This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
FDR Wasn't FDR ... Until His Hand Was Forced By Civil Disobedience
Progressives are disappointed that - contrary to the hype - Obama is no FDR.
But FDR himself wasn't who we think of as FDR until he was forced by protests, strikes and other forms of civil disobedience.
As historian Howard Zinn wrote in March 2008:
In
1934, early in the Roosevelt Presidency, strikes broke out all over
the country, including a general strike in Minneapolis, a general
strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on strike in the textile
mills of the South. Unemployed councils formed all over the country.
Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to
put back the furniture of evicted tenants, and creating self-help
organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.
Without
a national crisis—economic destitution and rebellion—it is not likely
the Roosevelt Administration would have instituted the bold reforms
that it did.
Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party,
unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two
leading Presidential candidates [i.e. Obama and McCain] have made it
clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq
War ....
They offer no radical change from the status quo.
They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for ....
They
do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical
changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for
social programs to transform the way we live.
None of this
should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic
conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only
when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and
the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in
November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental
illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.
***
For instance, the
mortgage foreclosures that are driving millions from their homes—they
should remind us of a similar situation after the Revolutionary War,
when small farmers, many of them war veterans (like so many of our
homeless today), could not afford to pay their taxes and were
threatened with the loss of the land, their homes. They gathered by the
thousands around courthouses and refused to allow the auctions to take
place.
The evictions today of people who cannot pay their rents
should remind us of what people did in the Thirties when they
organized and put the belongings of the evicted families back in their
apartments, in defiance of the authorities.Historically,
government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats,
conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until
forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the rights of
black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies
and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war. Voting ... is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.
Similarly, Zinn said in 2008:
The
obstacles are a kind of resignation that things will go on as before.
That's always the obstacle to change. The obstacle to change is not
that people don't want change. People want change. But most of the
time, people feel impotent. However, at certain points in history, the
energy level of people, the indignation level of people rises. And at
that point it becomes possible for people to organize and to agitate and
to educate one another, and to create an atmosphere in which the
government must do something. I'm thinking of the 1930s; I'm thinking of
Franklin D. Roosevelt coming into office not really a crusader.
Roosevelt
came into office, you know, with a balance-the-budgets history. It was
not clear what he was going to do, and I don't think he was clear
about what he was going to do, except that he was going to be different
from Hoover and the Republicans. But when he came into office, he
faced a country that was on strike. He faced general strikes in San
Francisco in Minneapolis. He faced strikes of hundreds of thousands of
textile workers in the South. He faced a tenants movement and an
unemployed council movement. And he faced a country in turmoil, and he
reacted to it, he was sensitive to it, he moved. That's what we will
need.
We will need to see some of the scenes that we saw in the '30s.
Liberal Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig pointed out last week that - instead of mocking the Tea party - progressives should emulate it's energy:
Many
of my friends have been puzzled that I have not been a strong critic
of the Tea Party. Indeed, quite the opposite, I stand as a critical
admirer.... I am a genuine admirer of the urge to reform that is at the
heart of the grassroots part of this, perhaps the most important
political movement in the current political context.
My
admiration for this movement grew yesterday, as at least the Patriots
flavor of the Tea Party movement announced its first fight with (at
least some) Republicans. The Tea Party Patriots have called for a GOP
moratorium on "earmarks."
***
This disagreement
has thus set up the first major fight of principle for the Tea Party.
As leaders in the Tea Party Patriots described in an email to
supporters,For two years we have told the media and
the rest of the country that we are nonpartisan and that we intend to
hold all lawmakers to a higher standard.This, they
insist, is their first chance for that stand with the new Republican
Congress. And the Tea Party Patriots have now mobilized their list to
pressure Republicans to support this first and critical reform in the
new Congress.
***
Earmarks are ... an essential element
in the corruption that is Congress today.... they have become the key to
an incredible economy of influence that effectively enables lobbyists
to auction too many policy decisions to the highest special interest
bidder. That economy won't change simply by eliminating earmarks. But
eliminating earmarks is an essential first step to starving this
Republic-destroying beast.
***
We do face a common enemy.
Special-interest-government is anathema to both the true Right and the
limping Left. Progress would be to work together to end it.
Lessig is not alone.
As I've previously pointed out, progressives such as Dave Lindorff, political science professor Peter Dreier, economist Dean Baker, Daniel Ellsberg, Jonathan Capehart
and many others say that we should be emulating the protest energy of
the Tea Party, because we have to raise some hell before anything will
change.
In fact, as I've repeatedly
noted, the whole left-versus-right thing is just a distraction trick.
It's really the American people versus the giant bankers, captains of
the military-industrial complex, and handful of others who are benefiting by shafting the average American.
Remember that one of the founders of the Tea Party - Karl Denninger - has slammed
the current Tea Party (which was quickly co-opted by the mainstream
GOP) for serving the rich and the Republican party instead of fighting
against the giant banks, and is calling for non-partisan, Gandhi-style nonviolent resistance to take on the banskters.
And remember that "liberal" George Soros is paying a top aide to "conservative" Sarah Palin.
Of course, some have argued that there are more effective methods of disobedience than protests and strikes such as this or this. I will leave strategy to those who have better tactical sense than I have.
But one thing is for sure: unless we make the lives of those in power a little more uncomfortable, nothing will change.
Note
to conservatives who dislike FDR: Glass-Steagall and other regulations
against fraud wouldn't have been passed unless the public had raised
hell through protests and strikes.
- advertisements -
You stole my grandaddy's gold, asshole. Where is it?
Roosevelt used it as the basis for the gold exchange standard created under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement; it served grandaddy much better there.
Oh yes, we are so fortunate to have a ruling class to take our property and decide how best to dispose of it. Just look what a great job they are doing!!
"Oh yes, we are so fortunate to have a ruling class to take our property and decide how best to dispose of it."
Kelo vs. City of New London changed the way I look at "law".
First off, anyone who thinks any 'school' of economics is a hard science, like say, physics... well that's your first mistake right there... I would say ecnomics is THE MOST dismal of all the "social sciences".
At least the Austrian school uses logical deduction to come to conclusions. I would call the Keynesians and Monetarists the cultists.... just because they use a lot of fancy math and models (that always seem to be proven wrong) doesn't make it good "science".
Should have known a Chomsky fan would be a fan of proto-fascist FDR.
I also find it somewhat annoying a fascist is using the handle "George Washington", not that GW was perfect... but he wasn't anything like this fool.
Also Glass-Steagall is only necessary because of retarded programs like the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Discount Window... otherwise it would be totally moot... so I guess I should just love FDR for passing Glass-Steagall and just ignore the massive amounts of shitty things he did? Suck a dick, seriously.
"Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God"
I've previously written that real men stand up to fascists:
People of faith stand up to fascists as well.
Thomas Jefferson said:
Susan B. Anthony - one of the leading crusaders for women's rights - said at her sentencing hearing based on her conviction for illegally voting:
Nor is the idea strictly a Christian idea.
The Book of Maccabees - an ancient Jewish book purporting to document the events which Chanukah celebrates - is said to contain the identical statement.
And see this.
"Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God"
I'm sure that's deep and all, but if you leave God out of it (He's got a lot on His mind anyway), see if your phrasing still makes sense...hmmm, resistance to tyranny is obedience....
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to your sense of Freedom! (Feel better now?)
Pray to God, but move your feet.
Trust in God, but tie up your horse ...
Oooo. I am going to have to see how that goes over out here in fly-over.
If God is the individual, then sure.
it goes over fine with me.
Let us know ...
But, FDR was one of the worst tyrants we had. Mind you he was a tyrant of popular opinion, a tyrant of democracy. A shining example of why democracy sucks, and why a republic is far far better.
Thanks to him we ceased to be a republic and become a democracy, where the tyranny of the majority reigns supreme. In doing so he also broke the system and concentrated so much power up in DC that it ruined the previous 50% turnover rate for congress critters and is exactly why the place is lobbyist paradise. He destroyed one of the most important separation of powers, and gave the Feds unlimited power under his redefined Commerce Clause.
(I should also add that the conditions he created often creates a tyranny of the minority as well LOL, point being he focused way too much power in one place and it is one of the prime reasons why we are so fucked and there is so much corruption)
If you beat your dog and turn around and feed it, will it NOT eat? Check your premises.
You sir, are a moron.
Care to explain why? Or are you only capable of using insults? I personally like to explain why I am right and the person I'm arguing against is wrong... and then if I'm being moody tack on some insults at the end. Although leaving out the insults would probably make my arguments more effective.
1. Matt Damon worships Howard Zinn; Howard Zinn embraces communism; ergo: Matt Damon is a communist, or they both are extreme assholes.
2. If Zinn was President, they would be a union thug at every door wanting to be paid "protection". Now the union thugs rule only from the state houses and local governments, but we stay pay protection, don't we.
3. FDR provided 1/2 the template for Obama; Van Jones and Bill Ayres provided the rest.
4. Since unemployment seems to have not been extended; we will see the riots before Xmas. A local cop informs me that they are all on overtime come shopping season; the parking lots will be criminally organized war zones.
Cite one Obama program that is taken from the New Deal template; the two administrations have nothing in common
Health Care Reform: Grab a piece of the Economy not under Govt control and give control to a Govt Bureaucracy! Refute it if you can.
Thank God Obama is no FDR. FDR was Obama,Pelosi,Reid all rolled into one and on steroids. We're still paying the price 70 years later for FDR's socialist agenda. Why people think he is one of the top presidents ever is beyond me. I put him at the absolute bottom of my list. By the way, Hitler and Mussolini were two of FDR's biggest fans before the war.
So, you're suggesting that the left create the pressure O needs to take on more power? So certain organizers will pump up the action, eh? It's not what this American wants to see. The game playing and hidden agendas are multitude. Whatever happened to the concept of transparency? Apparently it's not the same as honesty. How about people make their case and have it go up or down? Problem is that there are those committed activitists who are of the "ends justifies the means" and as I said, I'm not buying that as the way to go; that's not based on the American system as I know it.
A move away from a debt based system of credit is what we need. I agree that "Who" controls the money is most important and will go a long way towards helping Americans meet in the middle idealogically.
FDR was always FDR - it was just hard to see because he was a skilled Machiavellian politician. He accepted the NRA/AAA in package form from Wall Street, along with their advisors (mostly Bernie Baruch's gang) but dumped those programs along with most of those advisors in 1935 in favor of the "Second New Deal" (TVA, REA, Social Security, Collective Bargaining, SEC, Federal Reserve Act); the opposition spent all their ammo trying to take down an NRA/AAA that had already served Roosevelt's short-term purpose of stabilizing prices/wages and rehiring and was being dropped. At any rate, who would want to run in 1932 with an idea of continuing the status quo? A masochist wanting to take the blame for the whole mess as it got worse? Zinn is like Chomsky: the only American heroes are those being oppressed by American institutions; labor leaders like Reuther, Hillman, and Murray didn't spend the 1933-45 period just leading strikes, but instead took part in economic planning with the government and business. I'm all for a lot more rowdy energy, strikes, protests, etc. - but if there isn't a clearly thought-out program and plan for realizing it through the political process, nothing's going to get done.
No, FDR was not always the same...he got worse as his New Deal policies failed miserably. He never dumped the NRA and AAA...the Supreme Court did that despite FDR's love of them...found them unconstitutional. He even tried, unsuccessfully, to stack the Supreme Court and add 4 more justices.
See John Venable's book Out of the Shadows about Charles Edison (Thomas' son), who was named by FDR to the NRA board despite Edison's anti-cartel views; in 1935 when most NRA board members wanted a fight to continue it, Edison alone suggested it be abandoned and FDR backed him. NRA chief Hugh Johnson had already been fired the previous year; Johnson, Peek (AAA chief) and early advisors Rex Tugwell and Ray Moley spent the rest of the New Deal attacking FDR in terms identical to you.
I am not an expert on FDR but after reading this piece I realized history classes brainwashed me into thinking he was something that in fact he was not:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/refuting-myths-first-great-depression
The 1933 umemployment rate was 25%; Durden contends that in 1941 in was still 17% - there is no source in the world that will back that up. Every study I have seen, and the Historical Statistics of the U.S., put the 1941 figure at between 8 and 10%. Further, it is taken for granted that unemployment dropping to nothing from 1941-45 was an automatic by-product of war. In fact, large costly wars will often hurt an economy already weakened (2001-2010 anyone?): stationing 15 million people overseas and directing a huge percentage of the economy to produce war material (things to be blown up in another country, rather than serve as consumer goods), while giving away tens of billions of dollars of material to allies can hardly explain achieving high real wages with full employment.
The unemployment rate for which you disagree is not a Durden contention but that of the author. Despite your long winded response you fail to address any of the points within the attached pamphlet in terms of botched political policy turning a recession into a depression. Clearly you consider yourself an expert on the Great Depression so why not publish your own guide so we can all be better educated on this topic. I will be monitoring Amazon so I can be the first to purchase.
Liberal Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig pointed out last week that - instead of mocking the Tea party - progressives should emulate it's energy...
We've already been there and the result was Obama.
The rest of the story is that FDR, only child, Groton preppie, polo player, scratch golfer, serial adulterer husband of his lesbian cousin niece of Teddy Roosevelt, paralyzed below the waist from 39 with Guillian Barre syndrome (not polio), owner of Roosevelt Warm Springs, GA where he died, Harvard Columbia Corporate Lawyer, Freemason, Assistant Navy Secretary, Governor and Delano descendant of the Chinese Opium and Tea trade, ran against Hoover and Norman Thomas on the second of his six Socialist Party of America campaigns for President
Thomas was a Princeton Union Techological Presbyterian Conscientious Objector who advocated Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood Eugenics, supported the Russian Revolution, opposed Zionism, opposed both World Wars and FDR's Internment Camps and crafted a socialist political platform that was eventually adopted by FDR
Thomas said he no longer needed to run for President as a Socialist because the Democratic Party adopted our platform
Was FDR forced by civil disobedience, or Executive Orders from his elite Wall Street banker background, from packing the Supreme Court, to mandatory income tax withholding to confiscating gold to abandoning White Russians and half of Europe to the Stalin at Yalta?
Amerika stopped being a Democratic Republic when it became subject to a corporate oligarchy
Only collapse of the corporate monopoly state may surrender Constitutional freedoms again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Thomas
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/norman-thomas-socialist-par...
[quote][i]Remember that one of the founders of the Tea Party - Karl Denninger . . .[/i] [/quote]
Oh sweet Jebus...you've got to be fucking kidding me. Your post has got to be one of the most fucktastic pile of bollocks I've ever seen.
Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.
That was hysterical.
"Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here."
GW has been doing this lately. Calling for some sort of popular uprising and invoking Denninger's name.
Denninger called for some half-assed popular uprising recently as well for that matter.
Called them out for a walk, but they won't come out and play.
Denninger can redeem his little mission by relocating to The National Mall first, and posting from there.
This "you bastards aren't serious until you do what I'm not doing" bullshit is laughable.
It doesn't seem to be going over well for Al Gore, either.
au contraire, obama is rosenfelt (he changed his name, imagine that), same puppetmasters have their hands up both asses.
http://www.henrymakow.com/is_obama_literally_americas_fi.html
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-roosevelt.html
ditto for ike, truman, johnson, etc.
Howard Zinn? Really?
I crap better arguments than that.
Since your mom does not look as good as my crap, I'll give you that one.
My mom died a decade ago. If you've seen her, you must be handy with a shovel.
Really? Perhaps you could tell us where your crap is so well read and paid for?
Voting ... is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.
In the best of times 50% +/- refuse to participate in the process choosing to cast their ballot of No Confidence in the form of None of the Above. This action renders the whole concept of representative democracy in the current context moot ever before the reality of the kleptocratic takeover of social institutions is considered.
"You do not become a ‘dissident’ just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society. ... The dissident does not operate in the realm of genuine power at all. He is not seeking power. He has no desire for office and does not gather votes. He does not attempt to charm the public. He offers nothing and promises nothing. He can offer, if anything, only his own skin—and he offers it solely because he has no other way of affirming the truth he stands for. His actions simply articulate his dignity as a citizen, regardless of the cost."
- Vaclav Havel
+++++++++
A free man will question authority...anyones or anythings authority over him.
Amen.
+10
choice choice
correction:
www.shariahfinancewatch.org
www.shariafinancewatch.org
http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr.html
GW. Dems won't move off center?! Change that to won't move to center