That's the question I saw being asked by the Christian Science Monitor in this article: FDR saved capitalism – now it's Obama's turn by Robert S. McElvaine who is a professor at Millsaps College and author of "The Great Depression." His latest book is "Grand Theft Jesus."
Here we go again. Right wingers often blamed FDR for bringing "socialism". I have always believed that the idea that he saved capitalism was far more accurate. There is this quote though:
When FDR addressed a demoralized nation at his inauguration... [he] prescribed principles to accomplish a restoration of honesty amid our society, applicable to remoralizing our current demoralized economy: "The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit," he said.
That certainly is a socialist principle. The question is whether or not capitalism can put social values before profit and still be capitalism. Let us examine this question below the break.
So how does Mr. McElvaine see it? Here's what he says:
Herbert Hoover asserted for years that what was needed was to bring back confidence. But Hoover, who was perhaps even less popular than bankers, had been unable to accomplish that objective.
So what did Roosevelt do to save capitalism? He did what Hoover had advocated. He eased fears and restored confidence through the power of his reassuring personality and rhetoric. The incoming president, Barack Obama, may be able to perform a similar feat.
Roosevelt "saved capitalism" by quickly pushing through Congress an emergency banking bill that would have been spurned had it been presented by Hoover. But Roosevelt had a radio "fireside chat" to discuss banking with the American people. He explained the banking situation in terms that the people could understand.
I have a sinking feeling that Mr. McElvaine may be correct, yet history does not repeat itself in such simple ways. Today's world is clearly fundamentally different from FDR's world. One may assert that fundamental economic principles do not change. My answer to that is where is the evidence that fundamental economic principles have any relevance at all? I have to repeat my caveat that I am not an economist, but rather a systems scientist, so you should not listen to me (or should you?). I am also a Democratic Socialist so I clearly have little attachment to capitalism as an organizing principle for an economy. McElvaine has this to counter my position:
Winston Churchill liked to say that democracy is the worst of all possible systems of government – except for all other systems of government that have ever been devised. In this low time for the economy, it is high time for us recognize that the same is true of capitalism: It is the worst of all possible economic systems – except for all others that have ever been thought of.
So there you have it. Imperfect as it is, capitalism is the best economic system around. Do you buy that? Do you really think we can reconcile the nature of capitalism with the situation we face today? Let me just remind us of the fact that the economic system is part of a world wide system involving:
sustainable food production and distribution
sustainable enery consumption and renewal
sustainable global climate
war and war and more war as the only option to settling disputes
disease and healt issues in general
I find the political approach that breaks these down into "issues" as naive as the notion that we can take medication without realizing that all drugs have "side effects" which are simply other effects of the medication.
So how do you feel about how we are starting out? I asked many times over the past year whether or not people thought this election, if we won, would be the way to solve our problems. It is time to ask that question again.