nvm
- Thread starter xarthaz
- Start date
I don't recall FDR ever actually promising any of those things, let alone "treacherously" not following through.
Kraznaya
Princeps
I think I'll have to go with Kraznaya; if FDR committed "treachery", he got re-elected twice for it - the only president to have been re-elected in this fashion (because ofcourse afterwards presidential re-election would be limited to one term only).
LightSpectra
me autem minui
It is true that FDR originally ran on a platform of free-market capitalism to contrast Hoover's extensive financial interventionism. Between that and the Western betrayals, deportation of Soviet refugees, support of the Morgenthau Plan, Japanese-American internment, court packing, burning crops in an era when many people suffered from malnutrition, failure to reduce the impact of the Great Depression and so forth, it's not a stretch to call FDR a treacherous president.
FDR is easily one of the greatest American presidents ever. His New Deal greatly alleviated the worst affects of the Great Depression, he passed many new progressive legislation that helped the working class and the poor, he founded new government agencies for this purpose that are still there today, he lead the nation through World War II. His only fault is that he did not go far enough, though I suppose that is because World War II intervened and he died in his 4th term. If he had lived his entire 4th term no doubt we would have seen much great new legislation and program from him. Truman did follow his legacy to an extent but lacked the majority he commanded. I only wish FDR had amended the Constitution (I also wish he had been a socialist but alas we can't have everything) he certainely had the power to do so. It would have spared us a lot of this whining about health care and such if government powers to run such programs had been made explicit.
If I were to list the greatest presidents of the 20th century it would go:
1. FDR
2.Teddy Roosevelt
3. LBJ
4. Harry Truman
5. Woodrow Wilson
The rest of them weren't worth a penny.
If I were to list the greatest presidents of the 20th century it would go:
1. FDR
2.Teddy Roosevelt
3. LBJ
4. Harry Truman
5. Woodrow Wilson
The rest of them weren't worth a penny.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
It did not. Some economists argue the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Best case scenario, it had little effect. Note that unemployment never dropped below 14% until the beginning of WWII.
That they're all good things are questionable. I repeat that he burned crops (thus falling prey to the broken window fallacy) in order to raise food prices, which only caused more malnutrition in his country.
His leading of WWII is a bit of an embarrassment. He at first tried to micromanage the war, failed miserably; and consequently, he threw up his hands and said "alright Marshall, Stimson and Eisenhower, just deal with it, I don't care."
FDR is also essentially the reason why the Cold War happened. His indisputably terrible diplomatic skills resulted in ceding far more of Europe than need be to the Soviets, which is why he's considered a paragon of the Western betrayal. Though I suppose you think that this was a good thing if you're a socialist.
His death is what prevented the monstrously evil Morgenthau Plan, which would've made him no different than Stalin. Thus, I am thankful that he died into his fourth term before he could bring more disgraces to the U.S. and needless suffering to the world.
I leave you with a quote of FDR that sums up his whole presidency.
"Stalin is not that kind of man... He doesn't want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
The notion that Woodrow Wilson wasn't in the top five worst presidents in history is ridiculous. He killed 100,000 Americans for a war we had no reason to be in but his own personal ambitions. He segregated the government and sterilized blacks, repeatedly lied to the public, bypassed the Constitution repeatedly to censor and imprison anti-war protesters, etc. etc.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Well then, please address one of the following: Japanese-American internment, Western betrayal, the Agricultural Adjustment Acts, or the Morgenthau Plan. If you think he's an excellent president despite of (or in sheer denial of) these items, then I am curious how you can call anybody else's views to be "warped."
Returning back to the topic at hand, this is an actual quote by Roosevelt, which he gave early on in his presidency:
"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America... The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief." (State of the Union Address on Jan. 4, 1935)
What he said is rather starkly contrasted with what he did. Though I honestly think this quote is completely truthful and sums up my own economic beliefs rather well.
You are seizing on a few minor issues and trying to paint it as though it was FDR's entire Presidency which is completely false. You are ignoring his tremendous successes which complelty override any of his few failures. With regard to court packing he was completely right to do so. The Court was filled with reactionaries who were blocking all his legislation. After his court packing plan despite its failure the court was more amiable to upholding his legislation. Japanese-American internment while unfortunate was considered necessary at the time and upheld by SCOTUS. I think FDR can hardly be blamed for it. Western betrayal you should blame Britain and France not the US, we scarcely had anything do with Europe at the time and were in the middle of an isolationist period. Blame the American people perhaps. The Agricultural Adjustment act had little impact on malnutrition as you contend. Rather it sought to control prices and it was effective in this regard. And upheld by SCOUTS again. The Morgenthau plan was not unwarranted given the context of the time. Germany should have considered itself lucky to be allowed to even exist. There were some who wanted it annihilated.
Then lets look at FDR's successes. His Inaguration speech helped to lift the psychological depression that had gripped the nation creating a new sense of Presidential leadership. Along with the inaugural speech he called for an emergency session of Congress and instituted the FDIC banking legislation to have federal insurance of deposits which reopened 3/4th of closed banks. Roosevelt as chief legislator passed recovery acts such as the National Recovery Administration to get people back to work, Civilian Conservation Corps to provide public work for the unemployed, Tennessee Valley Authority which revolutionized South and provided large hydroelectric projects to supply it energy, National Industrial Recovery Act that allowed regulation of monopolies and cartels, the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market in 1934, as well as laws to end child labor and create a federal minimum wage. incident, legislation's passed included the Works Progress Administration that provided public works jobs building parks, bridges and schools and supported cultural associations including artists, writers and poets. The Wagner Act an important piece of legislation that protected the rights of workers to unionize, engage in collective bargaining and strike allowing for the creation of industry wide labor unions . Social Security, a revolutionary program that provided aid and insurance to the unemployed, elderly and otherwise infirm; soil conservation and other environmental protection and the Rural Electrification Administration that provided electricity to rural areas were important legislation's.
As party chief FDR was able to win four terms in office and served until his death in 1945, the most terms any President had ever served. The Democrats had consistent control over Congress and the Democrats were established as the majority party.
Despite the isolationist sentiments in the US he was aware that war with Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan would be inevitable and took measures to prepare for that eventuality. He introduced a peace time draft; he began the Lend-Lease Act and the Destroyers for Bases program with Britain. The Lend Lease was later extended to the USSR. He responded firmly against Japanese aggression in Asia and the Pacific even when Congress was reluctant to do so.During the war itself, he appointed skilled commanders such as Eisenhower as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces who won great victories for the United States. Even though the war was going on he did not end domestic reform, he created the Fair Employment Practices Committee to end discrimination in civilian employment. Even during the darkest days of the war he kept the national morale strong and declared that the Allies would win unconditional surrender from the Axis. He laid the foundation of the post-war world and sought to establish the United States as the dominant nation in a new world order.
Roosevelt established a new brand of liberalism and progressivism that would live on and was taken up by LBJ who deeply admired him. The New Deal Democrats would be a majority party and be a strong political force and influence in American politics for decades to come. To this day the influence of Roosevelt endures through his numerous public works projects and various legislation. He changed the nature of the American government and American political landscape.
Liberalism was extended to the economic arena and the idea that the government had some responsibilities in that area was introduced. Even the Republicans were forced to accept this position. FDR greatly advanced social justice and in foreign policy he secured Americas place as a superpower and shaped the nature of the post-war world through institutions such as the United Nations and IMF. FDRs influence is far reaching and pervasive. Franklin Delano Roosevelt deserves to be ranked the best President of the 20th century.
Then lets look at FDR's successes. His Inaguration speech helped to lift the psychological depression that had gripped the nation creating a new sense of Presidential leadership. Along with the inaugural speech he called for an emergency session of Congress and instituted the FDIC banking legislation to have federal insurance of deposits which reopened 3/4th of closed banks. Roosevelt as chief legislator passed recovery acts such as the National Recovery Administration to get people back to work, Civilian Conservation Corps to provide public work for the unemployed, Tennessee Valley Authority which revolutionized South and provided large hydroelectric projects to supply it energy, National Industrial Recovery Act that allowed regulation of monopolies and cartels, the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market in 1934, as well as laws to end child labor and create a federal minimum wage. incident, legislation's passed included the Works Progress Administration that provided public works jobs building parks, bridges and schools and supported cultural associations including artists, writers and poets. The Wagner Act an important piece of legislation that protected the rights of workers to unionize, engage in collective bargaining and strike allowing for the creation of industry wide labor unions . Social Security, a revolutionary program that provided aid and insurance to the unemployed, elderly and otherwise infirm; soil conservation and other environmental protection and the Rural Electrification Administration that provided electricity to rural areas were important legislation's.
As party chief FDR was able to win four terms in office and served until his death in 1945, the most terms any President had ever served. The Democrats had consistent control over Congress and the Democrats were established as the majority party.
Despite the isolationist sentiments in the US he was aware that war with Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan would be inevitable and took measures to prepare for that eventuality. He introduced a peace time draft; he began the Lend-Lease Act and the Destroyers for Bases program with Britain. The Lend Lease was later extended to the USSR. He responded firmly against Japanese aggression in Asia and the Pacific even when Congress was reluctant to do so.During the war itself, he appointed skilled commanders such as Eisenhower as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces who won great victories for the United States. Even though the war was going on he did not end domestic reform, he created the Fair Employment Practices Committee to end discrimination in civilian employment. Even during the darkest days of the war he kept the national morale strong and declared that the Allies would win unconditional surrender from the Axis. He laid the foundation of the post-war world and sought to establish the United States as the dominant nation in a new world order.
Roosevelt established a new brand of liberalism and progressivism that would live on and was taken up by LBJ who deeply admired him. The New Deal Democrats would be a majority party and be a strong political force and influence in American politics for decades to come. To this day the influence of Roosevelt endures through his numerous public works projects and various legislation. He changed the nature of the American government and American political landscape.
Liberalism was extended to the economic arena and the idea that the government had some responsibilities in that area was introduced. Even the Republicans were forced to accept this position. FDR greatly advanced social justice and in foreign policy he secured Americas place as a superpower and shaped the nature of the post-war world through institutions such as the United Nations and IMF. FDRs influence is far reaching and pervasive. Franklin Delano Roosevelt deserves to be ranked the best President of the 20th century.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
So this is the moral that you're telling me: when the Supreme Court doesn't agree with your beliefs, just eliminate them as a significant power altogether.
See, here's the thing: the Constitution exists to limit the government's power. When you say, "FDR was right to try and stuff the SC with people who agreed with his beliefs," you're essentially saying, "it's okay to not follow the Constitution when it's in regards to things I like." Sorry, the United States was not founded upon arbitrary dictatorships. His legislation was unconstitutional and shouldn't have passed. If he wanted them to pass, he should've sought an amendment. The fact that he was not able to do so is paramount to saying, "what I want this government to do is illegal and not wanted, but screw it, I'm going for it."
Tell me, what would you think had George W. Bush or Andrew Jackson had attempted to full the Supreme Courts with people who would not have stricken their actions? I would hope you would at least be consistent in supporting them, since you think the notion of judicial review as a check and balance is an impediment to progress.
The Supreme Court that you just finished telling me was justifiably filled with FDR's candidates. One of the reasons for the traditional two-term limit was to prevent one president from having his ideologues fill up the Court; since he legally won his third and fourth terms, I can't complain about this. However, it does demonstrate very vividly that when you ignore the Constitution as FDR did, you get things like throwing 140,000 Americans into treason camps because of their ethnicity.
Executive Order 9066. Look it up. He signed and delivered it. Japanese-American Internment was entirely on him.
The betrayal extends all the way up to the Yalta Conference. The returning of a million Soviet refugees to certain death and allowing Stalin's armies to occupy everything between East Germany and Russia are included in the betrayal.
No, it was not upheld by the Court. It was found unconstitutional, so he waited to later in his presidency when more members of the Court were his ideologues, whereby he simply shoved the act through Congress again. To quote Hugo Black: "Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind."
Killing hundreds of thousands of people just to satisfy FDR's blood thirst was not unwarranted? I thank God Roosevelt died when he did, so the more sane Truman became president and gave the Germans a generous peace.
Given. I don't see how this excuses his other atrocities.
None of these, save for the end of child labor (which he had less to do with than you think) are self-evidently good. You need to back up these points.
So? A president isn't good because he's good at becoming president, he's good if he's good at being president, which FDR was not.
Given that these were good things.
He didn't appoint Eisenhower.
The post-war world was one of communists subjugating half of Europe because FDR was too much of a dolt to think Stalin might've had bad intentions, and too much of a failure to stand up to him at the Allied summits. I don't see how you can possibly disagree with me on this point. Had a more skillful negotiator been at the helm then most of the suffering of the '40s through '90s would have been entirely avoided.
"He was influential, therefore he was good" is not a good argument. If these were all bad things, then the fact that he's influential only makes him worse.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I don't know if this was directed at me, but I point out than an idea was introduced to FDR that American planes should've bombed Western European train tracks to interrupt deportations to concentration camps, and he refused to allow it.
If the Supreme Court is a reactionary entity blocking the will of the majority of the American people and legislation by the duly elected President of the US then yes something should be done. The Court was ridiculously activist when it should have taken a restrained view on government power.
You like everyone else forget that the Constitution also outlines government powers. And the outlines of its powers have been constructed to be very broad.
They did. With people like Alito and Roberts. All President's appoint people that conform to their ideology that's how the system works. Bush appoints conservatives like them, Obama appoints liberals like Sotamayor. I don't expect President's to appoint people that don't agree with them or their reading of the Constitution. That simply wouldn't make sense.
Like I said, context of the times it was unfortunate but it happened.
The USSR was entrenched in Eastern Europe and Germany. Under no circumstances other than outright war would they have given it up. The USSR was also our ally and we wanted its aid against Japan and had no reason to pressure it to give up its holdings. Idealism is nice and all but lets be realistic here.
Wickard v. Filburn a very similar act of it was upheld. Also Hugo Black has the most ridiculous reading of the Constitution I've ever seen, borderline insane. He's a Textualist. When a case came up during the Vietnam war when a newspaper published military reports and plans that were classified the government tried to stop it. Black struck it down on the basis that it violated the 1st amendment, that even classified military plans could not be censored because the text says no law shall abridge freedom of speech, and that means no law under any circumstance.
If you can't see how those are good then I can't help you any further. You're more of a reactionary then I thought possible.
Its a comment on the intellectual honesty of the OP.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
It wasn't blocking the will of the majority of the American people, because otherwise FDR would've had no trouble getting an amendment to the Constitution. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution, not to give a proud thumbs up to whomever is president.
And you're right, it should've been more effective at restraining government power. That's what happens when somebody is president for such a long time.
But not so broad as to be meaningless.
They should appoint people who vow to obey the Constitution even when the president is wrong. If they only appoint yes-men, then they're not defending the law of the land but their own arbitrary wills.
It was indeed unfortunate, and a strong point for why FDR was a terrible president.
I don't have time to go into detail, but you're quite wrong. Ask any historian that's not a blatant apologist for FDR and they'll readily admit that he made concessions to the Soviets that he didn't have to make. It's rather evident given the various things FDR said that either was not aware of, or simply did not care what an evil man Stalin was, he just wanted to make sure his U.N. agenda got through.
That was the one I was referring to. The first AAA was found unconstitutional, so FDR just waited for the SC to be filled with his cronies, whereby he passed it through Congress again. Wickard v. Filburn was the result of the second AAA's SC hearing.
Textualism is "borderline insane?" Believing what the Constitution means, is what it means, not the arbitrary beliefs of whomever is on the Court at the time, is "borderline insane?" Congratulations, you've thrown every Founding Father save for Hamilton into the loony house.
I take it James Madison, the author of the Constitution, was also insane when he said that "do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government"?
I was not endorsing every single thing Black has ever done with his life, but his quote is true, like it or not. The notion that the Constitution is subject to the beliefs of the Justices, as opposed to simply being the fundamental law of the land, is absurd and results in absolute arbitrariness in politics.
Why? Because I think it's wrong to want to kill millions of people, allow a vicious dictator to rule half the world without cause, imprison hundreds of thousands of people based on their ethnicity, and burn food in a period when people couldn't afford it? If that makes me a reactionary, then I am proud to be so.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Kind of irrelevant since the railways were being bombed before the US even entered the war, no?
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
The more and more I read the argument between Lightspectra and Karalysia, the more I am convinced of Lightspectra's argument.
That said, a round of google and wiki gave me a similar impression of Lightspectra's views
That said, a round of google and wiki gave me a similar impression of Lightspectra's views
