Sunday, April 3, 2011

Frank(lin)ly Speaking

I have these two colleagues; one who thinks that FDR was the greatest President ever, another who thinks that he was the worst. Needless to say here, folks, my opinion resides somewhere in the middle............................................................................................First the good. 1) Mr Roosevelt was a great and inspirational leader who helped manage the country through two of its most challenging episodes; the Great Depression and WW2. 2) Certain of his early decisions in fact DID stop the "bleeding". His Reciprocal Trade Agreement helped negotiate tariffs downward. He made some rock solid appointments to the Federal Reserve (individuals not necessarily hellbent on lowering interest rates). His national bank holiday halted the panic and eliminated thousands of unnecessary withdrawals. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 insured deposits up to $2,500 and gave millions of individuals piece of mind. And the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 increased safety requirements for stock-trading companies and steadied the market. 3) His wife, Eleanor, was an extraordinary first-lady whose tireless work for those less fortunate was, and continues to be, the gold-standard..................................................................................................Now the bad. 1) Mr. Roosevelt often had a hard time telling the truth. He lied to the press. He lied to Congress. He lied to his staff. And he lied to the American people (telling the public that his court-packing scheme had to do with "efficiency" - this, when basically everybody knew that it had to do with ideology). 2) He also had a dictatorial impulse. His court-packing scheme, the internment of Japanese-Americans, his utilization of the IRS as a weapon against critics/adversaries - these were all very troubling. 3) While some of his policies were effective, others in fact may have retarded economic recovery. His reliance on excise taxes (an extremely regressive form of taxation) clearly took a lot of money (and, hence, demand) out of the economy. The NRA (which was eventually voted down by the Supreme Court, 9-0), which allowed for collusion and price-fixing by American industries, ended up hurting a lot of businesses (many of them small ones). The Agricultural Adjustment Act (which paid a lot of farmers NOT to produce) eventually turned the U.S. into a food-IMPORTING nation. And the WPA, a cynosure of the New Deal, was itself fraught with waste, inefficiency, and political manipulation (people being denied jobs due to their political views)..................................................................................................Overall, folks, I'd probably give Mr. Roosevelt the same grade that I gave Mr. Reagan, a B- (overrated, but not necessarily as wretched as his critics paint him out to be)....................................................................................................P.S. For those of you who think that my criticism of Mr. Roosevelt was perhaps too harsh, let me point out to you that none other than John Maynard Keynes HIMSELF (in a New York Times piece) stated that the NRA would probably "impede the recovery". I'd also like to point out the fact that the National Recovery Review Board said that the codes probably "spurred the exit of small enterprises and led to the always growing autocracy of the greater corporations."

17 comments:

Pink Liberty said...

Yes, it drives me nuts that people see American historical figures as "all bad" or "all good" wherein the truth is between those too, and the important thing is "what was good???"

Dervish Z Sanders said...

Reagan as good a president as FDR? What utter nonsense! Do you not realize their political philosophies were totally opposed? I seriously do not understand how you can say that one president who governed farther to the Left and one who governed farther to the Right achieved similar results! They were both a B minus? Totally impossible, I say.

One philosophy works, the other doesn't. Anyway, I thought you believed the answer was in the middle. Now you're saying the answer is in the middle -- AND the answer is on the Left -- AND the answer is also on the Right?

I think you just lost all credibility Will. That is, if you ever had any.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Court packing works? Interning people on the basis of skin color works? Lying to the American public works? Price fixing works? An over-reliance on regressive taxation (i.e., excise taxes) works? Paying American farmers NOT to farm works? Unleashing the IRS on your political opponents works? Utilizing a patronage system that was the most corrupt in American history worked? Not having the guts to back an anti-lynching bill because you think that it hurts you politically works? Dude, most Presidential historians have Reagan and F. Roosevelt both in their top 10. Are they all saying the "totally impossible", too?.....My credibility? Whatever.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Oh, Pink, thanks for stopping by. Yeah, I basically see all of these fellows as mixed bags. The only exceptions would probably be Buchanan, A. Johnson, Harding, and Nixon. Those 4 I'd probably give a D-/F.

Dervish Z Sanders said...

None of the things you mention have a damn thing to do with progressive economic policies, which is what I was referring to... as if you didn't know.

Is there ONE presidental historian who puts BOTH FDR and Reagan in their top 10? Or are they both in the top 10 because DIFFERENT historians placed them there?

Also, if one historian does place them both in his top 10 is it for reasons like, "he accomplished his goals"... I'd say that criteria has little to do with whether or not their presidency was ultimately good for the country.

BTW, that doesn't answer the question I asked, which is: how the hell can both left, right and center economic policies all be equally effective? If that were the case wouldn't the economy ALWAYS be booming?

Commander Zaius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commander Zaius said...

I've had to think about this one for a while, but in the end I believe we set ourselves up for a lot of own troubles in how we polarize around our leaders.

When Obama was running for president I got very uncomfortable with the near worship many of my fellow liberals were heaping on the guy. Posters of Obama in a Superman suit with and "O" on his chest instead of the "S" suggested to me liberals were setting themselves up for a fall.

Sure enough he was not in office two weeks before all sorts of groups were bitching that he had sold out. Now I do believe the man has not stood up and been anywhere near as forceful as he should have but the job is a bitch.

Obama has also did some scary aboutfaces on several issues that I jumped all over the last president. Namely starting a war we have no business being in.

Now on the right a little honesty about George W Bush woul have been nice. The man doubled the national debt all by himself and his side was silent as a corpse about the federal debt until Obama took office.

Another thing I find funny is that while in office Bush could no anything he wanted under the guise of "national security" and the right fell into lock step behind him. Obama's Homeland Security cheif can't fart without the right bitching about civil liberties.

Before the usual suspects blow a circuit breaker all I am saying is that neither side is very honest when it comes to protesting the political actions of the other side.

Long story short, they are just men with all sort of stregths and faults.

IrOnY RaGeD said...

You forgot at least two things Will,

1. The confiscation of gold with the promise that after the crisis it would be redeemable.

2. Pioneering the use of the "Interstate commerce clause" to take away states rights.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

A couple of things, wd. a) A president isn't judged solely on his economic policy. b) The world doesn't fit neatly into 2 categories; total supply-siders, total progressives. c) The American economy is a powerful engine that has clearly shown the capacity to withstand the policies of a myriad of different Presidents (Reagan and FDR, included).......As for ranking the top Presidents, I urge you to go to any neutral site and look at their lists. I'm sure that on many of them you'll see the names of both Reagan and FDR. Their criteria? I'm sure that it differs with the person doing the rankings.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Also, wd, the economy can't "always be booming". There's a little something called the business cycle.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, double b, I can't think of a single President that I'd feel totally comfortable giving a straight A to. Maybe Lincoln 'cause he saved the Union (a fact that clearly overrides his flaws). Truman and JFK I would probably give A-s to, Eisenhower and Clinton B+s.......Oh, and then on the opposite side, I'd probably give Buchanan, A. Johnson, Harding, and Nixon Fs. Hoover? I'd probably give him a D+. I mean, he tried.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You're right, Volt, I did leave some things out. The gold thing I forgot about, the other issue I'm unfamiliar with.

Dervish Z Sanders said...

Will... The world doesn't fit neatly into 2 categories; total supply-siders, total progressives.

Did I say I thought it did? Apparently you believe this is true though, at least as far as progressives go.

You asked me to name ONE progressive who supports free trade. I asked why and you said that you suspect all progressives are in lockstep against it and in favor of building a trade wall around the US.

In a lot of your comments you make points that make it clear you believe I'm quite simple-minded, yet you've made (at least one) simple-minded comment yourself...

Like your suggestion that progressives are in lock-step living in their cartoon world of good and evil (with a trade wall surrounding it).

I feel like I'm being lectured to by someone sitting atop an intellectually superior high horse.

Obviously you have no intention of answering my question... so, forget it. BTW I didn't know B minuses were awarded if the economy "withstood" your presidency.

Dervish Z Sanders said...

Will said... As for ranking the top Presidents, I urge you to go to any neutral site and look at their lists.

So now you're politically neutral? I thought you described yourself as a Independent moderate.

I guess this means that you'll only be blogging about sports from now on. Don't expect me to stick around... as you already know I have no interest in them.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Reagan reduced unemployment, inflation, and interest rates. But he also presided over a mushrooming debt and deficit. That, to me, is a decidedly mixed record. Roosevelt reduced tariffs and insured deposits. But he also did some things that retarded the economy (the NRA, for instance). That, I believe, is also a mixed record. You want me to make an absolute judgment as to who was better here? Why can't I pick a 3rd option like Truman? I mean, he cared about poor people, but he did it in a way that wasn't hostile to the business community.

Marcus said...

Will: You know my feelings on this. It's now a cottage industry bashing FDR's legacy, Alot of this is idealogical driven "scholarship." I will admit he wasn't perfect but some of your blogger cohorts see FDR as the devil himself, simply because he was a Democrat...nothing more.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I tried to call it as down the middle as I could, Marcus. And I certainly wouldn't put myself in the "he's the devil" category. But I also think that history has whitewashed a lot of what Mr. Roosevelt did and his glorification is probably somewhat politically driven, too. Like I said in a previous thread, give me Harry Truman (or JFK) any day.