How come people consider FDR such a great President?

[mfs378]

I can't really argue the great depression with you because that time period is not fresh in my memory.

Regardless, you cannot argue that the general trend following the great depression has improved the quality of life for the majority of people. Workers are protected under law, they have decent salaries, etc. We can see where we would be under pure capitalism - just look at the MO of the majority of companies. Production is done in overseas sweatshops where workers are paid pennies an hour. That is pure capitalism. Would you have us return to conditions like that here?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Given that the level of government intrusion into business was (at that time) worse than ever before I fail to see how you can say that we were "as close to pure Capitalism as anyone has ever come." That simply isn't true. We were much closer 20-30 years before that and were doing better. It would also be irresponsible not to mention that there were more factors involved than just American policy in the Great Depression. Many other nations around the world were in dire straights as well, and the interconnectedness of all these economies naturally extended the consequences around the board. We'd probably feel the effects of such a problem less today because we're actually *more* interconnected. In either case, FDR's New Deal *DIDN'T* work.

Writes Christopher Westley of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute,

By the midpoint of FDR's second term, the failure of the New Deal policies was evident to all but the truly delusional. The unemployment rate again reached levels associated with the hated Hoover, while the public's tolerance of the pretentious New Dealers and their endless attempts to control the economy waned. Especially humiliating were statistics that showed the United States lagging far behind foreign countries in recovering from the Depression. American national income in 1937 was 85.8 percent of the 1929 high-water mark, while England's was 124.3 percent. Chile, Sweden, and Australia had growth rates in the 20-percent range. The United States figure was a dismal -7.0 percent .

The New Deal was exposed as a bad one, and the president's image looked irrevocably tarnished. A disconsolate FDR would confide to his associates his frustrations resulting from his lost political dominance: "[It is] a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead-and finding no one there" (p. 67).

Jason

I took four semesters of college US History, and I never though of FDR's New Deal as a failure. Maybe the authors of the books I read and the professors I had were all just leftist UnAmerican pinkos, I don't know. Furthermore, I don't know if quoting the words of a radically reactionary Libertarian helps your case. Here's some other quotes from Christopher Westley:


Here he compares the case of captured abortion doctor killer Eric Rudolph to taxation and the Iraq War:

That one cannot do evil to achieve good is a principle central to Western civilization. Its roots go back at least as far as Aristotle and are a central theme of the Gospels (cf. Matthew 26:51?54). It underlies much of the Christian just-war theory as explained by Aquinas, and it buttressed much of the intellectual opposition to the recent war in Iraq by libertarian thinkers.

It is also a precept that is routinely violated by the state when it conducts any activity, including the imposition of taxes, the enforcement of regulations, or the dropping of bombs. Each activity involves the infliction of violence on others in order to achieve what the state considers to be the greater good. The results of Rudolph?s alleged actions are no different from that of the state?s, except that the destruction resulting from the state?s actions occurs on a vastly larger scale. Indeed, the loss of innocent human life in Iraq makes the "collateral damage" that occurred in Birmingham pale in comparison. Both actions violate the precept that one cannot do evil to bring about good. The difference is one of degree, not one of kind.

It should be obvious that such results would never be tolerated in the private sector, where property rights are respected and where activities based on voluntary exchange create the interdependencies that form the basis for civilization itself. Why is the state routinely exempted from the standards demanded of market participants?

Rudolph is today?s Face of Evil not because he violated this precept, because it is violated regularly. His biggest infraction was violating the state?s monopoly power over its violation. For that he must pay, if only to be made an example of, because of the bad precedent it sets.

Here he suggests to Governor Schwarzenneger that California declare itself a libertarian republic:

Whether they should is another matter entirely. In a truly free California ? one that does not mimic the socialist Austria from which you escaped ? such people would be set free to ply their trade in the private sector, using capital that flowed to them on a voluntary basis, and not as a result of conscription. The fact that their immediate jobs would be secure makes selling secession much easier.

But once these selling points are made to the net tax consumers, selling secession to the rest of the state ? to the net taxpayers ? would be much easier. They would easily see the benefits that would result when California became an independent entity, as clearly as residents in the San Fernando Valley saw in independence from the city of Los Angeles. Private property in California is already made insecure by the machinations of both the state Franchise Tax Board and of the federal IRS, and secession would mean that overnight one of these overweening and illegitimate bureaucracies would be out of taxpayers? lives. While secession would often transfer the source of many ill-effects from Washington to Sacramento, it would at least make the agents of government easier to observe.

[...]

Mr. Governor-elect, let?s face it: When you came to the Golden State in the late sixties, you didn?t plan on trading one socialist state for another. California doesn?t have to be like Austria, Sweden, or Massachusetts. By breaking from the 20th century trend toward centralizing power among large nation-states, it can be a prosperous republic, free of the threats that accompany global empire while a beacon of liberty to an increasingly divided and dangerous world.

And no matter what they say, you could be its president.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

People working in sweat shops and in dangerous conditions is NOT "Pure Capitalism," though given the education we Americans get in economics I can understand completely why you would think so. Capitalism is not well defined, but it is in essence simply the idea that an individual owns himself and the product of his labor and that he is free to dispose of both as he sees fit so long as he doesn't intentionally harm another through force or fraud.

Obviously there is more to the discussion than that, but that's the simple version

Jason

 

[heartsurgeon]

you left out the fact that FDR's was a "buddy" to Stalin...to wit

The Venona Cables revealed that the Soviet Union had informants peppered throughout FDR administration..including Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury under FDR; Lauchlin Currie, administrative assistant to FDR; Duncan Lee, chief of staff to the head of OSS; Harry Hopkins, special advisor to FDR; Henry Wallace, FDR?s vice-president 1940-44; Joseph Davies, ambassador to the USSR; and Harold Ickes, FDR?s interior secretary.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

The problem with FDR's social programs was not if they were needed or not, it was that they didn't have a sunset. No gov't program REALLY has a sunset. That's the problem.

If the economic crisis were left up to the market economy alone, think of how long it would have taken to get back on it's feet. Twice as long maybe? Meanwhile (in hindsight, of course) the Soviet Union is building up arms. I don't think we would have been able to defeat (outlast) the Soviets when we did. We would have been behind ten or twenty years.

 

[Ferocious]

The Wagner Act he signed was very key.

The act pretty much led to the vaunted middle class that many Republicans would like to dismantle.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Given that the level of government intrusion into business was (at that time) worse than ever before I fail to see how you can say that we were "as close to pure Capitalism as anyone has ever come." That simply isn't true. We were much closer 20-30 years before that and were doing better. It would also be irresponsible not to mention that there were more factors involved than just American policy in the Great Depression. Many other nations around the world were in dire straights as well, and the interconnectedness of all these economies naturally extended the consequences around the board. We'd probably feel the effects of such a problem less today because we're actually *more* interconnected. In either case, FDR's New Deal *DIDN'T* work.

Writes Christopher Westley of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute,

By the midpoint of FDR's second term, the failure of the New Deal policies was evident to all but the truly delusional. The unemployment rate again reached levels associated with the hated Hoover, while the public's tolerance of the pretentious New Dealers and their endless attempts to control the economy waned. Especially humiliating were statistics that showed the United States lagging far behind foreign countries in recovering from the Depression. American national income in 1937 was 85.8 percent of the 1929 high-water mark, while England's was 124.3 percent. Chile, Sweden, and Australia had growth rates in the 20-percent range. The United States figure was a dismal -7.0 percent .

The New Deal was exposed as a bad one, and the president's image looked irrevocably tarnished. A disconsolate FDR would confide to his associates his frustrations resulting from his lost political dominance: "[It is] a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead-and finding no one there" (p. 67).

Jason

I took four semesters of college US History, and I never though of FDR's New Deal as a failure. Maybe the authors of the books I read and the professors I had were all just leftist UnAmerican pinkos, I don't know. Furthermore, I don't know if quoting the words of a radically reactionary Libertarian helps your case. Here's some other quotes from Christopher Westley:


Here he compares the case of captured abortion doctor killer Eric Rudolph to taxation and the Iraq War:

That one cannot do evil to achieve good is a principle central to Western civilization. Its roots go back at least as far as Aristotle and are a central theme of the Gospels (cf. Matthew 26:51?54). It underlies much of the Christian just-war theory as explained by Aquinas, and it buttressed much of the intellectual opposition to the recent war in Iraq by libertarian thinkers.

It is also a precept that is routinely violated by the state when it conducts any activity, including the imposition of taxes, the enforcement of regulations, or the dropping of bombs. Each activity involves the infliction of violence on others in order to achieve what the state considers to be the greater good. The results of Rudolph?s alleged actions are no different from that of the state?s, except that the destruction resulting from the state?s actions occurs on a vastly larger scale. Indeed, the loss of innocent human life in Iraq makes the "collateral damage" that occurred in Birmingham pale in comparison. Both actions violate the precept that one cannot do evil to bring about good. The difference is one of degree, not one of kind.

It should be obvious that such results would never be tolerated in the private sector, where property rights are respected and where activities based on voluntary exchange create the interdependencies that form the basis for civilization itself. Why is the state routinely exempted from the standards demanded of market participants?

Rudolph is today?s Face of Evil not because he violated this precept, because it is violated regularly. His biggest infraction was violating the state?s monopoly power over its violation. For that he must pay, if only to be made an example of, because of the bad precedent it sets.

Here he suggests to Governor Schwarzenneger that California declare itself a libertarian republic:

Whether they should is another matter entirely. In a truly free California ? one that does not mimic the socialist Austria from which you escaped ? such people would be set free to ply their trade in the private sector, using capital that flowed to them on a voluntary basis, and not as a result of conscription. The fact that their immediate jobs would be secure makes selling secession much easier.

But once these selling points are made to the net tax consumers, selling secession to the rest of the state ? to the net taxpayers ? would be much easier. They would easily see the benefits that would result when California became an independent entity, as clearly as residents in the San Fernando Valley saw in independence from the city of Los Angeles. Private property in California is already made insecure by the machinations of both the state Franchise Tax Board and of the federal IRS, and secession would mean that overnight one of these overweening and illegitimate bureaucracies would be out of taxpayers? lives. While secession would often transfer the source of many ill-effects from Washington to Sacramento, it would at least make the agents of government easier to observe.

[...]

Mr. Governor-elect, let?s face it: When you came to the Golden State in the late sixties, you didn?t plan on trading one socialist state for another. California doesn?t have to be like Austria, Sweden, or Massachusetts. By breaking from the 20th century trend toward centralizing power among large nation-states, it can be a prosperous republic, free of the threats that accompany global empire while a beacon of liberty to an increasingly divided and dangerous world.

And no matter what they say, you could be its president.

Hey, you know Libertarians, they're *all over* the political spectrum at this stage. There are plenty of Libertarians who believe (and I think WRONGLY so) that the South *should* have been allowed to secede. Nevertheless the illustrations I quoted contain merit, and there is a lot of evidence to believe that the New Deal *PROLONGED* the depression and did NOT help it end sooner. Roosevelt's approval ratings prior to the war were quite low, and it's widely speculated that he wouldn't have been re-elected if not for the US entry into the war. In the end, it was the war, not the New Deal (really the Raw Deal, heh that brought America out of the depression.

Also, it's true that no government programs really have a sunset, and they most definitely SHOULD. That alone would slow the growth of government and of government expense.


Jason