Skip to main content

View Diary: In protest of cherry picking comparisons of Obama to FDR (56 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  "Progressives" have a huge blind spot to race (9+ / 0-)

      Especially on this site.

      FDR was hands down the greatest President of the 20th Century. Period. End of discussion.

      However, we must not turn a blind eye to the tragic compromises FDR made to pass legislation. As noted earlier in the day, the reason we don't have a National Healthcare System is because the Roosevelt Administration could not figure out a way to exclude blacks, or at least give the impression of exclusion, as they did with SS.

      These "progressives" will demand that FDR operated in a very different time, and my response is: precisely. The modern time is far more conservative economically than the time of the New Deal. So don't compare.

      August 16, 2011: Rick Perry will win the Presidency in 2012.

      by NoFortunateSon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 11:36:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  Let's keep it simple (0+ / 0-)

          Obama's turning out to be a lousy President.  

          The darkness drops again but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? William Butler Yeats

          by deepsouthdoug on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 01:46:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ParkRanger, Fe Bongolan

            that sure is simple.  And simplistic.  I will say to you what I have said to others here who NO MATTER WHAT THE SUBJECT, the nuance or the focus, will make it about Obama being a lousy president.

            In keeping with my focus here, I will note to you that Democrats kept FDR in office for 12 years---despite their complaints and there were plenty of them from the left, and then went on to keep another democrat in office for 8 years, again, despite their complaints, and again, I assure you there were plenty of them. 20 years of a Democratic administration.

            Democrats haven't done the same since, not even come close.  Maybe because we've become a bunch of victims who can't prioritize.

            What up with you people who think you're the first in the history of this country to not get what you wanted from your party?  

            You people who don't understand that it comes from the bottom up as surely as it comes from the top down are going to kill us before anything else does.  

      •  Yeah, it's so simple (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vets74, deepsouthdoug

        The excoriated Japanese internment was upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. US. Civil rights became a winning battle with Brown v. Board.

        Except that 4 Justices - Reed, Frankfurter, Black and Douglas - were in the majority on both opinions. Warren, who was Chief Justice in Brown - and often credited with forging the decision - was the CA Attorney General who enforced internment.

        And those 4 Justices plus Jackson (who dissented in Korematsu and concurred in Brown) were all appointed to the SC by FDR. The other Justices in Brown were Warren, as noted, and 3 Truman appointees (and FDR selected Truman) - the decision was unanimous.

        But of course that interferes with simplistic fantasies.

        Of course you can argue that SC appointments don't matter, in which case you might want to read Armando's current diary.

        If my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine

        by badger on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:15:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          August 16, 2011: Rick Perry will win the Presidency in 2012.

          by NoFortunateSon on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:23:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure I understand your point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I would be the last to argue that SC appointments don't matter.  Nevertheless, FDR authorized the internment by executive order, regardless of what later happened with the supreme court.

          If I am misunderstanding you, please explain.

          •  That selecting individual anecdotes (0+ / 0-)

            like FDR's "tragic compromises" is not a valid way to assess a Presidency, but rather the long term consequences - like the outcomes of FDR's appointments, or the passage of seminal legislation like SS or labor laws - is a more accurate reflection of a President's strategies in issue areas. Simply looking at a President's tactics (like the long lists of Obama "accomplishments", or FDR's "tragic compromises" or internment) is insufficient and nonsensical, because tactics are dictated by the times and not by intentions.

            The point would be that politics - and politicians - are complex and not subject to sound-bite-like analysis. But you can look at things like what a President's actions and appointments intentionally set in motion - perhaps not the specific consequences, but a general set of goals - like the Warren Court's "Progressivism" you and the post I'm responding find it necessary to bash in the comment's title.

            Also, contrary to the post I'm responding to, it's essential to compare the present and the past, because it's the only way one can arrive at judgments about how present actions will lead to future consequences. It's because those kinds of judgments are so unfavorable to the current President that his supporters want to avoid them.

            Otherwise, you might as well be writing silly diaries about how Obama is already the "greatest President ever".

            If my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine

            by badger on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 01:43:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok. Here's my reply. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              scilicet, ParkRanger

              1.  My whole diary was ALL about how selecting individual compromises to asses a presidency is not valid. If it's not valid for FDR, it's not valid for Obama.  

              2. Interesting that you would note that "tactics" are dictated by the times and not by intentions, and then go on to give FDR full credit for that and deny it to Obama.

              3. I DID NOT bash progressives or the Warren Court in my diary or my comments.  I did AGREE with the poster that some progressives will fight to the bone to say that FDR's compromises with racist democrats really don't count.

              4. I agree with you that it is essential to look at history, to compare and contrast.  But, the whole point of my diary was that this must be done with intellectual honesty and not cherry picking to prove one's points.

              5. And, for me, being honest about making these comparisons includes that while they may be interesting and educational, these two presidents cannot be compared equally, on merits and time in office, today.  History will do that.

              6.  Here's another interesting "comparison." Democrats kept FDR in office for 12 years, despite their complaints, and there were plenty of them from the left. Then they went on to keep another Democrat president in office for another 8 years.  

              When today's democrats can manage to keep a democrat in office for 8 years more than once every 20 years, that will be good.  Comparisons can be made from bottom up, as well as top down.

        •  FDR authorized the Internment system in part (0+ / 0-)

          to protect these Japanese-Americans.

          Simple fact is that the overt, full-armed racism of the 1940s was expected to result in hundreds of killings. It would have been Open Season on them.

          No way they would have been safe.

          Look to wartime propaganda for the attitude of the day. These films are quite accurate -- aimed to a known audience.

          Btw: seizing their property ? That's another issue -- local governments got well with house-grabs and taking their cars.

          Nasty stuff.

          Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

          by vets74 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 01:11:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hard for me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            to justify that being interned without choice is OK if the motivation is to protect. Certainly, America did not go for interning Muslims after 9/11, despite those who would have loved the idea. Sorry, but I'm feeling more of a racist and knee jerk defensive thing going on with the internment of the Japanese, than a desire to protect them.

            But I would love to see any link to an article that talks more about this.

            •  Different country in 2001. (0+ / 0-)

              "Gooks." "Slants." And that was during WW II, Korea and then Vietnam.

              Besides, Muslims cover a broad spectrum. Saudis are rich, anyway, so SIOKIYA-richie.

              Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

              by vets74 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 02:45:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Japanese citizens (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ParkRanger, vets74

                who were interned in WWII covered a broad spectrum too.  120,000 Japanese were thrown into camps without any rights.  Young, middle aged and old.  Rich, middle class and poor.

                I've read your comments here many times Vets74, and we often agree.  But not here.  Just can't buy into the idea that the internment was about protecting the Japanese.  Just can't by into the idea that it was justified.  I think many today look at it with horror, and that's as I think it should be.  And I think, why it didn't happen after 9/11.

                •  How many people attacked Arabs after 9/11 ? (0+ / 0-)

                  Maybe a couple dozen. A handful of murders, usually hitting the wrong nationalities. LA's Iranians had a lot of problems with that.

                  After Pearl Harbor there were dozens of murders in California. Mostly gangsters taking advantage of the situation. Burglaries aimed at Japanese exploded.

                  FDR knew he couldn't protect the Japanese. Imagine if there had been a pogrom ? Something like Ocoee, Florida.

                  Btw: that 120,000 figure is less than half the Japanese-Americans in the country.

                  Boston didn't clean them out. Maine didn't, or Vermont or New Hampshire. Same generally across the upper Midwest.

                  California was the big problem because of the many Southerners who had relocated during the 1930s. They'd shoot anybody.

                  Angry White Males + Crooks + Personality Disorder psychos + KKKwannabes + "Unborn Child" church folk =EQ= The Republicans

                  by vets74 on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 05:06:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  love FDR but what about anti-lynching legislation? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StellaRay, ParkRanger, vets74, Day24Day7

            Did he refuse to support it to protect those in danger? I suppose the argument could be made that passing anti-lynching laws would have inflamed passions etc. But I would guess it was about his close relationship to the Southern Dems, who backed his New Deal policies in exchange for his stepping back in terms of racial issues. It just about killed Eleanor, who even before that thought he got much too close to Southern racist pols during his polio rehab in Warm Springs, GA.

            Again, I love FDR. But I think the diarist's point is well taken.

            "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" Homer Simpson.

            by scilicet on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 02:49:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  FDR had tea baggers voting on his side (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vets74, NoFortunateSon, Day24Day7

      instead of being willing to destroy the world economy in blind opposition to him having any successes as a President.

      See, the truth is that tea baggers are socialists.  Period.  They wanted the New Deal.  But they are also racists.  They don't want minorities to share in the New Deal.  And that is how we lost them to the Republican party.  And that is why today they would rather end the New Deal than share it will minorities.

      The tea baggers are anti Obama because Obama is black, plain and simple.  They will let their elderly die poor and sick before they willingly share with minorities.

      FDR ONLY succeeded as President, despite the opposition from the Left at the time, because he was supported by tea baggers of the day.  

      Obama is struggling to succeed as President, because he has both the opposition from the Left AND opposition from the tea baggers of today.

      It's kind of strange for me to read people complaining that Obama won't stand up to the tea baggers and call them out the way FDR did in his time, because FDR didn't call them out.  He COUNTED on their support.

      You dick, why do you have to focus on the negative. - Thomas Haden Church as Jack in the film Sideways

      by Anton Bursch on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:57:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  maybe not socialists, but they like socialism (0+ / 0-)

        because they love being dependent.  they are projecting when they accuse minorities of wanting to be dependent on government.

        You dick, why do you have to focus on the negative. - Thomas Haden Church as Jack in the film Sideways

        by Anton Bursch on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 01:14:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  populism is the right term for the tea baggers (0+ / 0-)

          they just mix their populism with racism... and sexism... and bigotry against gay people... and an indifference toward children's rights... and religious intolerance... and etc, etc, etc...

          You dick, why do you have to focus on the negative. - Thomas Haden Church as Jack in the film Sideways

          by Anton Bursch on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 01:20:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting perspective. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm going to have to think about this.  Not sure I agree that the Tea Party is "willing to let their elderly die poor and sick before willingly sharing with minorities."  

        Seems to me the Tea Party WANTS its benefits---hell half of them are living on them.  And I don't think they're going to vote in large part, for anything that strips them of those benefits, minorities or not.  It would be interesting to see what the Tea Party would have to say if for instance, Ryan's voucher plan were to be invoked immediately after passing, if it ever passes, instead of only for those 55 and under.

        I think we have to remember that the GOP/Tea Party did NOT run on getting rid of Medicare and SS in the mid terms.  They ran on jobs, jobs, jobs. I suspect their are many Tea partiers who were surprised to find their benefits on the table.  As polls show, approval for the Tea Party is waning in this country, and I think that just might include from some of their own.

        And, I think FDR DID face the same kind of opposition from the right and left than Obama has.  It's to be expected in times of discontent when presidents try to do big things.

      •  The Tea baggers were on FDR's side yes - (0+ / 0-)

        but he was not afraid to openly mock the opposition. President Obama does not take them to task in this manner.

        The only time I remember and of course I may be wrong about the president openly mocking someone was Trump at the yearly news correspondence dinner - Someone unelected and someone who has 0 influence on the political process.

        I don't want any more of this "My friends" bullshit. 07 Obama proclaimed that it would be insanity to give the keys back to the drunk drivers after they drove the car into the ditch, jumped out and then set fire to it. 11 Obama speaks of my friends across the isle and bipartisanship as if they are a holy grail.

        Obama needs opposition from the left so that he WILL succeed as president. He has only responded to the needs, wants, concerns, bed changing, of tea partiers and neglected to  be the voice of reason against them.

        So yes he is struggling to succeed as president - because be has adopted 1994 Clintonian third way trianglulation and does not fight in a meaningful way for progressive policies.

        Progressive policies speak for themselves and resonate with the values that most "independents" hear.

        They just need a skilled speaker who can define the debate in those terms..


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site