Would you consider FDR to be a good president?

[schlaufuchs]

That is of course, assuming FDR was an efficient wartime leader.

Which brings this thread nicely back to its original response: What is FDR's VORL?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I'd criticize him for the Japanese internment camps, but I think that it would have happened under any president given the circumstances of the time.

What I think I would have done at the time if I were president is draft every Japanese-American male 18-35 and send him over to fight in Europe and North Africa. Except for some carefully vetted that would be used as translators in the Pacific War. Then go on the radio and tell all Americans that Japanese Americans were just as loyal as German Americans.

Just noticed I seem to be agreeing with Fugitive up there.

 

[FriendlyFire]

For all of those who point to flaws in Bush for 9/11, they should hof FDR in many hundreds of times more contempt for Pearl Harbor.

Other than that he was pretty much just a demagogue who ran over the Constitution and civil rights at every opportunity, deepened the depression and led us on the path of institutional blout that characterizes our current government.

As a man though he was certainly impressive, he knew how to set a goal and bend resources to achieve it. He was also talented at choosing primaries, a real important thing for presidents.

Why do you want HITLER to WIN ?
Dont you know that questioning a president during war is treason and undermines our fighting forces moral ?

 

[rollo1066]

My opinion is that only Lincoln and possibly Washington were better Presidents than FDR. His primary accomplishments were leading the USA to victory in WWII and the establishment of Social Security. I also like that he was a stong supporter on unions and worker's rights.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not among the people who have to hate FDR because they hate that FDR saved America from socialism.

He did what now to the which?

We should strive to be intelligent.

Its intelligent to realize that we can't place our prevailing attitudes in the heads of historic figures.

Its intelligent to realize that if we had been in their shoes we would have been able to see things through their eyes.

And might well have made some of the same decisions without reservation.

I am struggling to figure out how "don't kidnap 200,000 people because of their ethnicity" can be considered nothing more the vagaries of ethical fashion. I strongly suspect that you don't actually have any idea why it was wrong in the first place, but don't want to admit it because of said "prevailing attitudes".

 

[Crezth]

He did what now to the which?

The idea is that FDR protected the bourgeoisie class, that he maintained the class structure in America, rather than submit to the furor of the people and completely dismantle the entire system.

It's kind of a general thought that the USA was on the brink of succumbing to fascism or socialism due to the perceived failures of capitalism, and that FDR didn't allow that - a sort of gateguard standing between the USA and the "destruction of liberty," if you will.

It's not a really popular view and I can only think of a handful of American liberals (that I know personally) that hold it. I'm not clear on the details, but that's the basic theory from what I can recall. With people like Huey Long out there on the pulpits, I think you can make a convincing argument for it - but I'm not the person to do it.

 

[kochman]

My opinion is that only Lincoln and possibly Washington were better Presidents than FDR. His primary accomplishments were leading the USA to victory in WWII and the establishment of Social Security. I also like that he was a stong supporter on unions and worker's rights.

I agree with the idea of SS, however, as it is, it's a huge ponzi scheme.
If they can somehow make it solvent, it's awesome.

 

[caketastydelish]

What I think I would have done at the time if I were president is draft every Japanese-American male 18-35 and send him over to fight in Europe and North Africa. Except for some carefully vetted that would be used as translators in the Pacific War. Then go on the radio and tell all Americans that Japanese Americans were just as loyal as German Americans.

1) You come from a different era, an era that certainly has racism although less racism than the 1940's.

2) Because of the fact that so many Americans were racist at the time, it would have probably happened no matter who the president was. People demanded it. Not saying that's a justification for the internment camps, just an explanation.

 

[Antilogic]

The message informing the Japanese ambassador to declare war was intercepted and broken hours before the attack. The Army radar operators detected the incoming planes and misidentified them. These are mistakes far more egregious than anything on 9/11 yet Cutlass blames Bush. I just want consistancy from him.

No, it would be as if the CIA had received a 100% authentic message announcing an attack on 9/11 hours before a plane hit any building, and the airforce had seen a plane needed towards the buildings with more than enough time to act but decided not to.

The blunders in intelligence preceding Pearl Harbor were far greater than 9/11 and the consequences far greater as well, yet Cutlass ignores this.

If 9/11 was a black eye for Bush, this even was a severed arm for FDR. And that's with the world already at war to boot.

Your analogy is terrible.

Only the civil code, not the naval code, was broken before Pearl Harbor. No explicit orders saying the attack on Pearl Harbor was going to occur were intercepted, just a general declaration of hostilities. And I'm pretty sure the President of the United States wasn't also the Army radar operator in Hawaii, but what do I know? Sounds like a fumble in the lower ranks.

If you want to entertain some insane conspiracy theories, I'd recommend a great show on the History Channel.

 

[KaiserElectric]

What I think I would have done at the time if I were president is draft every Japanese-American male 18-35 and send him over to fight in Europe and North Africa. Except for some carefully vetted that would be used as translators in the Pacific War. Then go on the radio and tell all Americans that Japanese Americans were just as loyal as German Americans.

I would probably have done the same thing, as the Japanese Americans were easily the most loyal Americans during the war. After all, the American Unit with the most purple hearts in the war was entirely Japanese American!

Tragically, we weren't so open minded back then as we are now. People were afraid of the Japanese attacking American soil, and in their eyes the internment camps were justified. If FDR didn't order the Japanese rounded up, his opponents could have used it against him and he could have lost his office to a weaker president who would have ordered the internment. God knows what that could have done to the war effort.

It was a face-saving move for FDR in the end. Not very PC in our day and age, but the decision was made largely by the American people, not the President.

 

[kochman]

Tragically, we weren't so open minded back then as we are now. People were afraid of the Japanese attacking American soil, and in their eyes the internment camps were justified. If FDR didn't order the Japanese rounded up, his opponents could have used it against him and he could have lost his office to a weaker president who would have ordered the internment. God knows what that could have done to the war effort.

It was a face-saving move for FDR in the end. Not very PC in our day and age, but the decision was made largely by the American people, not the President.

This is a poorly thought out idea, and I will tell you why.
1) There were people who knew it was wrong... so saying we weren't so open minded back then doesn't excuse rounding up 200,000 citizens/residents without trial, indefinitely, it goes against the US Constitution... period.
2) Fear is a poor policy driver, and to think that a handful of Japanese-Americans were going to cause any substantial damage is crazy
3) Lost his office? He rounded up the Japanese in 1942... he faced one more election, 1944 (432 electoral votes to 99 electoral votes... I highly doubt this internment was the decisive factor). Technically, he should've already stepped down and not even run in 1940, before we were in war. However, he believed himself to be the answer... so perhaps his arrogance did drive him to round up the Japs, lest he loose his beloved seat of power that he was holding onto.
4) We've changed Presidents during wars, and it was fine. In fact, if the war is deemed to be too bad, that regime change is exactly what we want, rather than some guy fully vested in the loosing battle. To think that FDR is the only one who could've handled the war is without any merit whatsoever, and history has shown it.
5) The decision was made by FDR, not the American people. That's why he was President, to make tough decisions. A good president doesn't do things because of populist sentiment at the moment.
6) In WW1, there was a lot of anti-German sentiment, with German-Americans often switching their surnames to some anglo version... Kochman became Cook, Schmidt became Smith, etc... where were the German-American Internment Camps? They didn't exist, because you can't just round up a people due to their race and through them in the slammer... it's not only unconstitutional, it's complete racism and inexcusible... and FDR takes the blame...

In the end, it is the biggest stain amongst several smaller stains on a pretty good presidency... but making all these excuses for it is pretty bad. Just say, yeah, he screwed up... but we can't undo it now.

We don't need to rationalize why the Crusaders sometimes did atrocities, because no matter the historical era/situation, there are things that are blatantly wrong, and this concept of racial internment was not new, and it was known to be bad...

 

[Crezth]

This is a poorly thought out idea, and I will tell you why.
1) There were people who knew it was wrong... so saying we weren't so open minded back then doesn't excuse rounding up 200,000 citizens/residents without trial, indefinitely, it goes against the US Constitution... period.
2) Fear is a poor policy driver, and to think that a handful of Japanese-Americans were going to cause any substantial damage is crazy
3) Lost his office? He rounded up the Japanese in 1942... he faced one more election, 1944 (432 electoral votes to 99 electoral votes... I highly doubt this internment was the decisive factor). Technically, he should've already stepped down and not even run in 1940, before we were in war. However, he believed himself to be the answer... so perhaps his arrogance did drive him to round up the Japs, lest he loose his beloved seat of power that he was holding onto.
4) We've changed Presidents during wars, and it was fine. In fact, if the war is deemed to be too bad, that regime change is exactly what we want, rather than some guy fully vested in the loosing battle. To think that FDR is the only one who could've handled the war is without any merit whatsoever, and history has shown it.
5) The decision was made by FDR, not the American people. That's why he was President, to make tough decisions. A good president doesn't do things because of populist sentiment at the moment.
6) In WW1, there was a lot of anti-German sentiment, with German-Americans often switching their surnames to some anglo version... Kochman became Cook, Schmidt became Smith, etc... where were the German-American Internment Camps? They didn't exist, because you can't just round up a people due to their race and through them in the slammer... it's not only unconstitutional, it's complete racism and inexcusible... and FDR takes the blame...

1) More people thought it was right. What's your point? The entire attitude with regards to race back then was trash.
2) Agreed.
3) I think your point about him stepping down is a bit beating a dead horse with a stick. You don't suppose if the constitution's framers meant for there to be a 2-term limit they'd have included it?
4) You can make a convincing argument that other presidents would have performed as well as or better than, but suffice to say there was no reason to switch presidents, since the war was going pretty well and FDR was beloved. Why would you swap a universally-liked, charismatic leader for someone else *just* to switch leaders, especially in wartime? It boggles the mind.
5) What does a good President do, in your view?
6) Oh kochman, I thought you'd know better than that. It's a false equivalency; the Japanese had already suffered from few generations' worth of discrimination, so the precedent is there for continued discrimination.

In the end, it is the biggest stain amongst several smaller stains on a pretty good presidency... but making all these excuses for it is pretty bad. Just say, yeah, he screwed up... but we can't undo it now.

We don't need to rationalize why the Crusaders sometimes did atrocities, because no matter the historical era/situation, there are things that are blatantly wrong, and this concept of racial internment was not new, and it was known to be bad...

While I agree (and I do, let me make that clear) I don't think the American people are entirely blameless. The internment camps weren't entirely a secret affair (not like, say, the concentration camps) and west coast Americans were aware of and in general approving of the internment camps' existence.

I think they would have existed no matter who was president. It was still wrong, though, and I blame the people for enabling it and FDR for allowing it.

 

[kochman]

1) More people thought it was right. What's your point?

Source?

3) I think your point about him stepping down is a bit beating a dead horse with a stick. You don't suppose if the constitution's framers meant for there to be a 2-term limit they'd have included it?

They included the system to make amendments for things they didn't foresee... and it is now a constitutional law.

4) You can make a convincing argument that other presidents would have performed as well as or better than, but suffice to say there was no reason to switch presidents, since the war was going pretty well and FDR was beloved. Why would you swap a universally-liked, charismatic leader for someone else *just* to switch leaders, especially in wartime? It boggles the mind.

It was tradition, we've changed presidents during war time, and it is fine... it is now law, no matter what the war situation, we get a new president.

5) What does a good President do, in your view?

The morally right thing even if momentary populist sentiment is against it. That's part of being a leader.

6) Oh kochman, I thought you'd know better than that. It's a false equivalency; the Japanese had already suffered from few generations' worth of discrimination, so the precedent is there for continued discrimination.

So had the Germans, and every group that came to America... decades of discrimination.
Look, doesn't matter, in WW1 it didn't happen, in the Spanish American War, etc, it didn't happen. Racially based internment was not a new idea, it was a old, bad idea... and FDR reintroduced it to the USA. Total disgrace.

The internment camps weren't entirely a secret affair (not like, say, the concentration camps)

Concentration camps were not a secret. We knew of Dachau in 1933. Extermination camps were more secretive, but they didn't exist on the industrial level until near the end of WW2 anyhow.

I think they would have existed no matter who was president. It was still wrong, though, and I blame the people for enabling it and FDR for allowing it.

Rubbish... I don't know enough about the opponents that FDR faced specifically, but to say anyone would have done it is wrong. It wasn't something we did, it was unconstitutional, etc.
At the time, the Dem party had a latent (white man's burden) and blatant (southern) racist streak to it... this is not a secret. It has, for the most part, changed for the better, but at the time, it was a rather racist party, and definitely more racist than the Repubs of the time... (funny how it has reversed).
There are things that are just wrong during any period of time...

 

[KaiserElectric]

2) Fear is a poor policy driver, and to think that a handful of Japanese-Americans were going to cause any substantial damage is crazy

You seem to forget that the Japanese committed a surprise attack that was seen as a stab in the back by most Americans. Japan had shown that they could successfully attack the US, and people were afraid of another attack. It didn't help matters that the West Coast, the area closest to Japan, had a substantial Japanese-American population at the time either. California and the surrounding area has had a long history of mistreatment towards foreigners, and the Klan had just had a revival twenty years prior. To a lot of people, the thought that the "disloyal" Japanese-Americans would commit sabotage in the US was a legitimate fear. It's certainly crazy, but how often in history has racism and fear trumped sound logic? It was even happening across the Atlantic Ocean at the exact same time.

 

[Crezth]

Look, it doesn't matter what is right or what is wrong, what matters is that the people supported it and that's *why* it happened. Of course it was wrong, but that doesn't inform on the issue any more than saying "it's wrong to own slaves." yes, it is, but it still happened, and not just because one immoral person pushed for it.

 

[Traitorfish]

1) More people thought it was right. What's your point? The entire attitude with regards to race back then was trash.

It's funny how willing American liberals are to play down FDR's racism because "everyone was like that", while at the same time (quite rightly) refusing to cut the slightest slack for the Confederates. It's almost like weren't were somehow employing varied and disparate standards...

 

[Ajidica]

It's funny how willing American liberals are to play down FDR's racism because "everyone was like that", while at the same time (quite rightly) refusing to cut the slightest slack for the Confederates. It's almost like weren't were somehow employing varied and disparate standards...

I would say there is quite a bit of difference between FDR's garden-variety racism and intentionaly betraying your country for the sole right to declare human being property.

 

[kochman]

Look, it doesn't matter what is right or what is wrong, what matters is that the people supported it and that's *why* it happened. Of course it was wrong, but that doesn't inform on the issue any more than saying "it's wrong to own slaves." yes, it is, but it still happened, and not just because one immoral person pushed for it.

No, but one immoral person could have stopped it had he been more moral. FDR.

It's funny how willing American liberals are to play down FDR's racism because "everyone was like that", while at the same time (quite rightly) refusing to cut the slightest slack for the Confederates. It's almost like weren't were somehow employing varied and disparate standards...

Which is my whole point... the double standard that liberals have when their side does something.

This bill that Obama signed, allowing the unconstitutional indefinite detention of US citizens without trial... imagine the uproar if Bush had done it...
But, it's ok when "our guy" does the wrong thing... he has his reasons, and we will excuse him. (The right does it too).

 

[Crezth]

It's funny how willing American liberals are to play down FDR's racism because "everyone was like that", while at the same time (quite rightly) refusing to cut the slightest slack for the Confederates. It's almost like weren't were somehow employing varied and disparate standards...

Not at all my point. I think that the internment camps would have happened no matter what. I can't think of an alternate reality that is without internment camps*. And yes, the camps were wrong and horrible, but I don't think of that as a problem with FDR specifically so much as American society in general.

*If FDR was a better man, the internment camps may not have happened. It is lamentable that he was not, and that they did.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, but one immoral person could have stopped it had he been more moral. FDR.

What's that old quote? "All that it takes is for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing?"

Seems appropriate.

Not at all my point. I think that the internment camps would have happened no matter what. I can't think of an alternate reality that is without internment camps*. And yes, the camps were wrong and horrible, but I don't think of that as a problem with FDR specifically so much as American society in general.

*If FDR was a better man, the internment camps may not have happened. It is lamentable that he was not, and that they did.

As far as I can see, shifting responsibility up to the abstract level of "society" is just a way of avoiding having to deal with it an individual level. It may have been that there were millions upon millions of racist Americans who supported this, and by all accounts that seems to have been the case; that's not something that can really be debated. But the sheer magnitude of these bastards doesn't mean that they were not, individually, reprehensible, that serious criticism cannot be levelled against each and every one of them.

If FDR is exceptional in the level of criticism he gets, that's because he took it upon himself to hold the office of President, took it upon himself to be exceptional. He knew the territory- hell, he invented half of it- and if he didn't want the moral responsibility that came with it, then, as I said, he should have had the guts to resign.