
2
This article is distorted and biased, part of a campaign to denigrate Bernie Sanders rather than look at his ideas seriously (positively or negatively). FDR was in effect a Social Democrat. Bernie Sanders, despite the unfortunate name "Socialist," is in effect a social democrat. In Europe the socialist intellectuals and on the ground workers thought their way out of communism and socialism into social democracy, which maintains a private ownership, capitalist core economy supporting a generous and comprehensive social benefit system through a tax system that funds the benefits while leaving the rich rich (we have recently hear much about a billionaire on social democratic Denmark).
A huge part of the FDR/Truman administrations' Marshall was to create social democratic nations in Europe. Which happened, with the help huge infusions of US cash and a strong socialist tradition of their own. After WWII there was an attempt to introduce more social democratic programs in the US (such as they were now developing in Europe). One was universal free health care, voted down by the racist southern US Democratic senators as "collectivist" and "communist."
Authors like this one should be ashamed of themselves for playing word games around serious issues.
7
Of course, Roosevelt and Sanders differ in many respects. Comparing any two political figures would uncover similarities and differences. So what? What matters, and what sets FDR, Sanders, Warren, and other followers of the New Deal apart from today's centrist Democrats, is a wholehearted commitment to the dignity and well-being of ordinary working people--in both rhetoric and policy. This commitment is what the Democratic party used to stand for before Clinton moved the party to the right. The truly necessary and pragmatic action today would be to finally admit that neo-liberalism failed and to revive rather than continue to shun the party's proud New Deal legacy.
6
Criticizing FDR’s progressive credentials is like criticizing the Model T as slow and uncomfortable, or the continental congress for the electoral college.
In crafting the New Deal, Roosevelt didn’t have the benefit of 8 decades of prior art. Hoover had adhered, tragically, to the conventional wisdom: all will be well if the budget is balanced. Keynes was little known and Keynesianism untried. Who can blame Roosevelt for having absorbed some of that conventional wisdom and relative unfamiliarity with weird economic theory?
Today there is no excuse. Keynesianism has worked repeatedly and magnificently, including as a counter to the Great Recession. Social security virtually eliminated poverty among the elderly. Universal healthcare, wherever implemented, is cheaper and better than our so-called system.
In 2020, unlike 1932, one need not be a visionary or tinkerer to support progressive policies. One need merely observed the lived experience of millions over decades, and act empirically.
6
We see op ed columns in NYT often include lines that put down Sanders but don’t pay him the respect of data to back up their criticism.
Sanders could run a better, more convincing campaign, but he’s obviously started a needed progressive trend, previously stifled, but now more mainstream. Warren and many others have new acceptance because of it.
We observe how some mainstream liberals are afraid of appearing too ‘left wing, radical’---they make sure to convey they're NOT PRO SANDERS. But our norms are distorted--how else to describe the only modern nation w/o Health Care for All in 21st C?
Sanders is confusing---he calls himself a socialist, says he’s pro capitalism but regulated.
So, let our columnists actually compare some of Sanders ideas with FDR’s New Deal. In amounts of govt money needed, taxes needed, from what groups, and affect of the program on various economic levels. We need this discussion to prevent self serving opponents from dominating policy.
What was the ultimate result of the New Deal on national economic security and equality? Many people today hardly know what the importance of the New Deal was and why it saved US capitalism and millions of average citizens.
We’re at a crucial point in history. A New “New Deal’ is badly needed----with similarities or differences from the old New Deal.
A New New Deal will ensure policies we need to guard against our ever again electing a Trump. His type is lurking in the swamp, ready to surface.
5
When FDR became president more than half the country was small town or rural villages still defined by raw christian beliefs that were racist and at times lost in a fog of beliefs long obsolete. With the TVA and Social Security and a minimum wage, but also a very obvious urban way of thinking wrapped in a kind of folksy radio style FDR pushed the country forward. Today after several decades of republican efforts to erase FDR and his ideas the country is rediscovering them. We are now a truly urban civilization We must have practical and sustainable healthcare, honest wages that allow people to get off federal assistance. And federal regulation of business that reflect 21st century needs.
6
Generally the Times will feature one anti-Sanders article a day supplemented with a gratuitous potshot here and there. But today we get two, one for Mr and one for Mrs. Despite its substantial length, the honesty of the reporter on Mrs Sanders leads him to conclude that there is really no there there. Not so Mr Alter, who uses a completely sanitized portrait of FDR (sort of what some folks do with MLK) and reperated mischaracterizations of Sanders’s positions to concoct a fable about Sanders’s hijacking FDR. Shameful.
6
As far as I know the ONLY democratic presidential candidate who could reasonably be considered “anti-free trade” is Bernie...and what does the author think? That structural change, while not exactly identical to Roosevelt, doesn’t represent a valid historical comparison?
@Jon: The US doesn't even share the same measuring system as the rest of the world. Is this any way to compete in a global economy?
Mr. Alter is correct when he writes FDR replied: “I’m a Christian and a Democrat, that’s all.” However, Mr. Alter neglects to write that FDR was asked not only was he a “Socialist” but also was he a “Capitalist.” He was neither.
President Roosevelt thought of himself as a pragmatist.
Here’s the complete passage from Mr. Alter’s 2006 book – “The Defining Moment – FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope. “ I have a signed copy … from pg. 244:
“A young reporter once asked him, “Are you a socialist?”
“No.”
“Are you a capitalist?”
“No.”
“Well, what is your philosophy?”
“Philosophy? I am a Christian and a Democrat --- That’s all.”
Unquestionably, President Roosevelt was attacked not only by Republicans as a “Socialist” but by former Democrat 1928 Presidential candidate, NY Gov. Al Smith, as an agent of “Moscow.”
Mr. Alter wrote a very fine book … I also wrote my Master’s dissertation in Economic History from the London School of Economics concerning FDR’s economic policies. Bernie Sanders is the most Rooseveltian Legacy Democratic candidate running for president in 2020.
6
You've written a book on F.D.R., and take umbrage with current political candidates who cherry-pick elements of his legacy while ignoring others.
But political candidates are not historians, and none of them are interested in presenting a scholarly, well-rounded view of F.D.R., Washington, Nixon, or anyone else. To critique Sanders for highlighting the New Deal without mentioning that F.D.R. later tacked to the center is fair but pointless. So what? Will you write a follow-up piece about how Trump misuses Abraham Lincoln's historical legacy?
While you don't care for Sanders caricaturing F.D.R., you yourself have no problem with caricaturing Sanders, who (despite right wing / corporate media insinuations to the contrary) has never advocated abandoning capitalism altogether for socialism. Rather, Sanders, like F.D.R., thinks our government and society can accommodate and benefit from elements of both (a capitalist economy with socialized medicine, for example), as many other Western, democratic, capitalist societies already do.
If you wanted us to say that politicians selectively cite political heroes for their own political gain, thank you, but we already knew that. If you wanted to critique Sanders' ideas or candidacy (in favor of Buttigieg's?), then I don't think failing to do justice to F.D.R.'s historical complexity is the smoking gun you're looking for.
58
And where does the article mention Frances Perkins, largely recognized as the prime mover of the New Deal?
9
@Chris
good comments!
4
A great big thank you for a great president.
Mr. Alter offers a refreshing, informative and faced-based historical perspective at a time when too few of our leaders are bothering to consider the substance of history's lessons. It's become far too easy for politicians to pander with platitudes, and for voters to lazily be led by empty bromides.
This is not to say that the world today is just as it was generations ago, and that everything proposed in the past remains as relevant today as it was then. Clearly, neither is the case. Nor are many voters sufficiently informed about what FDR, for example was all about, or about the times in which he governed.
Rather than toss around superficialities while playing simplistic forms of target practice with one's political opponents, our would-be leaders of today would be well served, as would Americans generally, by informing themselves about facts and details from our nation's history and its present circumstances, rather than becoming poster-children who recite epithets that have little relationship to the past they are trying to emulate, or to the details of issues we as a nation face today.
1
And why should we believe that the author understands legacy of FDR correctly? I personally think he is wrong. Whatever your thinking about FDR ideas today, they were really bold back there. They may look moderate today but then they were revolutionary. Beside it is ridiculous to compare the SS that serve to everybody with bailout of banks that benefit narrow group of people. That's why we are talking about FDR as the President with great achievements, and view Bush as failure, and Obama as decent President but not a game-changer in mold of FDR.
1
Oh - you mean FDR;s legacy like internment camps and his prolonging the Great Depression,
2
@Amy: There was great political pressure to punish Japanese-Americans for the Pearl Harbor attack, just as all Muslims are ascribed some onus for 9/11 now, by Trump's base. To someone's credit, people at least had the option to move east of the Mississippi to stay out of internment camps.
1
@Amy And also rejecting German Jewish refugees and sending them back to Germany. BUT. We must always remember that all great presidents make colossal mistakes.
Biden’s political pedigree is far closer to FDR than Warren’s. Unlike her, both FDR and Biden were/are professional politicians with many years of practicing the craft of compromise with Republicans. Perhaps this election’s Democratic theme song should be The Stones’ version of “you can’t always get what you want, but IF you try, sometimes, you get what you NEED.”
1
I studied what amounted to, “New Deal Economics” in the 1960’s, and I completely agree with this columnist’s approach and ideas.
—
“Liberal agenda,” you say? I heartily approve!
1
So Mr Alter faults Bernie Sanders for advocating policies that FDR never dreamed of advancing in 1936. Maybe so, but what unites both politicians is their firm belief that the federal government--and only a strong federal government working on the people's behalf--is in a position to protect citizens from big money interests. Alter neglects to mention another line from Roosevelt's famous speech about welcoming the hatred of Wall Street bankers. He accused them of seeing government as "a mere appendage of their own affairs"...and he claimed "that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mobs." Bernie is not stealing FDR's thunder. He is sounding a theme that is as true today as it was more than eighty years ago.
5
@Bob Chisholm: The Constitution empowers Congress with the "Commerce Clause" to prohibit all destructive economic competitions between states and to assure that the law protects equally nationally.
The passive and very well educated (to be serfs) people will not support an FDR type candidate, because socialism. We need a world war and a depression before the people will stop believing in conservatism. It is without a doubt that the people have not suffered enough to wake from their brainwashed state.
Look how conservative the democratic party is. It's not just GOP-lite, it is GOP with some sympathy for non-whites. Not enough to do anything about anything, but they pretend to care. I suppose it allows them to sleep at night. However, they truly believe the message of the GOP.
Ten percent of Americans are liberals. The rest are conservatives, and the Trump party is the far right of the right wing nation.
The South benefited more from the New Deal disproportionately in the 1930's. Projects like roads and the TVA provide advantages they can still rely upon as of this day. FDR did not confront the injustice of Jim Crow directly, but had little choice, were he to get the support of the Dixiecrats. Pragmatist is not a dirty word in this context. The effects lasted until the insidious policies of Reagan took root. Somehow we went from "we are all in this together," to "you are on your own." I suspect that we will experience a recession that will shake us to our bones, fairly soon. I hope that it sweeps Dems to control both Houses and the Presidency, so we can pull ourselves into a true shared burden. I have a hat that says: "Make America, America again."
Once you realize that Capitalism is not a form of government, and, like all human phenomena has good and bad aspects, i.e. it is not a panacea for all good things, it is easy to understand the role of Government-by-and-for-the-People as a necessary influence, and yes, regulator of the "market". Market forces are not "natural" phenomena. Markets are controlled by humans. Markets are ALWAYS governed by people. The question is, do you as a Citizen want to have a say on how predatory and exploitative your fellow human beings can be, or do you want the governance to default to an ever powerful corporate plutocracy? Reagan with his nonsensical "government is the problem" made the decision for all Americans that voted for him, and it has been a back-slide into the decay embodied by Trump ever since. Think about it.
5
@Ghost Dansing: Capitalism is an economic system that normalizes any exchange through the medium of currency, and provides means for people with idle money to earn more money by lending to others with a more urgent use for it, or by purchasing shares in business ventures. That's all there is to it.
@Ghost Dansing: Reagan got himself elected by promising to prove to his voters that government is inherently incompetent. With that, and some double dealing with Iranian revolutionaries holding hostages taken from the US embassy in Teheran during the Islamic Revolution, he sailed into office.
FDR was a pretty punk domestic president, he did a lot of damage to 1930's America, prolonged the suffering during the Depression, and set programs in place that have long run out of steam and money. Yet the left has pushed ad nauseum the nostrum that FDR 'saved America', he didn't. New Deal Liberalism was a bust both short and long term and Americans who think (and that is a dodgy proposition) understand this. They aren't going to get sucked in to electing anybody who promises stuff for 'free' by taxing the rich.
1
@Evitzee
please pray tell, tell us WHY FDR was punk and WHY the New Deal was a bust.
That’s a load of Hayek bunk, nothing more.
You know what program is running out of money? The military. Their funding runs out in 2019 without congressional action.
Revanchists have been trying to discredit Keynesianism ever since it succeeded and kept on succeeding, bringing historic prosperity not only to Americans but to the entire industrialized world, and beyond.
The evidence against the New Deal and the welfare state more broadly is nil. The wealthy country with minimal government doesn’t exist. Rail all you like; the data speak volumes.
3
@Sirlar Very possibly, Sirlar, because Evitzee is a Republican.
FDR was 'slow' on civil rights for blacks? What president elected in the '30s could have succeeded in moving faster? Murder of blacks-- lynching-- got no punishment. The civil rights movement was in the future.
Blacks in the armed forces who risked their lives in battle for the country were kept separate from the ‘superior white race’ troops. Or did menial jobs.
It wasn't until black soldiers came back from WW2, after fighting to block the racist Nazi dictator from world dominance, that the govt could no longer maintain our legal racial apartheid in the armed services. Then Truman in 1948 could start the desegregation of the military.
Eleanor Roosevelt did work hard for civil rights. The FDR library says "In the 1950s her work so angered the Ku Klux Klan, they put a $25,000 bounty on her. She got death threats throughout her life because of her work."
FDR had spoken out strongly against lynching on his national radio broadcasts. He needed Southern Democrats to pass his New Deal program and they blocked any anti lynching bill. So legalized murder of blacks went on.
The powerful Southern anti civil rights politicians headed important Senate committees, and called the shots for decades into the future.
This is who Joe Biden worked with, like Eastland and Thurmond, etc ---strong racial segregationists.
Now it's a 2020 issue. As America now needs a New ‘New Deal’, we’ll see who is going to promote it, or block it, or give it lip service.
This article still gets it wrong. FDR obviously wasn't a socialist, but neither is Bernie. He just wants an invigorated welfare state, and that's completely compatible with capitalism. Socialism calls for the abolition of capitalism and the takeover of the state by the working class. When has Bernie ever demanded that?
5
The term socialism in any context is red meat for the Democrat/Left bashing by GOP and their base is eating it up. Even though we are clearly a Republic based upon lower case democratic and socialist principles. The time now is for democracy in the work place and Elizabeth Warren has been the only candidate to lay out realistic plans to achieve this. Our compacts of “at will employment,” are a sad joke and the notion of any parity between employer and employee is equally baseless. We cannot continue to let a few industrialist determine the lives and fortunes of the nation. Why do you think we have overcrowding in cities? Why do you think we have urban decay in many of our once major manufacturing cities? Why do you think a Walmart can enter a vicinity, put all local competitors out of business and subsequently shutter its own doors for no apparent reason leaving that vicinity with no business district or income?
Capitalism must become responsible to the society that ensures its existence, Roosevelt knew this and has New Deal saved capitalism. Maybe Warren will save capitalism from itself this time.
Good piece. I write only to highlight a minor failing for those who don't know the history. Alter says Roosevelt "won mostly because voters despised Hoover." This is burying the lead. FDR won because the nation was facing the greatest economic crisis in its history with 25% unemployment and banks failing (meaning, you lost all the money you had saved). It was called the Great Depression for a reason. And if the the voters despised Hoover it was because he appeared not to be up to the great challenge he faced.
@David: The Federal Reserve Bank has been organized after the Panic of 1907 under the auspices of J. P. Morgan to sustain liquidity through economic crises. It didn't function as intended in the Crash of 1929.
@Phil Hartman
Her conclusions were way off base. If Shlaes or you can recall, interest rates set by the Fed were near zero during the Depression. Monetary policy was useless because there was no DEMAND in the economy. There are much better books out there on the Depression.
The essence of FDR was if something was broken, fix it. If that fix didn't work, try something else. In contrast, the current Trumpian mantra is to acquire power and keep it by all necessary means -- fixing is for "losers".
1
@StanC: Trump breaks things just to see what will happen.
1
"Since then, even Democratic presidents have often been forced to play on Ronald Reagan’s conservative side of the field."
Forced to play by who? New Deal policies are still quite popular with the public.
The author is referring, of course, to the donor class, the corporations that have captured every branch of our government and demand that popular programs like Medicare for all never be implemented.
2
@Ed Watters: The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, determined that money donated to them should be the objective measure of popularity for all politicians.
Today's Republicans have had a plan and strategy to gain and hold power and increase the wealth of the rich. The plan includes gerrymandering, voter suppression, filling the courts with conservatives, creating and circulating conservative drafts of legislation, reducing the power of labor unions, voodoo economics and the Laffer curve, racist dog-whistles, appeals to a resentful silent majority, denigration and shrinking of government power in economic areas along with celebrating and increasing its power to impose conservative morality and fight subversion, and other areas.
FDR's legacy is restless, adhoc experimentation to deal with specific social, economic, and political problems. He was first elected president on a conservative platform of balancing the budget, governed in another direction entirely, and after some success retreated to less spending and produced a Depression encore. Like Trump and Reagan, he was a master of marketing to his base, and like Reagan he was able to expand this base.
He saved capitalism and corrected some abuses without attacking or breaking its fundamental power and ideological appeal. He did not portray it as what it is -- at best a necessary evil, a dangerous force with buit-in tendencies to turn into oligopoly and plutocracy that cannot be trusted and must be constantly monitored and watched, and whose portrayal of itself as benign must be constantly challenged and contested.
As usual in the Times, your paraphrases of Sen. Sanders' positions do not accurately portray them.
He is trying to define "Socialism" pragmatically. I do not even see him as a real Socialist.
Yesterday, Leonhardt asked us to "give Biden a break." Biden has already had too many breaks. Give Sanders a break!
69
@dr. c.c.....yeah, I was surprised at Leonhardt's headline---give Biden a break? And he had no comments with it--as is true of his columns lately. Scanning the article tho, the title was misleading-- he criticized Biden. It was strange.
Sanders has stated he is pro capitalism, not for govt to own our production--- but he wants regulated capitalism, as we had in past generations.
But where are the details that voters can understand?That's how our middle class expanded and got stronger. Today, other democracies, even with their problems, have carried on our New Deal, while we rolled it back.
Our media columnists don't analyze this.
7
@dr. c.c.: I don't see Sanders as a real Democrat.
3
Your editorial says, "Senator Warren’s challenge is that today’s economic anxieties might not be powerful enough to drive real change." Wait another six months....
It is true that the economy is in better shape than it was in the 30s, but not really. Wages are stuck in a time warp, and corporations have all the money. Still, Warren really seems to care about all of us, not just the 1%. I've been a Democrat since I first voted after returning from Vietnam in 1970. I also used the GI Bill, as someone who grew up in a trailer park because we were quite poor, to become professor at UC, Berkeley. I am a living example of the benefit of what my grandparents (staunch Democrats) called Roosevelt democracy. It is truly sad that the angry white Americans who so vehemently support Trump have no clue.
242
@M.S. Shackley
Unfortunately it took the worst depression in the nation's history to convince voters that the Republican plan of simply staying out of business' way wasn't working.
Herbert Hoover, who, despite all his many failings, was a brilliant man who had demonstrated compassion in his work during WWI and its aftermath, thought the economy would right itself if the government largely left its hands off. Can you imagine how fast voters would run from Trump, who has none of Hoover's good qualities, if we faced another great depression and just had him calling for more tax cuts for the wealthy to fix everything.
27
If you were eligible to use the GI Bill, you had EARNED it. What have Gen X, Gen Y or Millennials done to earn free college? Like me, if they cannot afford it, we don’t belong there.
2
As for Hoover's demonstration of compassion, let us not forget his ordering Army Chief of Staff Doug McCarthur to clear out the encampment of poor and unemployed military veterans from a "Hooverville" in Anacostia Flats in D.C., which Doug did by turning the Army upon them with violence and vengeance.
63
I've always called myself a Roosevelt democrat for a few good reasons. He truly was a pragmatist and understood that to work, our republic must truly work for everyone, not just the wealthy or corporate few.
1
Historians, economists and sociologists will point to the period from 1945 to 1980 as being the high water mark of the American middle and working classes as well as being an aberration in America’s social and economic history. Eventually, those workers will have died off, ending living memories of a “golden age”.
Since 1980 less money has been spent on infrastructure than on tax cuts; less enforcement and repeal of financial rules has made it easier for fewer people to accrue more wealth; less enforcement of merger/acquisitions rules have reduced the number of industrial players, and by extension, jobs; lower taxes have reduced educational and job training investment, etc. And, as the Democrats have become more conservative (Clintons/Obama), the Republicans have become more reactionary, socially as well as fiscally.
Also in the '80s Milton Friedman espoused a new corporate view of the economy that was developed, and embraced, by the Reagan Administration and neoconservatives. Friedman radically posited that corporate directors had a single obligation: maximize shareholder returns. Moral/fiscal obligations to employees, customers and the community were minimized, then ignored entirely.
1
There is nostalgia for FDR as he represents a rare politician who genuinely cared about the working class and was not bought and paid for. His own class despised him for this, but FDR welcomed their hatred. He is a saint compared to our recent republican-lite democratic presidents.
4
We rolled back the New Deal, while other democracies expanded their version. Our middle class is now weaker.
Once, our average citizens got representation for their taxation. State college low/free tuition was tax supported. Millions were the 1st in their families after the Depression to get a degree, then middle class security. Then taxes on their higher earnings paid back the govt for its support.
Today other countries have low cost college, support for unions, apprenticeship training, and health care as a right. This is the New Deal the US needs.
But here HC for all is still labeled ‘radical’, college debt is a trillion- $ burden for grads, unions are weakened, and training reduced. These are all high profit centers.
Alter's book The 1st hundred days is excellent. Another book is 'The Gifted Generation: When Government Was Good', by Goldfield---- "A sweeping, path-breaking history of post–World War II decades, when activist federal government guided the country to the first real flowering of the American Dream."
FDR’s New Deal saved capitalism after the ’29 Crash. Even Bernie Sanders states he's pro capitalism- but regulated.
Let's discuss --in our topsy turvy system, our govt is actually regulated by corporations-- for profit and political power---instead of our elected govt regulating huge concentrations of business, so that the public interest is represented.
The remedy to restore Ameriica should be called Social Democracy, not Democratic ‘Socialism’.
2
FDR never abandoned the New Deal.
He globalized it with the Four Freedoms / Atlantic Charter. Eleanor took the next step and made sure it was in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
5
The legacy of FDR is one that still strikes fear and anger in the hearts of conservatives. That alone is a tribute and a validation.
The Republican Party has abandoned reason, facts, and principles for power. Their only remaining strategy is bigotry in the service of greed.
Where would we be now, if Obama had been able to have third term - and where will we be if Trump gets a second?
For those who complain that the country is so divided now, it's because the differences between the two parties are so stark. The party of FDR is rediscovering its roots. The party of Lincoln has abandoned them completely.
2
@Larry Roth
The Republican Party is, ideologically, the party of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Dixiecrats, Jesse Helms, et al.
Abraham Lincoln could not be a Republican today. Nor could today's Republicans support him.
Neither Lincoln, TR nor Eisenhower would be welcome in this iteration of the Republican Party.
2
In 1982, sociologist John Pandiani made claim in the British Journal of Sociology that an unrecognized and unintended consequence of FDR's CCC was to remove from urban centers a significant number of young men who unemployed, were at risk for criminal behavior, resulting in a decrease in crime rates during the 1930s. What Pandiani called the "Crime Control Corps" shows that FDR was not as much"environmentally prescient" as the other Roosevelt's creation of our national park system and its protections.
The analysis of FDR misses a few salient points.
FDR's "New Deal" was a rip-off of Theodore Roosevelt's "Square Deal."
The programs he enacted in his firs 100 days were largely Hoover's programs that the Congress had rejected.
FDR's massive government spending sucked capital from the economy and dried up credit. His tax hikes led to the "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937-38.
Roosevelt said he was a Christian and a Democrat. Today's democratic [sic] party, being a Christian ... especially a white male privileged Christian, would have no place for FDR.
3
@Liberty hound Biden and Pete are both extremely privileged white men who are openly Christian.
Yet another example of white men playing victim when they are the victor.
"But when Mr. Sanders quotes that line in his stump speech, he doesn’t mention that Roosevelt soon tacked to the center."
Yes, and by 1937 the Depression kicked in again. FDR had taken some bad advice from Morgenthau and Joe Kennedy and reduced the fiscal spigot to a trickle.
Read volume 1 of "The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes."
1
@trblmkr Actually, his tax hikes were responsible for the FDR Recession, not a pull-back on spending.
In fact, the politicization of federal spending by government employees (vote for FDR or no aid for your town) led to the Hatch Act.
...ideas for using government to improve lives ..."
Now there's a worthwhile notion.
Trump claims to be making America great, but there is so much evidence he is achieving the contrary, lie by lie, insult by insult. His modus operandi is hasty and ill-conceived pronouncements, appointments to unqualified loyalists bound to counteract the better aspects of America; distancing our nation from science and reason and factual evidence; from nations we have traditionally aligned ourselves with; toward nations who lie back at us and do not wish us (or their own citizens) well.
FDR was flawed, too. There is no pardon for his failure, when he had the opportunity, to admit children fleeing persecution and extermination in Hitler's Europe. No pardon for the treatment of Japanese citizens. He was not a saint.
But in his way and in his time he did a great deal to use government to improve lives. We can only hope our next President, unlike the current one, will move in that direction, too.
All the warm remembrances of FDR expressed by the older commentators here reminded me of my aunt's husband and a drawing he made of a man that hung in their kitchen. Sometime or other I was told that that man was Franklin Roosevelt. Aside from family photographs that drawing was the only human likeness in their home. It told me something really memorable about that man and my Uncle Benny. As I grew I learned why FDR had earned that place of honor. I hope that someone will introduce his story to the young people of day, perhaps in a bio-pic.
I think its worth pointing out that Roosevelt's vision and his effectiveness in bringing about the New Deal was enabled by two brilliant and effective women, Eleanor Roosevelt and his choice of Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins. Whomever would wear Roosevelt's mantle might pay some attention to their biographies. In particular, read The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life and Legacy of Frances Perkins by Kirstin Downey. It's a great read about a great leader in American economic and social policy who was able to move Congress to act on the New Deal legislation and to overcome the prevailing prejudice against women in political positions -- she was the country's first female Cabinet member -- even within the Roosevelt administration and by some in organized labor.
1
@David J. Rosen And the G.I. Bill was the brain-child of Rep. Edith Nourse-Rodgers (R-MA).
Mr. Alter is clearly biased against Sanders. How does Roosevelt pivoting to the center take away from the context in which Sanders recalled the quote? Was there anything inherently dishonest in what he said?
The parallels between 3rd Way and Wall Street Corporate Democrats (not to mention Republicans) despising Sanders and the oligarch's treatment of Roosevelt are striking. Nobody said its a carbon copy of that situation, much less an economic one.
Will Corporate Democrats get on board with Sanders if he wins the nomination? That questions remains unanswered and frankly I'm very skeptical. I'll happily vote for Warren or Gabbard as alternatives to Bernie, even reluctantly Harris or Buttigieg, but I would under almost no circumstances vote for a Biden or a Klobuchar.
However, everyone should remember that Hilary Clinton lost white women so don't look at Sanders supporters as part of the problem.
5
What Democrats don't understand is that there are two words which may not be uttered as part of the platform of any viable candidate for President in 2020- those two words are "Socialism" and "Reparations." If Trump is re-elected then those two words will best explain the reason for the debacle.
1
Sanders is no Roosevelt democrat. He was a child when Roosevelt died. He has spent all of his life as a socialist working against Democratic Presidents from Kennedy to Obama as often as working with them. He helped Trump win in 2016, and Trump is salivating at the prospect of the same in 2020.
1
@strangerq: Sanders hung in as long as he could praying that James Comey would take down Hillary for him.
Let's be honest here, the "rebranding" of socialism in this election cycle is about one core Democratic constituency, not the broader electorate that actually understands what socialism is and why it won't work in America.
It is completely our fault, but the pitiful millennial children we've raised fully expect someone -- whether it is their mommies, government bureaucrats or aliens from space -- to fix the world for them. Raised on a steady diet of participation trophies, artificial fairness and managed outcomes, they view a world of market competition and choice with consequences as being dangerous and unfair. Throw in their obsession with "identity," and it is easy to see why super-protective government and a world of free stuff -- college, healthcare, internet, weed -- would appeal to this group. This might be the antithesis of freedom and liberty, but those qualities of American life do not resonate with people who would rather have guaranteed outcomes.
Liz and Bernie do the best job of scaring our kids about the horrors of a truly competitive world. Capitalism, they say, is inherently unfair, especially to losers. The great mommy of government must step in to rebalance the scales at every turn. And they "have a plan" to ensure trophies for everyone. If capitalism is the great Satan, socialism must, by default, become the rallying cry.
Our parenting did this!
@AR Clayboy Absolutely brilliant analysis, and well-written too. Thank you for this- it explains a lot. (My grown children will be having a difficult week conversing with me.)
The bottom line re FDR is I like to say he did great things but was not a great president like Washington or Lincoln.
The latter two had no major flaws in line with the era they were in.
FDR refused to advance an anti lynching bill and put Japanese Americans in prison camps.
Even at that time, lynching was considered horrible by a majority of the country and the internment fiasco was relatively quickly remedied showing he was out of sync with his fellow Americans.
2
You failed to mention that when FDR tried to balance the budget, it caused a recession within a depression and he immediately backed off.
1
It's stunning how a nominal scholar of FDR can get away with printing so much that is factually inaccurate (and that the Times refused to fact-check). Here are two especially egregious examples:
Social Security was not FDR's idea - it was Huey Long's as part of his Share Our Wealth program which Roosevelt merely co-opted; Roosevelt tacked to the center in 1936 but those policies included disastrous austerity which erased the economic gains from his more leftist policies and extended the Great Depression into WWII.
1
When I was a child, my family said that Franklin Roosevelt was a "traitor to his class". In their view, he was supposed to stick up for the elite and wealthy, and instead chose to react appropriately to the misery of the times. I fervently hope we can choose such a one now - with the highest income inequality of all the "rich" nations, half a million people with no homes, and endless domestic misery, we sure could use a president with the same instincts as FDR.
1
Had I been around, I would have trusted FDR to guide us through the Depression and World War II, and I trust President Sanders to guide us through today's wars against fascism, foreign and domestic.
2
@Eugene Debs: Roosevelt's last two years were a succession of TIAs that made him a stage prop.
So long as Mich McConnell remains a senator it really doesn't matter who does Roosevelt best. McConnell, cynical, corrupt to his core, will remain the rock in the stream of progress and justice if he is re-elected. The Democrats offer us a number of imaginative, inspiring, thoughtful, national political leaders any one of whom will be undone by the voters of Kentucky. Roosevelt certainly had his detractors and political opponents, none as powerful, self serving, small minded and willfully corrupt as Mich McConnell. For us to move ahead, to regain our Democracy and our national self respect McConnell has to go, full stop.
@Kelly: McConnell is elected by the Republican Senate majority. They're all in cahoots with or chained to McConnell. They hang together to avoid getting hanged separately, for reasons that remain obscure.
We owe much to Senator Bernie Sanders for his contribution to equality, that hasn't changed over the decades. I voted for him in the Primary in 2016.
Bernie will be 78 in a couple of months. I just think that is too old for the Presidency. (I'm 86) He should be a senior adviser in the area of his expertise.
1
This is potted history from a guy who is so cynical he conflates 'Socialism', which is government control of the means of production, with "Democratic Socialism" which are the policies which govern most of Western Europe and Canada - and which derive without exception from the New Deal policies FDR put in place here, which created the middle class country that enabled and cosseted guys like Alter in the first place. Of course FDR would describe himself as a Democrat and a Christian rather than provoke the nattering nabobs of his day into a debate about Marx. Hardly dispositive. If I was Alter's history teacher, I would give him a D for this essay. Go back and try to look at history through a less 'politically biased' lens.
4
I would like to comment on this article as several of the items regarding the New Deal and FDR's coziness with business are not true but I can't get past Mr. Alter's comment about Bernie Sander's "brand of democratic socialism." What brand is he referring to: Colgate, Pepsodent, Crest? Without defining that, I can't make a decision whether Mr. Alter is correct that Bernie Sander's version of democratic socialism is not comparable to the New Deal.
@Tim Moran: "Democratic" socialism is a policy of giving the public the power to allocate how taxes are applied, and taxed money is spent, though a representative political process. Taxation and spending comprise the public sectors of mixed economies.
FDR's Second Bill of Rights was a visionary concept, and listed "rights" that his successors worked on, with varying success, for decades afterward. Medical care, a good education, a decent home--the post-War generation pursued these issues imperfectly, but at least they tried, and they presided over a legitimately egalitarian economy.
But it is on the area of work where we have failed the most, and I think modern Democrats can reverse this failure. "Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies"--every president from Reagan on, Democrats included, have been awful on the issue of antitrust. And a real right to "a useful and remunerative job" has never been considered seriously.
I agree with mainstream Catholic theology on this subject. Popes from the time of Leo XIII (1890s) have asserted again and again that "as a person, man [and woman] is therefore the subject of work." John Paull II ( a Pope I disagreed with on many things) wrote that in 1981 in the encyclical Laborem Exercens. What this logically leads to is another statement of principle: "The Church is convinced that work is a fundamental dimension of man's existence on earth."
Later in this encyclical, he describes the "...error of economism, that of considering human labor solely according to its economic purpose."
What he just described there is the American way. Democrats, like FDR, can campaign to restore our balance at work, and I can't think of any issue that would unite us more.
1
@Bill D. Americans live to work, and Europeans work to live.
FDR saw the collective national wealth of the US as an insurance reserve fund to be cultivated with taxation and spending to provide an enduring foundation for private enterprise.
My mother's mother, my grandma, had two images on the wall in her tiny wooden house in rural Pennsylvania, FDR and Jesus. " Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
2
I always remember that famous quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes about Roosevelt:
"A second class intellect, but a first class temperament".
With trump I am sure he would have said something like:
"5th class intellect, 6th class temperament".
The spirit of the Democratic Party that needs to be revived is Eleanor Roosevelt. I believe she was the most remarkable and influential politician since Lincoln. Much of the liberalism we ascribe to FDR came from her. I miss her.
3
Experiment? Yes. But then look at the data. Trickle down economics was an experiment. The data shows that it failed. Then like any scientist back to the drawing board and try another experiment. A public option to buy into Medicare and Medicaid would be a good experiment. Then the next experiment should be based on the results.
@PETER EBENSTEIN MD: Trickle down economics rests on the false assumption that the multiplier effect of creating a job differs between public and private sectors. Actually there is no difference. The difference is in the source of funding, which is coerced with taxation by public sectors. This continuous movement of money gives an economy momentum that carries the private sector along with it.
@Steve Bolger Not sure what you mean by the movement of money. Giving a tax break to the super-rich at the expense of taxing the middle class, reducing social safety net programs, reducing expenditures on the health and education (of the work force) is counterproductive in terms not only of social good, but also in terms of long term economic growth.
The bankruptcy that now threatens the U.S. is more a moral and spiritual one than an economic one, even if the current economic situation is still pretty shaky.
With t rump as so called president we are in danger of succumbing to the cynicism and fear that has been the message from the republican party for years, but that now is certainly made undeniable by him.
Bernie is fast becoming my least favorite candidate currently in the scrum; we are enduring one cranky old man now I don't think we need to follow him with another cranky old man, even if I agree with most of his ideas.
But with so many voices and ideas coming from these Democrats, voters will hear about ideas that might have sounded scary yesterday but will sound more mainstream and less scary tomorrow.
I have great hope seeing Mayor Pete, and Amy, and Elizabeth, and the rest fighting the good fight for US.
In a year and 6 months it will then be up to We the People to do the right thing and vote to hold t rump and his crime family/administration to account.
Anyone who cannot see that any of the democrats running are far, far superior to the sleaze that squats in our White House is just not paying attention.
3
Let's consider the author of this piece. Jonathan Alter is a neo-liberal Democrat who supported the Iraq War and now is a supporter of the education fraud known as charter schools. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are presenting policies decades after FDR was deemed by some to be a "traitor to his class." Today's Democrats need to turn the tide against years of a neo-liberal/conservative agenda that created great wealth inequality, decimated unions and has jeopardized the social safety net that many have come to depend on (they're not "entitlements.") I have read much of Alter and seen him on TV. An objective historian he is not, a political pundit with an axe to grind he is.
11
@Stew
In other words, the perfect talking head for MSNBC.
Mr. Alter's essay reminds me of the missed opportunity of 2008-2009. The economy was sufficiently bad and Americans were sufficiently frightened to vote for a half-African American President and for his party. Barack Obama was given the mandate and the tools to enact a Rooseveltian panoply of initiatives. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama had made a solemn promise to the dying Edward Kennedy. Mr. Obama kept this promises and piled up all of his political chips on a single large project: Obamacare. This was a fatal mistake. It was both too much and too little at the same moment. Had Obama instead pursued the Roosevelt scattergun strategy of a bunch of faster acting smaller programs he would not have lost his mandate in 2010. He would have been able to pursue a better Obamacare later with a more deeply established reserve of political support.
At this time--in 2019--the only Roosevelt who can offer a relevant example is Theodore.
1
My mother, a schoolteacher, had as her number one hero, FDR. I remember the day he died. I was five years old. According to her, he kept our country democratic and hopeful in the darkest of times. I believe we are again at a most critical junction. I think of myself as a centrist desperately hoping that our democracy will survive this latest awful attack. No president is above the law, there are three branches of government, and there must be oversight. We are about to lose all of the above. My sign would read "Anyone but Trump."
83
@Cathy I mean, most of the country. I know a family who lost hope and fled the country after the war for fear of being placed in internment camps again. At least they didn't have much to carry with them. FDR: the original Marie Kondo.
4
@momo41
Among others:
1. Obstructing Justice
2. Profiting from the Presidency
3. Collusion with a foreign power
4. Violating Immigrants' Right to Due Process
5. Violating Campaign Finance Laws
34
@momo41: Trump may not have been convicted yet of breaking any laws as president but that does not mean that he hasn't broken any laws. Arguably there are two main reasons that Trump wants so badly to be reelected in 2020. One is to be in a position to continue enriching himself in violation of the law. The other is to avoid the prosecution that surely awaits him once he is out of office.
14
FDR did not run as an "upbeat fuzzy moderate" - just read his Oct. 25th speech in Baltimore -
"I am waging a war in this campaign
a frontal attack -- an onset against the "Four Horsemen"
of the present Republican leadership : The Horsemen of Destruction, Delay, Deceit, Despair." http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/msf/msf00589
84
@Paul Sparrow
"I am waging a war in this campaign
a frontal attack -- an onset against the "Four Horsemen"
of the present Republican leadership : The Horsemen of Destruction, Delay, Deceit, Despair."
That statement might be a better rallying cry for a Dem Presidential candidate, than any reference to FDR's New Deal.
20
@Paul Sparrow--I can only assume you mean to say he was a progressive, which he was. Seems like we have the very same Kind of toxic "leadership," today. Let's get rid of it, once and for all.
6
@Nirmal Patel
FDR's rhetoric is too dramatic to take seriously: destruction? As in a bomb destroying a building? On the contrary, today's Repubs want the economy to grow: to fill the pockets of their string-pullers, and ultimately their own.
Delay? Well, they didn't delay in putting their guy (Gorsuch) on the Supreme Court.
Deceit? True, but hard to make stick; they just sling the mud right back, hoping some of it will stick.
Despair? Maybe, but that's a hard thing to sell when unemployment is very low, the Dow is high, wages are rising (finally!), and everyone is talking happily on their cellphone.
Thus, I argue that taking and trying to use FDR's script verbatim is futile. And I like FDR; he used to be my avatar on the internet and on the "Washington Post's" Comment Section.
But we have to move on and find a better rhetorical fit for our unique circumstances: FAKE NEWS, FOX News, hate radio, a very divided nation, Trump, etc.
2
Yes, this is about right on FDR. I am a Sanders supporter, with Elizabeth Warren as my second choice. As a young man, I was a member of Michael Harrington's Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, and Sanders somehow glides over the life and work of Harrington, a good and decent man who struggled to explain socialism to the American people, Democratic Socialism, but usually ended up supporting clearly social democratic policy initiatives. And that's where Sanders ends up by touting the Second Bill of Rights speech from 1944, which Senator Markey has told us inspired, without being named, the overall stance of the Green New Deal Resolution.
The economic left and the ecological left need to come together, and that's the thrust of the Green New Deal Resolution. I am not a socialist today, call myself a social democrat, but reserve the right to move further to the left as we struggle to implement the Second Bill of Rights, which Sanders calls his 21st Century Bill of Rights.
Looking at our climate emergency, which does require a climate mobilization, and the response of the fossil fuel industry, it's not hard to imagine having to nationalize the most reluctant parts of the old fossil fuel establishment. That's a last resort, and we will probably need more, rather than less publicly owned enterprises if only for "benchmarks" to keep the private sector honest.
And we will need a form of democratic national planning unless we are all to make fools of ourselves.
87
You’re a Sanders supporter.
So when he doesn’t get the nomination this time, please vote for the Democratic candidate. The Sanders supporters allowed Donald Trump. They either voted for Jill Stein or did not vote out of spite. We will never forgive those that behaved that way. They gave us this......what we’re stuck in today. Gee thanks.
16
@MIMA
I do not see it your way at all. I worked for Sanders in the primary, going door to door in Cumberland, MD, an old de-industrialized city which has lost its industry and half of its 1950's population, the story of rural red state America, even in purple states.
I voted for Mrs. Clinton in November of 2016. Reluctantly. And I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party in Nov. of 2020, even though I am no fan of Joe Biden, if he is the nominee. I don't believe he is up to the tasks before us intellectually, and he looks pale and weak on the campaign trail, unlike Sanders and Warren who look vigorous, physically and intellectually.
32
@MIMA Yeah we'll never forgive you either.
7
This just piece completely misinterprets what the candidates are trying to do and bends history in such a way as that it only becomes completely false. The point sanders is trying to make is that his policies are not far from the mainstream and to many people on the left at the time Roosevelt’s candidacy was a symbol it wasn’t necessarily about him. This is what sanders is doing he is saying this is an agenda deeply rooted in the historical roots of the modern Democratic Party and we must try to regain that energy. You can say he moved to the center but that was while he was president this is during the campaign. Crazy how you dismiss what figures like Henry Wallace meant while Roosevelt was president and how those policies that they talked about then still need to be completed.
3
To follow FDR, the first idea these candidates can give voice to is that the era of supply-side economics is over.
FDR and his team embraced Keynesian demand-side theory. It was essential to the formation of programs that put people back to work during the 1930s (John Maynard Keynes "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money").
Because of this, the years 1935-1980 saw the greatest increase in the wealth of the middle-class, as high federal individual tax rates on income over $ 400K/yr. (91% in 1951 declining to 75% by 1980) meant the nation's tax system performed successfully its two-part mission: to fund the operations of the federal government and to redistribute wealth downward to fuel the economy.
Also, corporations were taxed at rates that saw them actually contribute to federal inflows--in 1952, corporate taxes were 32% of total federal revenues received (in contrast, 2016 saw corp. taxes contribute only 8% of all federal inflows. The other 92% came from individuals).
What happened in 1980 to reverse this program?
Ronald Reagan and the reactionary propaganda of the rich; they'd seen that, relative to all, they were losing wealth (and with it political influence).
That is what the last 40 yrs. have been about. Restoring a society where the rich rule, and the rest of us are serfs.
Supply-side economics has been a con job to convince poor people that making the rich richer is really good for them.
And Trump just gave Arthur Laffer the medal of freedom.
5
@Biff Also, we can't overemphasis the role of increasing union membership across the economy during 1935-1980, as its effects created real wealth and security for participants (and for everyone else).
Union membership peaked in 1958 at 32% of all workers; today that number has been reduced to 11%. As it comes down, so does the nominal and relative net worth of all American workers.
Relative net worth is a ratio of your net worth compared to the richest of the rich.
Today, 50% of American households don't have $ 10,000 in net worth. By contrast, Jeff Bezos is est. to be worth $ 110 billion. So, relative to Mr. Bezos, the ratio of your net worth to his is 1:11,000,000.
Do you think he has extra money lying around to influence the US political scene? Do the Koch brothers? Does Sheldon Adelson?
In 2008, hedge fund mgr. John Paulson was estimated to have made $ 3.2 billion. If he was taxed at a rate of 90%, the federal treasury would have received $ 2,880,000,000. and he would have had left $ 320 million to run his household (that should be enough, right?).
Instead, the highest fed tax rate was 38%--so your govt., and you, were deprived of at least $ 1,664,000,000 in revenue because tax rates are now so low compared to what they were when the middle class was being built.
Redistribution of wealth downward fuels economic activity since the poor spend money as soon as they get it. The rich do not. They warehouse it in bonds and company stock that hires no one.
2
@Biff
You've pretty much got it right, but we often lose sight of why Reagan was so successful. After 40 years of FDR-style Democratic policy, the government was bloated, over-involved and stifling. We really were suffering badly from "stagflation," i.e., stagnant economic growth and inflation. In a lot of areas, after seeing government as the way to fix all problems, government HAD become the problem.
Of course, the idea to right size government quickly became an excuse to gut it, turned Reagan into Saint, Reaganomics into a religion. The GOP hasn't had a new economic idea since 1980. It doesn't work!
@Livonian
Not quite. First, the 60s and 70s saw relatively high inflation, but middle-class union members who owned a home saw their net worth increase each year; they benefitted from an annual cost of living increase guaranteed in their contracts, plus home value appreciation (since few owned stock and hard assets prospered).
Those who lost wealth during those years were holders of paper assets--stocks and bonds--not union members.
If you were not a union member, you were at the mercy of your boss; good luck with that at any time, not just the 70s.
Also, if the government were a private enterprise all hands would be ordered to fix it, not gut it like a dead fish.
The evil of Reagan's propaganda was to convince voters who had forgotten who they were (stewards of their government) that their principal asset in life--the democratic system and their federal government--was now their principal problem. All lies.
FDR began his fireside chats with a reminder to America of who they all were and what they were doing together: "...I would like you to know what your government is doing for you..."
The American people ARE their government. They have been that since 1776.
When Reagan said government was the problem, he was speaking in code (which his Conservative Republican backers understood).
What he was really saying was that the American people are the problem because they are getting used to government increasing their net worth and that has to stop.
And stop it they did.
1
FDR was well-educated, well-spoken, well-intentioned, but above all else, he was creative.
The references to his not having all plans in advance, instead thinking and getting ideas "on the ground," along with plans to execute them demonstrate this. That creativity was nurtured, in part, by a life of wealth and, especially by the fact that none of the systems were working when he was elected, so he was free to start from scratch in a way.
But those circumstances would be for naught without his natural imaginative gift.
It's good to hear from Jonathan Alter again, always such a grounded, well-informed, and thoughtful voice.
2
Mr. Alter notes that "today's economic anxieties might not be powerful enough to drive real change." It's necessary to "connect the dots." The fundamentals of the U S economy, and of the global economy, depend upon resource extraction and reckless consumption, and all of this is driving runaway climate change. Environmental instability and extremes are huge factors in the movement of millions of desperate refugees. We shouldn't need another global Great Depression, or another World War, to awaken instincts of self-preservation. And we shouldn't be looking for another FDR, so measuring today's candidates against his standard (or that of Eleanor Roosevelt) will only take us so far.
1
Hillary Clinton's campaign kick-off was at the Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island in New York City. All Democrats, and democratic socialists, share in FDR's legacy and vision of government as uplifting an entire society. Mrs. Clinton's weekly column "Talking it Over" was an homage to Eleanor Roosevelt, as she explained in her first column. https://fdrfoundation.org/hillary-roosevelt-clinton/
1
This piece claims to cut through the misappropriation of Roosevelt by the left, and it makes its agenda quite clear: Roosevelt "understood that in a nation of strivers, the concept [of socialism] is a political loser." But these are not Roosevelt's words or his sentiments; they're Alter's. Alter wants readers to think that Roosevelt, like Alter himself, divided humanity into strivers and losers. But the majority of Roosevelt's initiatives were in keeping with the ideals and objectives of social democracy as it has developed in northern Europe and elsewhere. Roosevelt knew that. What Roosevelt had to say in order to sell these ideals is one thing; what he did, quite another. No reasonable person would say that Roosevelt believed in the wisdom of the "invisible hand" or in an unbridled market. He believed in socializing institutions that had been private before or non-existent. Does that make him a socialist? Yes.
6
I happen to be a socialist, and no, it does not. It makes him somebody who wanted to cut deals to save capitalism, not transition to socialism.
And Alter is quite correct in saying that this country is not about to go socialist.
1
Glad to read that FDR is back in fashion for American liberals.
Does that mean that actual "concentration camps," like for the Japanese on the West Coast during WW II, are also back in fashion, and Trump is forgiven and AOC is sorry?
2
There is one other thing that Roosevelt articulated which seems to get lost in today's political climate. The Four Freedoms: "a world attainable in our own time and generation," and founded upon four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
None of these are socialist, communist, or anti-capitalist. Yet when some of our elected officials speak one would be hard pressed to believe that they support any of this or any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. As a citizen of this country I resent that attitude a great deal. As someone who is Jewish and part of the LGBTQ community I believe that every person's rights, whether they are legal or illegal immigrants, are sacred. Roosevelt didn't distinguish between immigrants and citizens. Perhaps that's reading too much into what he said yet I would think that after having fought two World Wars and dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japan, having fought an unsuccessful war or three, and along with the Civil Rights era's uproar, we would have learned that all human beings deserve these Four Freedoms.
The idea that some people are more equal than others is a way to deny those others rights. If we concentrated more on repairing the country the rest would take care of itself.
6/21/2019 12:25pm
1
@hen3ry
Not only did FDR distinguish between citizens and illegal immigrants, he unfortunately distinguished between citizens and Japanese-American citizens.
And every single modern American president has had some kind of policy intended to reduce and deport illegal immigrants, including "deporter-in-chief" Barack Obama, Bill Clinton (Operation Gatekeeper), Jimmy Carter.
These presidents didn't deny the humanity of illegal immigrants, or their basic human rights. But they realized they were responsible to their nation, and knew that uncontrolled illegal immigration hurts American citizens, and undermines all of the things that average citizens count on.
Higher wages, "free college," universal medical care, affordable rents, good public schools, functioning municipal services, etc., are all undermined by endless numbers of desperate, poor immigrants pouring into the country illegally.
That is not a comment on the humanity of these immigrants. But if Democrats can't get their heads around that notion, can't say it out loud, we're going to have another four years of a monster who *doesn't *see the humanity of immigrants, because Democrats will have simply denied a pressing and crucial issue.
@Hen3ry
In 1981, Reagan said government was the problem.
In 1982, air traffic controllers were the problem.
In 1985, Sandinistas were the problem.
In 1988, Willie Horton was the problem.
In 1991, Saddam was the problem.
In 1995, there were many problems, but for all of them Newt was the answer.
In 1998, Clinton was the problem.
In 2002, Afghanistan was the problem.
In 2003, W.M.D. was the problem (and Saddam, again).
In 2005, North Korea was the problem.
In 2008, sub-prime was the problem (a big one).
In 2009, deficit spending was the problem.
In 2010, the big, new, evil ACA was the problem.
In 2012, China was the problem.
In 2015, Benghazi was the problem.
In 2016, immigration was/is the problem.
Today, Trump is the solution to all and the problems are definitely not healthcare, climate change and infrastructure repair.
Forty years. Thank you, Republicans, for serving your country by identifying problems you have invented, created or caused. And for providing, as usual, no solutions for anything.
Hen3ry, here's a solution: if you're here in America, you've earned your rights. Period.
If you entered illegally, you can register at your local municipal building and we'll put you on the path to citizenship after a six year wait. You can get a drivers license now, access schools and medical care, work and pay taxes like everyone else.
If you enter legally, you wait only four years.
We're a nation of immigrants, folks. And proudly diverse. Embrace it.
1
Buttigieg's use of language is one of the things about him that makes him so appealing. He has stated that conservatives have controlled the language of politics for too long and that one of his aspirations is to changee
1
Fair point. However, what are his specific policies, plans, and detailed means of paying for them.
No more slogans. No more “likeability.” No more having “great” emotive, but general talking points. Specifics.
Candidates who make us think, and think critically, not ones that only make us feel elated.
If you want to make parallels to FDR, think of climate change as our equivalent to WWII. He did not depend on the market to invent the atom bomb.
4
Roosevelt lived in very different times; there was no internet and there was no television. There was radio but Roosevelt was very careful not to say anything too controversial on network radio. This allowed Roosevelt to keep the southern democratic vote by refraining from attacking the Jim Crow laws that were in effect at the time. He let his wife Eleanor attack those laws in northern states but Mrs. Roosevelt's speeches were not carried on nationwide radio so racist southern white voters never heard them. Moreover, while in office, Roosevelt did almost nothing to change the second class status of Afro-Americans in the south. No democrat could get away with that kind of attitude in the 21st century. The consequence is that the deep south will remain republican and Roosevelt's path to victory in the electoral college is no longer workable.
1
Sanders has been more of an FDR Democrat than all the Democrats since Bill Clinton combined. Since Clinton launched his Third Way philosophy, the Democrats have hewed to the right, becoming Republican-lite.
It wasn't until Bernie had the guts to take on the Democratic Establishment and challenge their "wisdom" in anointing Hilary that the Democrats began waking up from their slumber. Though not a member of their party, by running under their banner he saved them from themselves. If you want to compare him to an historical figure, he's the Huey Long of our era (although without Long's colorful, and questionable character). Long was a populist, and perhaps socialist, who implemented many programs to help the common folk in Louisiana as governor 1928-32; he proposed the Share Our Wealth program that Sanders and Warren's proposal echo. It was Long who pushed FDR to the left by threatening to run for President, and likewise Sanders has pushed the Dems to the left with his challenges.
FDR was a great President and his New Deal saved American democracy, but he wasn't without his own flaws. So let's not shoot holes in Sanders for his own shortcomings. His insistence on carrying the Social Democrat label will likely cost him, but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong. Warren and others have picked them up because we need to return to a more equitable system. We need a "New Deal", and whoever can articulate that vision will win back voters who went for Trump.
4
Yes, analogies are usually inaccurate, but I can't help but compare Elizabeth Warren to FDR and Bernie Sanders to Norman Thomas.
Born in "39, the Depression, Roosevelt and the New Deal was learned from first hand accounts. I learned that there was no money, nothing moved, and no hope, until Roosevelt socialism restarted the Country. Then, the Republicans said "you fixed the economy, now give it back us." Roosevelt did partly yield in "36, "a mistake," he said. I had the opportunity of seeing and hearing FDR speak in Nov. "44 at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn and I visited his winter home in Warm Springs GA. I know what FDR knew: that those with the wealth will always be reactionary, preventing progress and will drag the ignorant, stupid, and those who fear "fear itself," Not an endorsement, but the only candidate caste in the image of FDR is Sen. Warren. I would like to see more.
I would like one "Upbeat Fuzzy Moderate 2020" bumper sticker, please.
1
I was delighted to be reminded of the details of Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights, which would make a great plank for the D’s in the upcoming election.
“adequate medical care” = ACA, ACA, ACA
“a good education” = just what it says
“a useful and remunerative job” = ditto
“a decent home” = ditto
“freedom from unfair competition and monopolies” – ditto (with a technology and social media twist)
Whoever ends up with the nomination should contrast each element of these basic rights in policy-oriented detail with everything the opposition represents.
@Michael
You mean the Unaffordable Care Act, under which a modestly earning self-employed person will not qualify for the subsidy? And the $7,000 deductibles? Make mine Medicare for All.
Jonathan Alter is counting on historical illiteracy here when he tries to hold out Sanders to be a socialist but not FDR. In another periodical Alter might get away with that flimflam but not in the NY Times. Democrats today are pursuing the same political goal Roosevelt did in the 30s and 40s: Social Security, healthcare, jobs, living wage and healthcare. Hoover and the GOP, at heart, successfully resisted and thwarted most of those goals. They still do. But one has to hand it to the early 20th century GOP, in branding anything other than unchecked capitalism as "socialism", was a stroke of genius. That flimflam has carried right thru from the 1940s right thru to this Alter column in 2019. Now that's a run.
5
Roosevelt was hated by the corporate elite and thought of as a socialist. In fact there was a fascist plot to remove him by force. The conspirators contacted ex Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler, who blew the whistle on the plot to the newly formed House Un-American Activities committee. Of course no one was ever prosecuted. Among the alleged plotters was Prescott Bush, grandfather of GWB.
4
I decided to put this article's assertions to the test by looking up public opinion on some major issues.
1) According to The Hill: Reuters-Ipsos poll released in August, which also found that 70 percent of Americans supported "Medicare for all."
2) According to Fortune "Support for raising taxes is widespread, according to a new poll, which found that 76% of registered voters want the wealthiest Americans to pay more"
3) According to CNBC "Sixty-two percent of Americans said that they support making public college tuition free for anyone who wants to attend, according to a survey by Bankrate, which polled 1,000 people in late July. The overall margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points."
4) According to Axios date from April 2019, 93% of Solid Democrats support a green new deal, as do 88% of those leaning Democrat, and 64% of those leaning GOP. It's only in the minority with those who are solidly GOP, and even then it polls at 32%
So contrary to what the author would like to have us believe, left proposals enjoy widespread support.
5
The greater good
FDR had one goal, bring progress and social fairness to America. It took a worldwide economic calamity to even give him the chance to break the American people from a dep seated selfishness. FDR spoke of a new deal for the American people, who were banged up enough to listen. The idea of government stepping in to solve fundamental problems and assisting where it could was a new one in the country built on capitalism and where the rich were practically worshipped. FDR broke through this concrete mindset by fighting a million battles to ultimately win the big ones. He also had faith in the American people that once shown the light they would eventually embrace the fact that we are all in this together, and if your neighbors house is on fire you better lend him your garden hose before that fire spreads to your own house. FDR had to break through inherent selfishness at the ehart of the American mindset and It was a tough fight but eventually through perseverance he prevailed, changing America for the better. FDR created the basic rules of how Democracy can continue and thrive. Democracy stands for : everyone equal. The republicans fought FDR with all they had, and they have been fighting these past 80 years to dismantle the safety net he created. Which democrat can follow in FDR's shoes: the one who can best convey his message that democracy only works when we all work together for the greater good. Something the republicans have never understood.
2
I believe Roosevelt was on the right track. We are not a socialist country however are too big and complex for small government. Take farmers, for the most part they want small government however not when it comes to crop insurance and farm support. Midwest wants small government however not when it comes to flood control. We are a rich country and can afford to give everyone security.
1
Jonathan Alter nicely outlines the reasons FDR is regarded as one of our greatest presidents. Many of our 2020 candidates are identifying with parts of him. But the thing each of them lack, at least for now, is something that is hard to quantify: the ability to instill hope and inspire large numbers of Americans. I was not alive during his presidency, but the image I have of FDR (a man with a disability requiring a wheelchair telling a nation "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself") is a wonderfully powerful one.
2
I am a New Deal Democrat. FDR ranks with Lincoln and Washington as our greatest president.
What this article, and most commentary, does not take into account is that the landslide of 1932 not only brought Roosevelt to the White House, but also flipped the US Senate from a 46 to 48 minority to 59 to 36 majority (9 R's lost their jobs) and increased the Dem majority in the House of Rep's giving them 71% of House Seats.
The programs FDR proposed and that saved our Country from ruin and anarchy only came into being because he had these large, near super majority, majorities in both Houses of Congress.
It doesn't matter, frankly, whether it is Bernie, Biden, Mayor Pete, or Warren; without flipping the US Senate and exposing the R's for their failures will any proposal from a Democratic President receive any consideration by the current Senate.
Not only do we need to elect a Democratic President, we need to change the balance of power in the Senate.
Roosevelt would not have been successful without a supportive Congress. The next President will also not be successful without.
The Dem's need to launch a "Take Back our Government" campaign, exposing the lies and near treasonous antics of the Republicans. The US Senate is the swamp to be drained.
3
Please note that the Democratic Socialist Swedes emerged from the Depression much sooner than we did. Gunnar Myrdal understood and applied Keynesian remedies, remedies that the more conservative FDR could not quite understand despite an interview with Keynes himself.
3
FDR described himself as a "Democrat and a Christian."
No one expects Sanders to declare himself a Christian. But he is seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party to be its standard bearer, Why does he refuse to identify himself as a Democrat and pledge to be the leader of that great party and all its candidates who support its platform?
Sanders wants the benefit of becoming the candidate of the Democratic Party but will not unequivocally declare himself a Democrat. Can anyone imagine FDR doing that? Being a Democrat was his proud political identity.
1
The difference between Democrats then and now is back then, Democrats weren't afraid to stand up for policies that benefit the middle class and below, compared to now where they cower and whimper whenever they're called socialist, and fold to corporate interests.
6
@Joe Arena
Democrats abandoned the Working Class long, long, ago. They now openly disdain the benighted Working Class as racist, religious, uneducated, and irrelevant.
The interesting thing is that as the Dems continue to embrace Neo-Identitarianism, they eat themselves from the base and from the top.
Pass the Ketchup!
4
Sanders isn't misappropriating anything and Alter needs to give the Bernie-bashing a rest. He did quite a lot of it last time around and see how that worked out?
FDR denied that he was a socialist because by 1932, the US had been through thirty years of anti-socialist yellow journalism that equated socialists and unionists demanding an eight-hour work day and a forty hour work week with bomb-throwing anarchists. Socialists were imprisoned or deported rather than allowed to speak. Americans have been taught to fear Socialism and conflate it with Communism since workers started organizing and demanding their rights in the 1880's.
46
@Julian Fernandez Actually, it had been a decade since red baiting when FDR was elected. In fact, the Democratic party nominated a "socialist," Al Smith, in 1928. But FDR was never a socialist, he was what we today call a social democrat. There is a difference. And he was a pragmatist with a much broader worldview than Bernie.
12
The Soviet Union itself “conflated” Socialism with Communism. It called its economic system Socialism, and it called itself a “Socialist Republic.” Communism is Socialism in its most complete form. Since Socialism is associated by so many with extremely dark, oppressive and deadly phases of the 20th century, why isn’t Bernie Sanders imaginative enough to call whatever it is he’s advocating by a new name? “I’m a socialist” has always been an insurmountable political liability. Today’s capitalism has been improved and maybe even saved by learning from Socialism. FDR led that, while denying he was a socialist. And what even the most progressive Democrats are advocating is not Socialism but still Capitalism, which is indeed Denmark’s economic system. Bernie Sanders needs to call it something else. He’s living in a time capsule, and a time capsule with some scary elements.
2
@John Neeleman....strangely, Sanders has stated he favors capitalism, but regulated capitalism. But he doesn't explain this to voters.
Instead of democatic socialism, he should use the term social democracy.
He uses the same general phrases over and over. Yet, I ran across his senate hearings on cspan from a few years back---very unusual---he had witness on health care systems from Denmark, France, Canada and Taiwan. The media hardly covered it at all.
In his 2 campaigns Sanders I never heard him mention his own hearings and the factual comparisons and data from them.
He just keeps repeating---the US is the only developed country w/o HC for all....etc. No follow up withe comparisons voters can use.
2
Before he contracted Polio FDR was a man very much like Trump. The son of money and high estate. Arrogant, with an ego to match. Polio changed his life, ironically it made him a better person and a better man. Polio brought suffering to him, and he learned he was blessed with an inner courage. The polio version of FDR saw the suffering in his other polio victim, and he started a spa to help them, he lifted himself up and he wanted to lift others. He learned to walk wearing braces, an ungraceful gait, that he made sure was never photographed or filmed. When not out and about he used a wheelchair as his primary means of getting about. The lives of great men, the men who go on to change the lives of their fellow men for the better always seem to be touched by tragedy, and sadness in some way. It is this shaping by fate that makes them grow and see the world and humanity from the proper perspective. FDR's perspective for most of his life was from a wheelchair, he learned to not look down on people from that perspective. He saw the life of the sick, the life of the poor, the life of the worried, from that perspective. It taught him that the scared and angry are capable of terrible thoughts, and only when fear is removed can a democracy prosper. FDR saved democracy, and in many ways he saved the world from a terrible future because he learned the most valuable lesson, we can move forward with any device handy, as long as we all move forward together.
144
@Lonnie
As his affliction with polio was hidden from the public, so too it is barely included in any discussions about him nowadays. Your comment brings that needed perspective.
25
@Lonnie
"Before he contracted polio FDR was a man very much like Trump. The son of money and high estate. Arrogant, with an ego to match."
From what I have read FDR certainly was arrogant and had an ego. But a lot of people are arrogant and have big egos. People who run for the Presidency have big egos, otherwise they would not run. But there is a big difference between the young FDR and the young The Donald. To my knowledge FDR never stiffed contractors, never used bankruptcy to defraud, and did not dodge military service.
Adversity makes some people better as it did FDR; I am not sure that adversity is making The Donald better.
38
@Lonnie and he had his wife, Eleanor who was willing to be his eyes and ears where he wasn't able to go. They were rich people raised with a sense of noblesse oblige. That he had polio was unlucky for him but lucky for us. He used his disability to his advantage.
19
My grade school was named "Roosevelt." It was the 50's. FDRs legacy was still fresh in voters minds and his programs were producing wonderful results. Safe to say my town appreciated FDR. But, that was then this is now. That school is now a public library named after someone else, a local one percent'r. Roosevelts name is nowhere to be found. The building along with our society had been repurposed. I am on social security and medicare now. The G.I. Bill totally changed my life for the better. I am soon to hear taps played. My resting place will be my lasting honor. Thank you Mr. Roosevelt and America.
163
@concord63
Thank you, concord63, for your service to America. You have earned your "lasting honor."
It is sad to learn that your grade school no longer bears the name of Roosevelt. Life goes on, and history is forgotten. What is not forgotten are the benefits of Roosevelt's programs. Every month when I receive my Social Security check, I appreciate once again the wisdom of FDR and the people he chose for his cabinet. To me, Social Security is not a "meddling government program," as Grover Norquist might call it, but an essential element in my current happiness, contributing to my relative freedom from worry.
When I look at my stepson, I am grateful for the CCC program that hired his grandfather as a teenager in the late 1930s to clear land and construct buildings in north Alabama. The paychecks helped provide that young man with a living so he would survive the Great Depression, not only to fight in WWII, but also to live and have children and grandchildren, such as my stepson and his own son.
Sadly, concord63, it may be that people our age are more aware of the many valuable consequences of FDR's presidency than younger Americans are. Considering how hell-bent Trump has been on erasing his predecessor Obama's legacy, I am very thankful that Trump was not the president to succeed FDR in office. Who knows? Without Social Security and with only my small teacher's retirement income, I might be one of the homeless in our streets.
26
@TinyBlueDot I graduated from Franklin D. Roosevelt High School in Brooklyn, NY in 1968. The nickname of our sports teams were "the Navigators," as F.D.R. helped the country to navigate through the depths of the Great Depression. F.D.R., as a man and as a President, was not perfect, but who is? One of his greatest lasting achievements was instituting Social Security in 1935, an idea originally promoted by Norman Thomas, a Socialist candidate for President. I hope that in 2020, the next President can help this country navigate through the serious issues ignored by the current President and, like F.D.R., restore confidence and decency to the office.
10
FDR and LBJ both understood that enacting policies to meaningfully improve the lives of the not-rich could not be done by kowtowing to the rich. Unfortunately, in the wake of the Reagan era, the Democratic Party decided that it had to reverse itself on this. In an age where growing income inequality is seemingly as inevitable as death and taxes, the Democratic Party needs to get back to its roots of prioritizing the economic well-being of the not-rich over that of the rich.
This will require holding the next Democratic President's feet to the fire on matters of economic policy, something that Democrats did not do during President Obama's first-term, when bad policy choices were made (not pursuing the public option, not pursuing meaningful mortgage relief for struggling homeowners, etc.) which made the recovery from the Great Recession a lot slower and more anemic than it had to be, as well as a lot less equitable than it could have been.
This is one reason why Senator Warren is my top choice for the Democratic nominating contest; she was the first Democrat to speak truth to power upon taking office in 2013, and was not afraid to call out the Obama Administration for its faults. Senator Sanders rates highly for me as well; he advocates for policies that are more in line with FDR than the author wants to acknowledge. I continue to think that the best course would be for one of them to drop out and endorse the other to unite economic progressives under one banner.
4
I vividly recall, from childhood, witnessing adults, strangers to me, weeping openly in public places, when FDR died. It is hard to believe that any Democrat, FDR wannabe, of today, would inspire that kind grief.
1
@blgreenie
Of course not, but none of them has had an opportunity to serve as President yet. Few people would have been mourning FDR, had he passed away before the 1932 election. Let's hope that we or our progeny eventually see one of these candidates mourned in the same manner as FDR was in 1945.
@blgreenie My mom always speaks with reverence about FDR and has said he was the only president she knew in her childhood. She was born in 1928 on a farm to immigrants with 8 kids in UP Michigan. Poor. Depression era. She mentioned she had her school supplies because of FDR. My dad received his engineering degree because of the GI bill for his service in WWII. My parents did well for themselves and prospered because of FDR's programs. I have always admired FDR and Eleanor.
FDR was experimental from the start, aiming at "Relief, Recovery, Reform." His overall goals were to save both democracy and capitalism (in the latter case, often to save capitalism from itself). As he said, "I am that kind of conservative because I am that kind of liberal."
Democrats, take note.
141
@Observer Your wise comment reminds of this quote from Louis Menand writing in the New Yorker about FDR's magnificent achievement: "to preside over the repurposing of government, the salvation of capitalism, and the destruction of fascism".
I would love to see our Dem nominee, whoever it is, update this vision for our time.
2
@Observer
You're right about FDR but you picked the wrong target. The enemy of capitalism and democracy is the same. Democrats, take note of that.
Republicans, take note of how to save both democracy and capitalism. or go ahead destroying them.
1
@Observer
Spot on! The so-called conservatives are walking oxymorons (with an emphasis on the last two syllables!).
They are anything but "conservative," they are radical neofeudal anarchists. They don't believe in conserving the planet, conserving freedom, conserving the Constitution & Bill of Rights, conserving citizens' health, conserving any semblance of quality of life for the working American, conserving peace, conserving freedom of (and from) religion, conserving true justice, etc.
They are only interested in conserving themselves, their class, their wealth, their status, their monopolies of privilege, their intolerance, and inequality.
The true conservatives are the democrats, socialists & progressives.
7
This article is a bit disingenuous in its characterization of Sanders. Just because FDR didn't refer to himself as a socialist doesn't mean there isn't some truth in what Sanders has said in his comparisons to FDR. What FDR actually did in terms of pushing legislation and signing progressive bills into law is a much better metric of his brand than what he said about himself (which is much more wrapped in the political climate of that time). Sanders is trying to remove the stigma attached to the word "socialism" so that we can actually start calling things by their right name instead of playing the semantics game. FDR pushed the country more to the socialistic side of the spectrum, and that's what Sanders is trying to do. Call it democratic socialism, or reformed capitalism, or whatever you want. It's all basically the same thing. No Democrat is calling for the end of capitalism.
5
What's lost in this discussion is that FDR relied mainly on a
brain trust" of highly competent individuals to develop and implement the plans for his successful programs. For example, Frances Hopkins was most instrumental in getting Social Security established and funded.
I would like to see -- whoever gets the Democratic nomination to run for President-- to create such a "brain trust". Certainly, there are enough talented individuals with the requisite expertise among the 20 or so candidates now running, to develop constructive solutions to the key problems. If Elizabeth Warren is elected President, she has the energy and insight to assign responsibility to "fine tune" and implement her many plans to the right person so that something will be accomplished .
207
@Phillip J. Baker
Essentially all of FDR's brain trust were progressives who were seeking to do the right thing and not looking to come up with a message that would do best in the polls unlike the advisors of essentially all the Democratic candidates with the exception of Sanders and Warren.
18
For the record, there was no such a person as "Frances Hopkins". There was Harry Hopkins. Actually, it was Frances Perkins who was the mother of social security. A great woman who has not gotten her due in American history. She said to FDR when he asked her to be Labor Secretary that she will accept the appointment on the condition that he will support her effort to establish several programs which are social security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage and a national health program. She accomplished the first three, with FDR's support and she is the mother of these programs.
67
@Phillip J. Baker
How about a candidate declaring, in advance, their "brain trust" will consist of nobody from Wall Street, the people who's brains are dedicated to no one's welfare but their own? When Obama designated a Citibank chairman to pick his cabinet, I realized then and there he was a fraud.
26
My concern, which a variety of intellectuals have pointed out, is the role the media is playing in this decade where "branding" appears to be more important than substance. The only candidate from either party that is offering substance is Elizabeth Warren. However, as some pundits have noted, she has a branding problem---part of which is attributed to her gender and part of which is attributed to her smartness---Our culture appears to still have a problem with smart women---especially those who are your boss.
6
After decades of running as the "Republican lite" party, proud of having ended "welfare as we know it," embracing de-regulation, and serving as cheerleaders for globalization with nary a care about the off-shoring of American manufacturing, it is high time that Democrats remembered their roots. FDR knew that government has an obligation to serve the common good. And contrary to Republican dogma, this isn't accomplished simply by having government get out of the way so that the wealthy and the powerful can do as they please. Markets need rules, both to protect the players and to ensure that outcomes promote the general welfare of the nation. And when markets fail to provide what is needed, be it health care for all or vital infrastructure, government should step in to meet the need. Because that is what government is for. The Democratic party seemed to have forgotten this. So yes, bring back FDR!
296
@Stephen N
Great comment, but let’s name some names?
Bill Clinton.
Mr. NAFTA, Mr. deregulate Wall Street, Mr. welfare reform. The Republicans never had a President so good for the Republican party.
He got his second term, but a disaster for the working man or woman, and income desparity became endemic to America. Without the internet bubble, (he had nothing to do with), his Presidency would be running a close second to Geroge W. Bush, (who he got elected by Clinton stabbing Gore in the back.)
It’s a miracle the Republicans aren’t pushing for him to be mounted on Mt. Rushmore.
Really, name a Republican President that did more for the Republcian party? You can’t.
21
@Stephen N
Did Mr. Roosevelt follow his "obligation to serve the common good" when he turned back the passengers on the St. Louis and forced them to return to Nazi Germany? Roosevelt didn't even respond to the desperate cable that they sent to him while the ship was in so close to Miami that they could see the lights. IMHO, Roosevelt was much more interested in getting elected than he was in serving the common good. He did nothing to stop the Holocaust and he did almost nothing to improve the lot of Afro-Americans in the south. I understand that Roosevelt could not help anyone by losing elections but that is not enough to excuse the failure to even try to save lives while he was in office.
5
@Stephen N
As far as I'm concerned, the candidate whose policies (and honesty - no corporate/1% campaign money) come closest to FDR for these times, is Bernie Sanders. He is nothing if not pragmatic, being known as "The Amendment King" in the Senate. In second place is Elizabeth Warren - whose hero is not Franklin but Teddy Roosevelt.
9
Keep correlating the Democratic field with FDR, keep pushing for reparations, keep proposing that more government is the cure for all that ails us, keep asking questions like “In a perfect world would anyone needs guns” and Trump will be re-elected by a large margin without having to spend a penny of the war chest he’s already assembled.
1
If you are trying to conflate the word liberal with central planning, or prescriptive government, or socialism, liberalism does not intersect this set. Leftist government: perfect fit.
4
If the wealthy FDR were alive today he could be that 1%er who could pay for all of Bernie's wonderful sounding but very costly ideas.
1
I believe FDR was elected 4 times. That should speak volumes about who Americans are after all is said and done. Elizabeth Warren, I believe, comes closest to the example and policies of FDR and is smart enough to steer clear of the third rail of "socialism". She clearly states her support for capitalism as an economic system regulated by a responsive democracy.
3
Which makes her a social democrat, just like Bernie. I like both of them.
1
Which makes her a social democrat, just like Bernie. I like both of them.
1
Good article. Perhaps the author should have at least mentioned Huey Long as a warning about over-zealous leftist populism.
2
For someone who wrote a book on Roosevelt it might behoove the author to know that Roosevelt's tack to the center was an abysmal failure. Which prolonged the depression and reversed a couple years of gains. Then after WW2 Roosevelt having learned his lesson proposed second bill of rights.
6
In advancing the New Deal, FDR's goal was to preserve capitalism by insuring that basic human needs were taken care of and proving that a democracy could successfully address these needs at a time when many, in the US and elsewhere, felt dictatorship offered a better way. Here is how FDR described his vision in 1935:
"Let me emphasize that serious as have been the errors of unrestrained individualism, I do not believe in abandoning the system of individual enterprise. The freedom and opportunity that have characterized American development in the past can be maintained if we recognize the fact that the individual system of our day calls for the collaboration of all of us to provide, at the least, security for all of us. Those words “freedom” and “opportunity” do not mean a license to climb upwards by pushing other people down."
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/a-radio-address-to-the-young-democratic-clubs-of-america/
3
As a child of the Depression. I have always thought of FDR as my favorite president He was not perfect but he undertook massive programs to deal with massive problems. He actually saved capitalism when fascism , communism and wild men like Huey long were real threats..
3
These Democrats all very much clearly understand that we need holistic solutions to large related issues like climate change, economic inequity, job opportunities, etc. This is why they invoke FDR's New Deal language, not because they actually want to be clones of him on every position. So you can spare use the pedantry of providing deeper insights into the real FDR so as to attack the straw man that they want to be most like FDR. This is just a pretext for the author to spout random facts, only to conclude with the main point above, which everyone already knew. Fake insights!
2
The past 40 years of reactionary politics has made us nostalgic for a time when everyone was on board. From the "October surprise' that enabled them to the "Russians? What Russians" the Republicans have gone from the anti-totalitarian party to acquiesce to foreign interference with our elections and our government.
Trump looks and speaks like a caudillo. His optics favor Castro ("Russians? What Russians?), Peron, Trujillo, Franco, etc. The Mueller Report should have invoked at least inquiry from every member of Congress.
The cowardly media enabled Trump by donating billions of dollars worth of free advertising. Many people have been brainwashed to believe that altruism is bad and to hate thy neighbor. They need an intervention.
We need an FDR. Bring back the Golden Rule. Bring back "Happy Days Are Here Again."
"Since then, even Democratic presidents have often been forced to play on Ronald Reagan’s conservative side of the field."
This is the tell in your piece. The Democrats haven't been forced to play that way -- rather, they chose to abandon labor unions and the working class in their bid to be captured by Wall Street, which was a huge help to the GOP's efforts to dismantle the New Deal.
Until the Democrats realize that their political future isn't tethered in being Republican Lite (aka, neoconservative/neoliberal), but being honestly liberal and progressive, they're always going to twist in the wind.
While you deride Sanders, he at least knows which side of the picket line he stands, which puts him ahead of most of the other Democratic candidates.
The whole "despite our divisions, we'll make progress" line is faux-comforting, but isn't borne out in political reality -- the GOP is hell-bent on destroying what's left of the New Deal. Woe to the Democrat who doesn't realize this.
6
Is it really fair to criticize Senator Sanders for referring to FDR as a democratic socialist simply because FDR used the capitalist system to defeat the Nazi and Imperial Japan empires? After all, he used deficit spending to assure the support of American capitalists for a war that many did not support, even after Pearl Harbor. They didn't build all those tanks, ships and planes for free. As others have pointed out, this same line of thinking needs to be brought to bear on the existential problem of climate change. A carbon-based economy needs to quickly transform itself into a clean economy. The capitalists will need to see an immediate benefit in their pocketbook to participate in that effort. Senator Sanders understands that and so would have FDR.
5
So we fault Bernie Sanders for not embracing FDR's failed policies, such as his "balanced budget" austerity which nearly drove the country back into the worst of its 1930s slump?
Or is the idea that liberals today who profess to support the New Deal are either ignorant or dishonest, for not supporting *everything* FDR did, including the failures and regressions?
Funny, how establishment pundits who call themselves liberals or Democrats can't endure liberals.
4
It's good to recall the America of FDR; those were good times when we believed in the goodness of America. We have left that America and I often wonder what happened and can we ever get back to those better times.
The book that would answer my question would be written by a collection of historians, political and social scientists and economists. Until then, I'm left to my own conjectures and my overall feeling is we've run out of good leadership. One of historian Timothy Snyder ideas in "On Tyranny" is democracy depends, not on institutions but on the people who do the work of institutions.
Well, I've felt this intuitively since childhood. I was born in wartime China; from household conversations and (mostly) lamentations, I understood China's extreme distress and humiliation. I knew and felt our leaders were corrupt and so failed their country. I was six years old when we immigrated to the US; FDR was still alive then. When he died, it felt like a death in our family. As I grew up in the US, read and heard the news, I marveled at the wisdom and goodness of American leaders. I decided the difference that made America a success and the morass that was China was a difference in leaders.
Three years into the Trump administration, I am more convinced than ever it is weak, corrupt persons in positions of power that fail their country. It's hard to watch.
But I'm hopeful Warren will be the FDR for our times and so I'm a volunteer for her. We have to earn our good leaders.
I went to a Jr high school that in the auditorium one each side had large murals of people working in industry, obviously a artifact of the Roosevelt era. What the working right is ignorant of or willingly dismisses is that without the New Deal many of them would not even be alive today, their grandparents would have been dead from starvation, no corporation would have come to their aid.
Working Americans that support a administration that only cares about the rich is not going to help them when times get hard, what don’t they understand about that fact?
4
Of course conservatives called the New Deal socialist. And of course FDR was not a socialist. He was essentially a descendant of Germany's Bismarck. The two opposed socialism by attempting to reform capitalism and save it from its own excesses.
Roosevelt once said that he felt like someone who had saved a drowning man only to be criticized for failing to save his hat as well.
4
Well, how did I know as soon as I read the headline that the first order of business would be to put down Bernie Sanders?
5
Bernie Sanders is a fraud. He has no idea on how to pay for many of the programs he promotes, and he has not proved himself to be someone who works well with others. How will he ever work with the Congress to put together a bill when his preference is to engage in class war rhetoric the way Donald Trump engages in racism. In fact, the Bern is mean and nasty. Ask his D.C. interns whether he ever acknowledges them.
2
FDR didn’t have a climate emergency on his hands, which in my book demands an extreme response, The currently aspirational Green New Deal if done right would address multiple problems the nation faces, including good paying jobs for blue collar workers, moving the US to the forefront of exportable renewable technology, fewer environment related health problems, and so on. And I am tired of those so shortsighted as to bewail the potential cost. As if money matters more than a habitable planet.
2
FDR, electrical personality. Used radio as the twitter of today, only better. Surrounded by FIRST raters, not swamp creatures.
Practical, not dogmatic.
Warren is a capitalist with a plan(s). Organized, detailed, passionate, compassionate, not electrical. Most of the candidates have positive attributes, too. but are not FDR.
Just viewed Ralph Bellamy in Sunrise at Campobellow(1960). More than a half century later the greatness of FDR is trivialized by a Trump. No matter how dems rework FDR's legacy they are far superior than the Trumpster.
4
@Sly4Alan
Using Twitter by Trump is the dumbing down of this country, it should be banned for use in the way Trump uses it.
Surise at Campobello is nice to watch, but you would be better served to watch the FDR PBS documentary by David Rubin, and The Roosevelt's by Ken Burns, both were written and had heavy input from Geoffrey C. Ward, in my mind the most authoritative historian on FDR today.
There are no FDR's today, least of all Bernie Sanders.
1
Progressive capitalism, pragmatic progressivism, and improvisational pragmatism: Excellent descriptions of where the Democrats ought to be. And where most of the Democratic candidates, in fact, are. Some of what Roosevelt did was uneven and might be haunting our politics even now. For instance, my DC relatives lost none of their bank savings but my Ohio relatives lost all of them. Obviously, the candidate who is distorting the FDR legacy the most is Senator Sanders. Presumably Sanders understands what he is doing.
2
So far, sorry to mention, all the Democratic candidates for president fall woefully short. It is very similar to a TV reality show, except here the candidates will have a real affect on our lives, if elected. Most of them are far superior to Trump, but really, is this the best that our great nation can put forth for the most challenging job in the world?
1
To save you time:
Bernie Sanders is messing up by constantly using the term socialism. Even if it's Democratic Socialism - a really really poor label on a capitalistic plan. In any case Sanders, for all his good, does not speak American well enough to be president. I agree.
But I disagree that the middle of the road is the place to be. There have been way too many Republicans in the Democratic Party for us liberals to ever get a break. Return to FDR, a truly great president.
2
When Sanders pretends to embrace “Socialism” in clever quips (e.g. Sanders response to Dimon) — he completely confuses the narrow bloc of Americans currently required to tip elections. Sanders has to internalize the reality that his quips will be taken literally in the Sinclair Media network as advocating for government ownership of corporate production.
That not only hurts Sanders candidacy but the entire Democratic field.
So the Democrats don’t need to salvage words like “Socialism” from i100 years of disparagement.
They need to salvage and secure the lives of human beings. I think that simply means finding a palatable name for what’s otherwise called "Democratic Socialism,” deemphasizing ideological rhetoric, and emphasizing pragmatic solutions.
3
The Establishment wants Biden, because he won't change anything. He'll just muddle along, not rocking the yachts, not taxing the immense wealth of the 0.01% or those who aspire to be in the top 0.01%. He'll play the role of national grandfather, and that will be a relief, because we won't be faced with daily crises.
HOWEVER, he won't make any substantive moves on the urgent issues facing this country, and ordinary Americans will see no improvement in their lives.
The low-information voters, casting around for a remedy, will listen to the Republicans' line of blaming everything on dark-skinned people, feminists, environmentalists, and everyone else who has no actual power, and vote them back in.
Look at Britain. Labour regained power in 1997 after 18 years of Thatcherism. As the "new, moderate" Labour they failed to undo Thatcher's policies and added annoyances of their own, such as increased surveillance and secrecy, as well as participating in the deeply unpopular Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
The result of the 2010 election was a hung parliament, so the Conservatives persuaded the Liberal Democrats (actually a centrist party) to join them, and the Conservatives have gone full speed ahead with their destructive policies.
Labour didn't come close to unseating the Tories until Jeremy Corbyn, who wanted to undo the worst Tory policies, was leading it. Unfortunately, he blew that good will by being wishy-washy on Brexit.
The voters hate wishy-washy pols.
19
Spot on.
1
The last 40 years has seen the Republican Party relinquish their GOP identifying banner of conservative probity and move to the extreme right. With that the Democrats stepped in to fill the ideological vacuum left behind by rebranding into a brew of Republican Lite. Bottom line, Democrats detoured away from their Party's FDR/New Deal tradition and it's legacy of progressive domestic social policy. As this dynamic proceeded and both Democrats and Republicans restructured, Americans were left abandoned by both their political parties. It all created an environment ripe for the arrival and ascendancy on the scene of a rogue leader like Donald Trump. It all hit critical mass in 2016 as frustrated Americans said no more of the ongoing status quo. Now and finally it appears the Democratic Party is absorbing the SOS wake up call Hillary Clinton's defeat blasted out in 2016. Demanding the Democrats realign their focus to resurrect a core principle of democracy and with it their Party's legacy. Working for the greatest good for the greatest number.
5
FDR is my man, except for the court packing and the camps! I have probably read fifty books about him/his family; I had each of my children write an extensive history paper about him so they could understand what a great man he was, failings and all. As much as it pains me to say, I think Warren comes closest to fulfilling the promise of an FDR. I think Mayor Pete is a possibility, but I don't know if the country will vote for him? Sanders?- never!
6
How is it that Democrats can not understand what FDR means?
They are not really Democrats. They are bought and paid for by the establishment donors.
They are Republican Lite, taking huge fees to speak in secret to the donor elite about the multiple truths they have to offer, depending on the audience.
Real Democrats never went away. They were just defeated by big money. FDR had a name for them, the "moneyed interests." He was right.
Back country Elmer Gantry types self promoted to these moneyed interests, selling themselves, and selling us.
Now they are shocked and surprised they finally got caught.
14
Sen. Sanders calls himself a socialist because he's not afraid of the word, but in fact he is a social democrat. Nevertheless, the manner in which he is excoriated by some for that label is exactly the same way that FDR was branded as such. Does the author think that the fact that Sanders is neither a Christian nor a Democrat disqualifies him from being a true New Dealer? This piece was a flimsy undergraduate level screed that failed to prove its argument.
47
Agreed.
Sanders is obviously the only FDR candidate.
17
Mr. Alter neglects to note the important role that grassroots radicalism played in pushing/forcing FDR to the Left, which is where—with the monumental exception of winning World War II—Roosevelt's greatest achievements lay.
And those grassroots movements were overwhelmingly socialist, if not outright communist.
By ignoring that influence on FDR, Mr. Alter unfairly dismisses Bernie Sanders' claim to an FDR lineage. No, FDR did not self-identify as democratic socialist. Of course he didn't. But his most enduring legacy is the result of democratic socialist and, yes, communist organizing and agitation. Which is why Bernie Sanders' campaign slogan is "Not me, us." Without grassroots movements, progressive change will not be possible.
And Elizabeth Warren also rightly dons the mantle of the New Deal. She is in the worthy tradition of the Brain Trusters.
63
@Hank Hoffman Agreed; the fact that Roosevelt did not identify as a socialist is totally unsurprising for the times, and not a useful point to make when talking about "New Deal" type programs today. Time to be honest about what we need
3
Today's voter will not vote for FDR or any version of FDR's New Deal.
Trump is very much the core issue.
Any candidate has to stand against Trump, if that candidate has to stand a chance at becoming the next President.
After that, that candidate will have to project a personality that can heal today's divisiveness and also that candidate has to provide for the hope and faith that can help to manage the Heartbreak House that is America today, not the melting pot that it was yesterday.
3
It’s Liz and Pete, in that order. What a magnificent TEAM.
19
Oh, for crying out loud.
I] There's two types of historians: the conservative fossils who imagine that History is the story of "what really happened, "Wie es eigentlich gewesen" as the nineteenth-century German historian Leopold von Ranke put it. Not surprisingly, Mr. [I dare not say "Dr."] falls into that category.
Then there are those who understand and practice History as a path toward the future, who search History for patterns that will propel us into the Future. Sanders, bless him, follows that tradition.
II] Those pretending to be serious historians--let alone even majoring as an undergraduate in Art History--are required to have read and evaluated their colleagues and future peers. Sander's reading comes directly from Michael Harrington, the co-founder of Democratic Socialists of America, whom Mr. Alter clearly has never read.
III] Alter's arrogant dismissal of those who "don't understand what it meant" reminds me of nothing so much as the frustrated junior college professor who has nothing left but his own shallow claims to an authority without foundations. There are serious and interesting reasons why Sanders and Roosevelt are alike in some ways, and not in others. I suggest, for anyone interested, Harrington's first chapters in "The Twilight of Capitalism." To discuss them with Mr. Alter would be a waste of time and energy.
31
@WOID
Amazing, but perhaps not a coincidence: I've searched several libraries that don't carry Michael Harrington's books, with perhaps the exception of "The Other America." It seems as though the (public!) libraries are becoming complicit in the disinformation matrix. They have no problem carrying 6 copies of Sarah Palin's book?
The closing of the American mind, anyone?
3
@nicole H...the library should have Harrington's The Other America, a landmark book on US poverty, but written in 1962--a long time ago.
Palin's book is from a few years ago, and she was a recent, controversial candidate. That's why they have 6 copies of her book.
Wiki says there's 1999 documentary --Michael Harrington and Today's Other America: Corporate Power and Inequality.
Some say his book influenced LBJ's Great Society program.
This is a great time in our politics to show that documentary on TV and discuss it in our politics.
I grew up in a family of FDR Dems, and he is a "hero" in my family's history. That said, we can't forget that along with the New Deal, Roosevelt also instituted the Japanese incarceration camps during the war. If you are going to associate and align yourself with a past president, be sure you know all the details of their past.
6
@Birdygirl
As no president is free from faults and mistakes, perhaps the candidates should never "align" themselves with any of them .Even Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
2
@Alan J. Shaw Good point!
Only Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren pass this test.
14
Another hit piece on Bernie, another $27 to his campaign. Keep it up NYT.
40
Bernie is the path forward with Warren or Harris as V.P.....we need a GOOD V.P. and Biden was mush. Obama was great but rose to power through the corporate elite THE CROWNS!!...."he who has the gold rules" must be tampered down. Democracy works untill the people "vote themselves largess".
8
FDR had a general sense of decency that perhaps came from his experience with polio. He seemed to empathize with ordinary people.
Today we are under the thumb of a fascist and racist president. We have been a racist country from the beginning. The racism needs to end forever.
16
@William Geoghegan Unless you include ordinary people with Japanese lineage. His own wife was horrified by his actions towards US citizens of Japanese descent.
1
@CL Of course you are correct to bring up the terrible internment camps and the racism towards the Japanese. Racism in any form is bad for everyone.
1
Hey southern boy, don’t you think the capitalist have kept you as a worker bee long enough in this day and age we don’t need $15 an hour we need $40 an hour. Let’s all get on board
4
@CathyKAt $15 an hour, which really isn't much. places like McDonald's will get rid of some of those jobs like the order taker when a tablet will do. $40 is $72,800 annually and more and more robots will take over and what is currently left of he middle class will no longer exist and we will all be shopping in Walmart.
2
@CathyK--Capitalism gone amok. Crony capitalism, Corporate malfeasance. Oligarchy. Kakistocracy at its height, with yes men like this here "scholar."
2
Sorry, I stopped reading when you called Sanders an "actual socialist." He's not and never has been, despite what he may call himself. Whether you don't know what "socialist" actually means or are simply being dishonest, your credibility was completely shot right there.
27
@Randy
Right. A good observation. The label "socialist" has literally lost its meaning. Bernie is partly to blame. I don't know why he insists on that label.
The question asked in the headline wasn’t answered. Of course, Jonathan Alter didn’t write the headline.
5
Hoever aspirational F.D.R. was, I doubt his feat to tackle the deep depression he inherited can be repeated. He cared deeply about the millions suffering, hungry and poor and jobless, and his distinct aim to eliminate the horrors caused by humans in the "Dust Bowl", where the native Indians were expulsed and the bison nearly eliminated, and the grass uprooted by ignorance and greed, and allowing 'nature' revenge in it's aggressive dusty winds and droughts, lasting for years (in the 1930's, especially). And the 'New Deal for America' saved the day, although not without deep wounds inflicted before (as Hoover knew too well). Although Trump has been consistent in destroying this democracy, uprooting world peace, and upsetting the environment, along with a rampant increase in the inequality of this capitalistic system, I doubt anybody has, thus far, risen to the stature of Roosevelt. A new bold experiment awaits us, in restoring freedom, and justice, and ousting the deep corruption the current administration so ably represents. What a challenge for the democratic candidates, not only in preventing a vulgar bully to retake the WH by assault, but by shaming republicans, especially, McConnell, in allowing this chaos to occur, a systematic climate of 'fear, hate and division'...when what we desperately need is the restoration of trust in our democratic institutions, a getting together in solidarity and make sure the least of us is included. Enough of these odious inequities.
8
@manfred marcus--You want to "get together in solidarity" with the likes of Mitch McConnell? Just exactly HOW will that work to help our country?
2
@ChesBay Indeed, I want to get back to Mitch and be able to oust him before he does more damage. This, in solidarity of the least among us. As you know, during Obama's presidency, McConnell was the obstructionist in-chief. When I speak of solidarity, Mitch must be excluded for his own good, as he knows not what harm he is doing; evolutionarily, he is not ready yet to understand the need for social intercourse. He is a human disaster to be pitied.
Some of us old time Democrats never became Reagan-ized from the Roosevelt's extraordinary vision. As the right wing started its well funded crusade to twist the country away from Jimmy Stewart to Gordon Gekko, we were still in awe of the accomplishments of the CCC et al. Even President Eisenhower's vision of the Interstate Highway System struck us as Rooseveltian. I for one welcome the Democrats back into a philosophy of government that puts the American workforce back in balance with the plutocratic tendencies of the ever-wealthier few. Here's my humble suggestion for an contemporary FDR move: http://seniorjunior.blogspot.com/2019/01/over-top-new-deal.html
19
Something that Roosevelt believed and did much to promote was the environment. While global climate change was not yet an issue, he knew that America's soil was worn out and a lack of trees was a real problem. By instituting programs like the WPA and the CCC, millions of trees were planted by young men who would be unemployed and on the streets otherwise. Global warming is surely being lessened by those millions of trees planted in the early 1930's. Three important goals were accomplished: the great depression was ameliorated by employing people, worn out farmland was turned into forests, young men were trained in useful work and a disciplined life to be ready to win WWII. Read"Rightful Heritage, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Land of America" by Douglas Brinkley. It amazed me, a big Roosevelt fan, that he saw the improvement of the environment as a way to end the depression. The only candidate today who is focused on environmental change which improves the economy is Governor Inslee of Washington State.
4
@Pat Thompson Jay Inslee is the only candidate to start from a clear set of environmental principles, and who has the executive experience needed to succeed as president. I am hoping to see him get more coverage as more people mention his name.
You can only make deals with actual Citizens, and with consensus among the electorate. Otherwise it isn't a "deal" it is top-down central planning.
1
Warren does not sound like FDR at all.
DNA tests and personal opportunism, not appreciated by American Indians or anyone else.
Arbitrary repayment for relatively few with high student debt at the people's expense.
An intense personality not fully appreciated generally.
Good judgement?
5
@David
If you ever read Alter’s excellent book on FDR, you’ll know that FDR was accused of all these things even more vehemently than Warren. The big differences include her gender and the fact that she was not a child of great wealth and political connections.
She’s still not my first choice, but that she’s already getting the same critiques FDR got is interesting. And the primaries are a long way off.
4
@David
I suspect you haven't read her carefully thought out reasoned proposal for cancelling student loan debt. Here it is:
https://link.medium.com/6By0pGU4QW
None of Warren's proposals are arbitrary.
The canard that she claimed Native American ancestry to get ahead has been thoroughly investigated and disproved. It was NEVER a factor in her hiring, nor was there evidence that she wanted it to be.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html
2
Well put, Mr. Alter, but a key to the puzzle for 2020 gets buried in half a sentence about FDR’s “slowness on civil rights”.
As you know, FDR was not great on civil rights, and the New Deal’s benefits were effectively segregated thanks to racist administrators and politicians. Eleanor was the one who could really speak to the issue, but she did not have the power of her husband, who was trying to keep the old Democratic coalition with southern segregationists together.
LBJ permanently changed the face of the Democratic Party (with an able assist by Nixon’s Southern Strategy). Success as a Democrat now means delivering on civil rights.
I think it’s illustrative of the change that Elizabeth Warren is gaining such ground on Bernie Sanders. Dems (mostly) love Sanders’ invocation of FDR’s economic legacy, but Sanders (like Biden) has an unfortunate tendency to say things about race that are, at best, tone deaf, even though nobody doubts his commitment to equality and justice. Warren, whose platform is closer to the Spirit of “improvisational pragmatism,” does seem to have found a way to speak on issues of race and gender that connects and resonates with these important parts of the Democratic base who have to be totally engaged in 2020.
It’s a long time til the primary elections, and anything can happen. After all, FDR didn’t become the nominee until the third round of voting at the 1932 convention.
16
Well it won't be Biden, who acts more like Trump every day. By that I mean he never admits he is wrong and never apologizes.
8
It should be noted that FDR had someone else to do heavy lifting on issues that would cost, but were important and that was Eleanor. She tackled issues of racism, lynching, equal rights, migrant working conditions, giving a forum to people like Marion Anderson to sing when she was denied a venue. I have read and at 73 have come to look at them as a team. If anyone is interested look up that even during the height of World War II Eleanor visited the many wounded soldiers, marines and sailors in the dangerous Pacific theatre. At first Admiral Bull Halsley from my home town of Elizabeth, NJ. was against her coming into his area of authority and combat. When her long tour was finished he was amazed and sold on the good that she did. How morale had been lifted. She did not shy away from sitting and talking taking the hands of men who were badly wounded, faces disfigured. I think Americans saw that and also what FDR and his fireside chats (since radio was the medium then) as someone who was not rich or a politician, but someone like them who understood the simple things they wanted Yes, it can be said that FDR saved capitalism from its own evil and turned it into something that provided good and a more even society. There is this idea that socialism is government doing everything and nothing is further from reality. Try reading up on what the Nordic countries are. A middle class level playing field where everyone feels they can make it. Jim Trautman
23
@trautman
I'm not sure of your source of information, but both Franklin and Eleanor (who was born a Roosevelt, and Teddy's niece) were from very wealthy, long-established New York families. And they were both very savvy politicians.
@Ginnie Kozak
OK.. and the Nobels of the prize took on Rockefeller in Baku -- and provided decent housing for their workers unlike the other oil barons. One can be rich, politically savvy and compassionate. George Washington freed his slaves -- did he give them severance? In the essay, JT is referring to Nordic countries when he mentions a middle-class playing field
My view is that Alter gets FDR right. And he should have concluded that Elizabeth Warren comes closest to carrying the New Deal values banner!
15
FDR said stuff to win the Presidency, and then did other stuff when actually President, as the practical challenges and opportunities of the day dictated.
The same goes for pretty much every President ever. In fact, for almost every national leader of every country ever.
As much as any Democratic candidate says they will be a stalwart progressive, we should resign ourselves to the fact that they will make plenty of non-progressive, or semi-progressive, decisions. We will always be disappointed and/or surprised, at times, by what our leaders do when actually given power.
But what they say on the stump does give a general sense of who they are, what they believe in, and how they will generally behave and run the country. And I believe Bernie, Warren, and in fact most of the Democratic contenders will be generally progressive, and as much in the FDR vein as FDR was. Which is to say, kind of FDR-ish. Which is far far far better than the intractable, greedy, inhumane, blinkered conservatism-cum-fascism embodied by the current administration.
12
I’ve been thinking about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s characterization of FDR as having a second-class intellect but a first-class temperament. Today we have a person with a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. Pete Buttigieg.
11
We’re afraid! Bring on a Democratic candidate that will beat Donald Trump! Please!
I keep thinking about the line of past presidents, comparing them. Donald Trump in the same role as Franklin Roosevelt! What have we done?
5
"In his 1944 State of the Union address, an ailing Franklin D. Roosevelt sketched his ambitions for a “Second Bill of Rights” — a vision of “adequate medical care,” “a good education,” “a useful and remunerative job,” “a decent home” and “freedom from unfair competition and monopolies” as the birthright of all Americans."
This matches up exactly with Bernie Sanders. Whether Roosevelt was an "improvisational pragmatist (?)" or a "Christian Democrat" or something else is purely academic.
19
@WalterZ
Those ambitions are what the Democratic Party stands for.
But for all it's worth Trump uses similar terms and his supporters still believe him.
While nobody should be surprised to see article 1,057 in the NYT series "Whose democracy is it? A study in undermining the Sanders campaign," I would like to recall for other readers these immortal words: "That's just, like, your opinion, man."
This is an opinion piece. In the author's opinion Sanders is misappropriating FDR's legacy, while Warren is [doing inspirational things]. There is no actual substantive criticism of the Sander campaign or proposals, only underhanded, and unfounded, jabs.
Here is my opinion: Is it fair for the Sanders campaign, and democratic socialists more broadly, to invoke the shared ideals of the New Deal (which indeed was not socialist)? Yes! Obviously yes! Is it a good idea to do so? Yes! Obviously yes! Should socialists continue to define the distinction between New Deal liberalism and actual social and economic emancipation? Yes! Obviously yes! Has Senator Sanders substantively, meaningfully pushed the political debate in this country towards a discussion of social and economic democracy, freedoms and rights? Yes! Obviously yes!
8
I think New Deal Liberalism would be branded as Socialism now.
The very idea of the government helping people out with work, food, healthcare, etc. would never happen now.
7
@mjbarrWell if it can not happen democratically and peacfully, then people will just have to take it by other means eventually.
It has happened throughout history before.
2
@mjbarr It was branded as socialism by FDR's opponents then. It was really social democracy. The difference is that a substantial majority of the American people saw government as a force for good then. The GOP has managed to warp many Americans' views of government over the last 40 years -- mostly to the worse for our country.
5
It's not the 30s anymore. Bring on the socialism.
4
All week, the Times has been writing about modern internment camps. Does anyone remember who was president and ordered the internment of tens of thousands of US citizens in 1942?
5
Yes, we do remember the internment camps of the 1940’s. The difference now is clear; zero Guatemalan refugees have bombed Pearl Harbor. Instead, they arrive as proscribed in US law seeking asylum, and are carted off to internment camps.
2
@Jackson Goldie And zero Americans of Japanese descent bombed Pearl Harbor. The clear and abhorrent implication of your comment is that the internment camps were justified and that race=nationality.
1
FDR was a great man but giving him credit for NATO, which was established four years after his death, is nonsense. In fact his naïve belief that he could collaborate with Stalin in building the postwar world, and his toleration of Stalinists like Harry Dexter White within his administration, helped to create the dangerous situation which NATO was designed to deal with. Fortunately he averted total disaster by dropping Henry Wallace and choosing Harry Truman as his successor. FDR knew by that time that he would not live very long after the 1944 election. Truman proved to be the greatest foreign policy president in American history, and he had some good ideas for domestic policy too, such as universal health insurance, which he proposed but was unable to implement.
4
FDR does, indeed, deserve credit for NATO, the seeds of which were planted by both FDR and Winston Churchill by the Atlantic Charter in 1940.
5
And let us not forget the help he received from his wife, who fought for the rights of people of color. Eleanor’s work stacks up very well against any “Be Best” initiative which, coincidentally, ignores the bully-in-chief.
12
Amazing how we get hung up on labels rather that the substance of actions and ideals.
I'll stick with the Real Deal, if that includes the Green Deal, the 2nd New Deal, the org. New Deal...all the better.
One candidate has lived this and espoused these ideals as a public servant his whole life. Consistently striving and advancing these ideals long before they were popular, or even acceptable to be discussed.
Sanders, The Amendment King, earned under strong partisan Rightwing congress, gets things done. He knows how to negotiate. To advance our ideals.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is The Real Deal.
When your opponents and detractors admit that your honesty and word are good, when opposites can tell others, the man says what he means, and means what he says. Even when ideas and doing the *right thing* are a disadvantage, this mensch stands firm and is always on the *right side* of things. Unerringly. His history proves him out.
America is balanced once again on momentous and generational changes. A better way is possible.
Democratic's~! Change is here.
A truthful public servant, honorable and forthright, fighting for We the People his whole career, is still willing to spend his Swan Song doing just that; advancing America into the next century. One that includes EVERYBODY, not just the 1% and the favored corp.
The only candidate that channels FDR is the Real Deal. Sen. Bernard Sanders. Independent/Democratic/socialist of America.
NotMeUs
5
Sanders/Williamson
Progressive not Socialism
2
This reads like just a thinly-veiled hit piece on Sanders. I’m not sure I’m even a Sanders supporter—I like Warren, Harris and Biden too—but a spade is a spade.
9
Thanks for this piece. My parents grew up in the depression, both fortunate enough to have a father with a working class job, and resourceful mothers leading the home. Still, it wasn't easy. Later my dad went to law school on the GI Bill, and served in local government inspired he said by Roosevelt.
Your hedge that, "economic anxieties might not be powerful enough to drive real change." felt off to me. Powerful economic anxiety about the future among those who are technically doing well is real. Pains and resentments from the last recession are still widespread. The poor and the young particularly know that unless there's massive change, there's little hope of ever advancing. Global catastrophe looms over everything.
There seems to be a growing realization that huge systemic problems in the economy, wealth distribution, corporate oversight, financial regulation, infrastructure investment, energy policy, public health, consumer protection, and climate change are all interrelated.
The economy may appear okay, or even strong at any given time, but these massive problems are arriving, now. They will rival or exceed the Great Depression and WW2. Government can no longer be publicly labeled "the problem," while money is funneled to the top percent, with little or nothing done.
The purpose of Government is government. It's the only hope we have.
13
Something that has me puzzled about Warren and her philosophy, she did not support Bernie in 2016, and now her platform is a carbon copy of Bernie 2016. She supported Hillary all the way even though their ideas clashed. Or did she want the Presidency herself and knew Bernie could have taken it all on a Sanders/Warren ticket.
We really could have beaten Trump. No doubt. If she is the nominee, I hope it is Warren/Sanders. Mayor Pete is smoothly great, just not ready for prime time America.
Biden is a Politician, not a Progressive, the situation is critical, the prize should belong to the Democrats and played without a gamble.
We will be ready for A.O.C. when her time arrives to close the deal after Sanders / Warren
set the sails.
"Set the sails, I feel the winds a'stirring
Towards the bright horizon set the way
Cast your reckless dreams upon our Mayflower
The haven from the world and her decay"
Charlie Darwin
10
@s.whether bernie is not a Democrat, so there is no reason to expect Democrats in office to support non-Democrats, especially in a presidential election.
1
@s.whether
What's puzzling?
She's siphoning off the small donors. She's already stated she'll bail on that if she makes it to the General.
https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2019/04/09/why-elizabeth-warren-is-writing-those-lefty-white-papers/?
They have similarities, but it is the fine points that make the difference.
Bernie is willing to rally the public to fight the private insurance/pharma lobbies to enact reform, Warren is not. She has already caved out of the box.
On Public Education, Warren has, in the past, advocated for School Choice and Vouchers. Warren’s senior education advisor is TFA. TFA is a favorite of the Walton's, Eli Broad, and other billionaires who support privatization of public education.
Bernie, with AOC, has introduced legislation to Cap Credit Card Interest Rates at 15%.
Bernie has introduced legislation to expand the Estate Tax.
Bernie has introduced legislation to expand Social Security.
Bernie has introduced legislation to provide Basic Banking Services via Post Offices.
Warren hasn't signed on to any of these bills.
On addressing Climate Change. Warren was dead silent on Standing Rock, while Bernie joined the protest.
Sanders is against war. Liz?
inthesetimes.com/article/21890/elizabeth-warren-war-military-iran-north-korea-venezuela-bernie-sanders
Warren voted for Trump's huge '18 Military Budget Increase. Sanders is the only candidate to vote against all 3 Trump/Dem. MIC giveaways.
Cribbed from Sally-Hampton-Brzescinski
1
What an extraordinarily myopic vision. When Roosevelt was elected, mass evictions of farmers were taking place--but also resistance, sometimes armed, to those evictions. There was mass unemployment, but also an already huge movement of the unemployed, often led by leftists--Socialists, Communists, Trotskyists. By 1935, there were general strikes in Minneapolis and San Francisco, and a massive textile strike throughout the South and New England. That was the world to which Roosevelt responded, the crisis he attempted to end. Discussions of his "legacy" independent of the mass movements of the American people are irrelevant as meaningful historical analysis--and fundamentally reactionary in their ignoring of human agency.
9
People talk much about FDR's pragmatism and his ability to create consensus. People forget, however, that the Social Security Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act were passed by giving the southern senators a bloody bone--the exclusion of two important job categories, domestic workers and farm workers, from coverage under the Acts. What was the race of most of those workers in the South? Marginalized people have always been used as pawns in political battles in the United States.
Coverage was extended to these categories in fits and starts, but it is still problematic, especially when the workers are not citizens.
9
FDR tacked to the center after getting elected by having made big promises. The question is: who, among the candidates currently making similar promises, has plans to follow through? Trump has promised inexpensive, excellent, health care right after he gets re-elected, but somehow I doubt him the most.
5
FDR, like Wilson before him, knew that the only institution of scale up to the daunting problems of the day was the “We the people” US government. Republicans have spent the last 50 years refuting that fact. A real return to the progressive tax structure of the new deal is the only solution to the great problems of today: wealth and income disparity, an inadequate health care system, crumbling infrastructure and global warming.
15
I just wanted to add a comment about the Civilian Conservation Corps.
It is true that it did many good things but it is doubtful that even the most environmentally friendly young person today would go into anything remotely like it. My father, who grew up during the depression, knew a number of young men who, because of economic reasons, joined the CCC and he said that to a man they described it as being a brutal environment. It was run along the lines of the military and this was the
pre-WW II military when your superiors could discipline you pretty much anyway they wanted including physical assault.
7
My memory of the literature is that FDR said he was a Christian and a small d democrat. He was not an ideological politician. He was inspired by the Social Gospel—HarryHopkins and Frances Perkins were in that tradition, as was Eleanor. The angriest book I read in school about the new deal was written by a socialist angry because Roosevelt had a great opportunity to be a socialist and instead he saved capitalism. The national recovery act of 1933 was anything but socialist.
Too many of the reader comments I have seen are ahistorical. Alter’s column is a good antidote that too many readers cannot seem to accept.
10
New Deal Liberalism is dead.
The basic underpinning of New Deal Liberalism is the philosophy of the Enlightenment. A respect for logic and learning.
Today in America, a majority of America's seem to deride logic, science, reason and education. The so-called elites.
Given that underpinning, there can be no new F.D.R.
My mother who graduated from High School in 1934 used to say all the time during the bad inflation of the 1970's and sky high interest rates of the early 1980's that what we needed was another F.D.R.
Too bad America is heading to a Christian Theocracy to ever embrace the ideas of The Enlightenment. America is quickly becoming the center of The New Dark Ages.
Rest in Peace we have nothing to fear...
10
@JD
Not so fast. Remember that in the 1920s the country had elected Harding, who, apart from looking like a president, had no other qualifications for the office.
And it was the heyday of what Mencken termed "Boobus Americanus."
We instituted what today look like incredibly nutty laws like sterilization of the mentally ill and challenged and the Tennessee law against teaching evolution in school which resulted in the Scopes Monkey Trial. And in the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan could hold a march down Pennsylvania Ave. in D.C. in full regalia.
3
Articulate, educated, experienced (Sec. of Navy) in interntional issues, FDR was most blessed by his rhetorical skills, and his knowing what he did not know (thus the brilliant "brain trust"). To say, as is common, that he was saving Capitalism from itself and from communism is a bit misleading. There is too much glib associating FDR with "democratic socialism" in this article. What defines FDR is his recognition of the power of a ruling class to wreck the economy, his being steeped in the American Pragmatic tradition (experimentation), and his recognition of the rising evil of fascism in Europe and Asia, the recrudescence of which in our own period may be the most salient point of comparison. The best example of all this was the Civilian Conservation Corp ("civilian" being the most important term) that took unemployed young men and put them to work repairing the environment and building magnificent PUBLIC facilities. Across the Atlantic, unemployed young men were putting on brown shirts, having torchlit parades, and organizing a Volk along antagonistic and scapegoating along ethnic lines. That ended very badly for millions and millions of people.
40
@stuart
FDR's deployment of the CCC was brilliant; it made a real difference in people's lives & the future of the environment.
It's chilling to recall that Hitler deployed his version of the CCC in the form of both the Reich Labor Service & Hitler Youth programs: they were a mere ploy to employ & indoctrinate young, unemployed young men which were to play the repressive & repugnant roles essential to the Hitlerian machine.
Clearly, it's all about intentions of the soul. FDR established the CCC for benevolently good reasons; Hitler used such such programs for malevolent purposes.
Presidents may be measured by the importance, size, and difficulty of the challenges they face in office and how well they meet those challenges. By that measure, in my estimation FDR outranks them all.
In addition to his political sympathies and ability to tack with the wind as a good helmsman must, his abilities to read the nation and size up individuals were uncanny.
Leadership ability counts as much as policy. If FDR had, in the words of Justice Holmes, "a second class mind but a first class temperament," then give me a Democrat with the same qualities.
23
@Diogenes
Yours is a wise and excellent comment!
I've long wanted to inquire of a good presidential historian as to a ranking of presidents regarding which had the most awesome challenges to confront on the day they took office. Surely FDR, Lincoln, and Washington would top the list, and I'd wager that Obama might come in fourth.
As to your point about temperament, I could not agree more. Several of the D presidential candidates have unquestionably first class minds and I'd say all but one or two have at least "second class minds." After the deluge of water and other "organic matter" runs under the political bridge in the next twelve months, we'll know a lot more about their temperament. At the moment, I'd have to say my temperament vote might go to Mr. Buttigieg (speaking of first class minds), though his youth and minimal experience for the job give me pause.
3
You are a learned succinct person. Pleasure to read how exactly you know the qualities and milieu of FDR.
2
@Diogenes
This is important----For what it is worth, the current Dem candidates include at least two (perhaps more) who have demonstrated both a first class mind and first class temperament: Buttigieg and Warren. The GOP candidate is a proudly ignorant narcissistic sociopath. The problem is that far too many Americans do not grasp the importance of the point you made, which likely means the election will be neck-and-neck.
I am all for it.
The "New Old Deal" should be billed as a Pragmatic Progressive Movement that will benefit all Americans.
9
For most of the last century we have been expanding the role and power of government. It's past time for a break. We don't need another FDR. We need another Calvin Coolidge.
1
@John C. I'm sure markets will just fix everything: stagnant wages, climate change, the whole nine yards. Sounds reasonable.
11
@John C.
So we can have another Great Depression.
8
@John C.
Because the economic policies championed by Coolidge and his Commerce secretary, Herbert Hoover, were so successful in the long run?
Or that the Kellogg-Briand pact “renouncing war” for all time from his Administration proved so fruitful in preventing conflict in Europe and Asia?
4
I think that FDR had a couple of things going for him that Democrats lack. First, the Depression, a world wide crisis, with almost 30% unemployment in the US, bread lines, and a stock market that tanked, leaving even the wealthy reeling.
Even the great recession of 2008 could not compare.
Roosevelt also had recent examples of Communist Revolution, the ongoing political crises in Europe which threatened more revolution, that gave pause about the unrest in this country.
And, he had a history of public service.
Lyndon Johnson was the last to really follow in his footsteps.
What was created was attacked constantly and finally began to be torn apart under Reagan and subsequent republican regimes, with one blip in the first two years of Obama's presidency.
Can it be resurrected?
5
I was born in Roosevelt's America, in Greenbelt, Maryland a model community built by the Roosevelt administration. My dad was getting his BA, then his MA, on the GI bill. On his graduation my moved to another model community nearer DC, with excellent public schools, where they worked for the government. Almost all the fathers and a few of the mothers worked for the government so nobody was conspicuously wealthier than anyone else.
I look back on that time with longing. My children have grown up in a very different world, in a wealthier, more selfish America. I think that Bernie Sanders invoked FDR in an inspiring way recently; his mistake is in insisting on the word "socialism" in a political climate that loathes, misunderstands, and ridicules the word. But I think his June 12 speech was meant to explain what "socialism" means to him. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is crafting policies that would restore a measure of economic equality and decency to our society--perhaps without equally inspiring rhetoric but with similar goals. One could say that she has a shade more realism, but Sen. Sanders has proven his ability to work across the aisle in recent bipartisan legislation that would withdraw American support for the Saudi war in Yemen (if not vetoed by Trump). I'd like to elect them both. Amy Klobuchar seems likable enough but simply having a 100-day plan doesn't make her like Roosevelt.
16
Your parents EARNED that lifestyle, your educational opportunities and all that followed. On the other hand, my grandfather who served in WWII had only a sixth grade education because he grew up in a company town where he was put to work at age twelve. Unable to use the GI Bill, he worked a series of low-skilled jobs up until the day he died at age 61. The fact is, we are NOT all equal. Not in pedigree, not in intelligence, not in natural ability, not in ambition, not in motivation, not in speaking skills, not in education, not in creativity, not in achievement, not in life. No one is owed anything.
4
@From Where I Sit
So you are defending unfettered, Darwinistic capitalism by attributing lack of success to ones pedigree, namely ones Grandfather?
No one is owed anything?
Really? I think we owe our (and our neighbor's) children the opportunity to succeed by providing education (including extra services for the disadvantaged), improving our social and physical infrastructure, and advancing our healthcare system since it is we who brought them into this world in the first place. In other words, making the world a better place for everyone.
Saying no one owes anyone anything is just another way of absolving oneself from any moral obligations and easing ones ethical cognitive dissonance. Our lifestyle is, in part, built on the backs of those who preceded us, our parents not withstanding. We are not tortoises on the Galapagos.
3
Really? No one is owed anything? Your grandfather didn't underachieve because he was inherently less worthy, since he wasn't given a chance to even try. Do you think that we shouldn't even be offered a chance at a decent education? Or is that only for the well off?
4
Just because Bernie's vision is more consistent than FDR's doesn't mean Bernie isn't a straight-line projection of FDR's political direction. It is. Bernie is a New Deal Democrat. New Dealer FDR was a social democrat (whether he claimed it or not) of a timid sort that could be pushed to action by the community on the economic left. If you elect Bernie or Warren you will get 21st century FDR-style governance. My vote is for Bernie because he's more committed to single-payer and has better foreign policy.
36
@chris erickson
Even if we must, write Bernie in!
@s.whether
I'm sure President H. Clinton supports that. Whoa, wait, what?
A large point of the piece was apparently missed in so many's lust to post pro-Sanders and Warren messages. I know it was because you just violated it. Maybe that was sarcasm, but it's dangerous either way.
FDR's strength nor weakness was focus, the Depression, or the Second World War. It was his ability to know when to not. Sometimes you have to join together. Sometimes you are going to have to compromise. Sometimes you have to wait because there's a worse/more urgent thing to do. You still have to work with the people you are trying to work against.
Sanders, in particular, is nearly incapable of that. Mostly because his supporters won't allow it. Not everything is a litmus test. Strong-arming against Congress is not the same thing as Strong-arming what the people want. Marriage is part of equal rights. Not because Obama wanted it, not because Congress did, but because the people demanded it and the SCOTUS made it so.
What's going to happen when Sanders is supporting something that is going to cost way more than he promised, is untenable, or just downright nutty to the 95% of the nation that's not you? Is he allowed to find a way forward, like FDR, or will he be required to stage a sit-in on the East Lawn?
And that's the difference. Sanders is no FDR.
1
@s.whether ...and, re-elect trump...which is what the end result will be if bernie voters sit on their thumbs rather than vote for the chosen Democrat nominee.
1
Mr. Alter presents a somewhat skewed view of history.
It is true FDR was trying a number of different programs when he entered office hoping something would work. However, he had already started as governor instituting some of the programs in New York and had surrounded himself with many of the advisors that would formulate the New Deal legislation.
Norman Thomas, the socialist candidate who ran against FDR, would say that the president stole many of the programs he was advocating.
As far as that 1932 nomination goes, it is true that it took him several ballots to get the nomination but a large part of that was due to the fact that at that time there was a thing called "favorite son" candidates where a state would vote for someone, usually a senator or governor, from that state usually in hopes of deciding who would get the nomination. From the first ballot, FDR had more than 3x as many votes as his closest rival Al Smith. If four ballots seems like a lot today remember that in 1924 the Democrats took over 100 ballots to decide on the nominee. H.L. Mencken was a great writer and a very perceptive viewer of America but often his opinions and biases got in the way of objectivity.
8
I was born after F.D.R passed away but from what I have learned about FDR tells me that none of the 2020 candidates are worthy of wearing his grand legacy. In fact some of them will be counter productive if they are thinking of tinkering with social security or with Medicare for all above the age of 65. In fact Trump has allowed the FDR legacy to continue by not tinkering with Social security like some in Congress would have liked to do. Trump has also improved Obamacare by taking away the draconian penalty on those who choose to be free not to carry any health insurance. No one is going to buy unrealistic liberalism and extremism.
2
@Girish Kotwal - Trump and the Republicans have improved Obamacare how exactly - by repeatedly trying to repeal it? By doing everything in their power to defund it? And the "Draconian" penalty was meant as a soft stick to induce young people to buy health insurance. Remember that if you show up at a hospital you MUST be treated - better to have preventative treatment than wait until your condition is dire.
And who (besides Trump & the GOP) wants to tinker with Social Security.
Sorry, the only thing I'm not buying is the notion that things are fine as we are. We need real change to reign in the worst tendencies of capitalism.
13
@Girish Kotwal
The Republicans would no doubt be happy to get rid of Social Security and Medicare or at best make them into welfare programs if they could get away with it.
However, they know if they did so, they could kiss Florida and Arizona goodbye in any election in the foreseeable future.
4
@Girish Kotwal Trump has also allowed his legacy to continue by bringing back internment camps. A grand legacy, indeed.
5
My parents talked about FDR with great reverence, and today it’s way overdue that Americans remember him. President Obama, was, in a way, to take his example and transform the country as he did, but he failed miserably. Like FDR, Obama, took over after a depression/recession, like FDR, there was tremendous Republican opposition to everything he proposed. FDR, did have a cataclysmic event, WWII, which united the country, and Obama had an entire news network, Fox News, drumming oppositional Republican propaganda 24/7. It certinly made a difference. And, throw in, unheralded corperate power, (corporatism), which backed Republican anti-union deregulation dogma. The weight of this brought us to 2016, where Republicans won the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and most of the State Govenorships. Let’s all finally admit, the game has been changed. The Democrats are playing tennis, and the Republicans are suited up NFL players with all the refs bought off. FDR, would have been humbled by the weight of opposition. With the support of a clearly uneducated propagandized voting population nothing can change. The game was rigged, now it’s not even a game. With Fox, we are closer to a Putinized Russia, than anything FDR faced.
20
@Prant
Remember that FDR had one major advantage over Obama: for the first 6 years of his presidency he had overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
6
Alas, Mr. Alter did not answer the question he posed in the headline. Instead he used it to decry Bernie Sanders' "misappropriating" of FDR's legacy and undercut Elizabeth Warren's contention that today's inequitable economy could drive fundamental change. In short, he is discouraging any tilt to the left by the Democrats and advocating some sort of pragmatism.
Here's what I found most interesting: FDR was not selected until the fourth ballot and assessed as a lightweight by the pundits. Which leads to this question: Who among the 20+ candidates running for office is currently seen as a lightweight long shot but whose gauzy message might resonate with the voters? Beto O'Rourke? Tim Ryan? Steve Bullock? Or maybe there's another candidate waiting in the wings....
4
Well-written, timely, and informative piece. Over the weekend, I thought about the contrast between FDR"s statement about the only thing we have to fear with Trump's warning that the stock market will crash if he is not re-elected. Of course, almost the entirety of Trump's 2016 campaign was about stoking fear of "the other."
I also recall reading that during FDR's administration, communists and socialists complained that he was trying to save capitalism, and at the time, I thought, well, duh! Over time, capitalism has proved itself to be a powerful force for innovation and progress, but clearly needs at times, such as today when there is such income and wealth disparity, to be reined in to save itself. Visionaries who by dint of effort and "capital" (either their own or others), perhaps in part in the pursuit of personal wealth, have certainly been a great factor in the development of that progress -- but they do not need to become billionaires; certainly you would think that the thought of becoming a multimillionaire would be sufficient enough incentive. Elizabeth Warren has it right -- keep capitalism, allow those who create businesses that improve lives and employ people to keep a lot of what they earn, but they should also give back a lot to the society that enabled them to do so. Democrats should not be talking about socialism; it's a word that has too much of a negative connotation in our society.
21
@Richard Levine
Socialism is not a bad word. We should be using it more often to describe the military, the post office, the police, fire department, FBI, CIA, OSHA, FDA... People don’t understand how much socialism does for them already.
5
Innovation and progress are only the goals when the potential rewards are incalculable. Place a ceiling on wealth and suddenly, innovation and progress lose their gleam.
@From Where I Sit Perhaps we would develop broader values when we place a partial ceiling on wealth. In your view, innovation and progress are apparently good only if they make you singularly rich. Do you think all the innovators out there only measure their progress by whether they are able to become billionaires while not paying taxes on most of their earnings?
4
Having personally never abandoned the habit of describing my political belief structure as being a "New Deal Democrat in the mold of FDR"--I will admit that I am gratified that Mr. Alter has officially declared such political creatures as being "Back in Fashion."
That said--I will say the the op-ed fails to note that FDR's tacking towards the center in the mid-30's was less about any ambivalence on the part of FDR about his "New Deal" experiments, and more a case of political realism as the sizeable Democratic Congressional majorities he benefited from in his first two years in office were replaced with a Republican dominated Congress, working in concert with a conservative-stocked judiciary to block FDR's program.
He tacked towards the center, because that was the direction the wind was blowing.
I do agree with Mr. Alter's belief that Democratic candidates aspiring to assume the mantle of FDR need to understand FDR and the historical context of his New Deal.
I believe a key reason why Trump replaced Obama's steady as we go approach to recovering from the Great Recession is that America's economic and intellectual elites never grasped the depth of fears, dislocation and grievance severe economic crises unleashed in our current times--just as they did in the 1930's.
People who are dismayed by the rise of demagogues and neo-Facist populists like Trump need to study history. We've seen this movie before.
We need to hope there is another FDR waiting in the wings.
115
@Doug Johnston
Going by history, we aren't ready for our Bold (wo)Man. We had our Strong Man (Obama), our Every Man (somehow the "billionaire" Trump), and now we need our Quiet, Generally Competent Man. (It would be remarkable to elect a woman, so, going by the cycle, it almost has to be a dude. The woman is maybe two to three out. But I don't mind being wrong.)
What moved Roosevelt to the left was the mass movement breaking out all over America, often lead by Socialists and Communists. The unemployed movement, creating the CIO, May Day marches, etc. You can't take Roosevelt out of his historic context. The question for today is will a mass progressive movement outweigh the nationalist right movement.
70
@Jerry Harris
He also faced Huey Long who was selling a Trump form of populism and demagoguery and would have been a serious challenge to FDR in 1936 if he hadn't been assassinated the year earlier.
3
@Jerry Harris
There was also a massive and openly Nazi movement in the US. Nazis and fascists gathered by the thousands in Madison Sq Garden, many Republicans and celebrities of the day were openly pro Hitler. The national heroes Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford visited Hitler and were feted in Germany. Ford published a vile book called "the International Jew", Father Coughlin was on the radio every week a la today's radio fascists, with a huge audience.
Roosevelt could have gone in that direction, but he chose another path!
15
Please don't soil the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt by comparing him to the current crop of Democrats running for their party's nomination. Although he saw the need for so-called socialistic measures to save the nation in the 1930s, he still had respect for the capitalist system. Unlike today's "Social Democrats," who want to end capitalism, FDR wanted to reform it, actually use its potential for capital growth to prime the pump. FDR represented a Democrat Party that was truly interested in the working man, not today's Democrat Party that's only interested in the elites. Thank you.
7
Please don’t soil the legacy of democratic candidates. Not one of them has stated that they would end capitalism. If anything, most have identified themselves as capitalists that do not believe that completely unregulated markets help the working class. Having opinions does not justify spreading of misinformation, even unintentionally.
34
@Southern Boy
Social Democrats want to end capitalism. Really, that's quite a stretch. Capitalism vs. socialism is not an either-proposition, which is the way most progressives, including virtually all the Democratic candidates see it.
They don't necessarily mention FDR's vision and policies, but they are in synch with it. I'm waiting for someone to state a message clearly and succinctly, such that more and more citizens will see it as bringing FDR's Four Freedoms into the 21st century.
Capitalism, so to speak, has gone to extremes and gotten itself in "hot water" again. As over time, socialist/public measures must come to the rescue and "right the ship" not overturn it.
We live in a mixed economy that needs rebalancing from time to time.
13
@Southern Boy
The only candidate running today who is opposed to capitalism is our current president. Witness his giving farmers a bail out because they can't cut it under his capitalistic policies.
If that's not socialistic but anyone's definition, I don't know what is.
9
Mr. Alter, whom I like and respect, joins a long list of writers whose view of American history from the Depression till now, fails to acknowledge the role played by corporations, hence big money.
Not that money wasn't central to decisions made before America entered WWII. It's that America doesn't make any move without that move being vetted by, and usually formulated by, representatives of corporate interest; ex: Affordable Care Act.
Add that media, with its almost matrix-like linkage to the mind (cable and I-phone) delivers the corporate message incessantly, and you've got the recipe for a population behaving in ways that were unthinkable just 80 years ago.
American democracy can never replicate the political heroics of New Deal America.
The collective "mind of America" can only react, behave how and when directed by forces so pernicious, so destructive of democratic spirit, that only wishful thinking can develop strategies that will work in the face of the corporate takeover that's occurred in America since the New Deal.
Candidates for the presidency can imitate the tenor of New Deal politics but they can never apply the lessons learned then. It's just not the way of end-stage capitalism.
26
@dove
Spot on! Thank you for revealing the Media-Corporate matrix, which propagandizes for corporations while profiteering handsomely from them. Or as they say, a "win-win" in the parlance of end-stage capitalism. As for the ACA, a win-win for the medical-industrial-complex.
3
FDR came from the eastern Establishment, and sought to save capitalism from itself, and prepared to use whatever achieved that, including large scale state intervention and demand management policies. In that sense he was a liberal conservative and no ideologue, but a believer in the positive role of the state to improve peoples lives in ways the free market can not. Sen. Warren seems to be close in spirit to the that, but there may be others in a crowded field.
40
FDR benefitted from an economic anxiety that extended to the heads of corporations. I fear that is not the case today when their control, political influence, and frequent disregard for how their policies affect workers are so extraordinary.
As for the general public, their economic anxiety is strong but inchoate. A successful Democratic candidate must be able to explain its many sources, which seems to be what Elizabeth Warren is trying to do.
89
@dmdaisy
That's Warren's problem. Well, rather that she doesn't do a good job at explaining. It comes off like rich-hating and antithetical to the American Dream, which is financial.
She's gotta learn to coax. You can lead a horse to water, but if you shove its head INTO the water, it's definitely not gong to drink. And you'll be kicked really hard.
Thank you Mr Alder
Looking forward to your book on Jimmy Carter, one of the brilliant Presidents.
The center must move to the left because the pendulum
swung to far right. Balance would be achieved if we vote progressive and not go back to status quo of Obama, for instance, Baucus leans right and stopped single payer. The SCOTUS appointment was lost to Republicans because of a "lets work together" lackadaisical attitude.
The Russian influence in the 2016 election should have been revealed to the public, Obama was playing politics
while Russia held the cards.
Progressive not Socialism, would have prevented these
things from changing the Democrats course in government. What F.D.R. did for the people was far from center, it was progressive for the peoples needs. Then he may have moved the pendulum a little toward the right to set the course where the country could flourish.
We must vote Progressive, it's the Democratic direction.
It is the stronger voice of Americans, strength is what is imperative to get back on course.
Biden style is Obama style.
24
@s.whether
My apologies! Jonathan Alter.
Spelling your name wrong, not acceptable.
2
@s.whether
Apologies on the spelling of your name.
Jonathan Alter!
2
In Fear Itself, Columbia University professor Ira Katznelson noted it was anything but today's "liberal terrain" FDR exploited, while he worked across the aisle with southern segregationists:
"Refusing to acknowledge any incompatibility between the system of segregation and wider American values...southern polititians sought to legislate withhout having to choose among their valued objectives. Most had brought an activist agenda to Washington well before the New Deal......(remarkable) in his reelection of 1936 was the degree of support he secured across the Deep South. Roosevelt's reelection was endorsed by 87% of voters in Alabama, Georgia and Texas, 89% in Louisiana, and an astonishing 97% in Mississippi and 99% in South Carolina, where some counties reported not one Republican vote."
12
@Winston Smith
Because of today's southern senators,, it's easy to forget that in FDR's time while all were opposed to equal rights for blacks, most were quite liberal on other issues and willing to support virtually all the New Deal legislation. For example, Hugo Black, an Alabama senator, who opposed equal rights when he was in the senate but was one of the strongest supporters of the New Deal legislation. FDR took a chance that once Black was on the Supreme Court and no more required to follow the racism of his constituents to be elected, he would break away from their views on race. FDR was right as Black ended up being one of the most liberal justices in the history of the court.
And that high Democratic support in the South was nothing unusual. The Civil War still cast a long shadow over the country and it was rarity to find any Republican office holders down there from the end of the war until the 1960s when, led by LBJ, the Dems finally got true civil rights legislation passed and the segregationists moved over to the Republicans.
4