In the early 1930s, the nation relined on the markets and not government to revive an economy that was deep into Great Depression. In 1932, the people elected Franklin D. Roosevelt to use government to reverse the situation. Then the nation gave FDR time to experiment. Eighty years later, the people elected Barack Obama to rescue the nation from a near depression, but he was only given a matter of months to perform a miracle. Then in 2010, the nation went back to the 1930-1932 approach, leave the solution-- prevent government from taking action. Republicans were given a big majority in the House and an unchallengeable veto in the House, and they were permitted to pursue a strategy of cutting jobs and spending in order to create jobs. It did not work, but today's voters did not learn as quickly as their grandparents and parents.
In the 1930s, people saw a gap between the wealth of the rich and the holdings of the poor and thought this could be damaging to the economy. Today, the mere suggestion that this could be a problem is called “class warfare.”
FDR was uncomfortable with Keynesian pump-priming and was reluctant to spend as much as was necessary, and in 1937-1938 he cut spending and created more unemployment. But overall, his efforts created many job. Later, Keynesian economics became a staple of mainstream and Dwight Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, and even Milton Friedman admitted that we were all Keynesians.
Ronald Reagan's supply side economics was a wrong-headed form of Keynesianism, borrowing vast amounts to cover tax cuts for the rich that proved counter-productive. Republicans today still cling to the Gipper's form of Keynesian but are dead set against borrowing to help ordinary people. Obama is a Keynesian, but he seemed uncomfortable with spending as much was was necessary and followed the advice of centrist economists in holding his jobs/stimulus bill to a little less than $800 billion.
FDR followed a pragmatic, experimental approach. He tried many things to try to reduce unemployment, and not everything worked. Ordinary people were willing to cut him a lot of slack because it was clear he was trying to improve things. FDR had a reasonably co-operative Congress, but Obama faced determined obstructionism except for the brief period when the Democrats has 60 votes in the Senate. Since tghe loss of the super majority, Republicans were able to block every effort to create jobs, and they did so with absolute glee.
The public has cut Obama very little slack, blaming him for not doing the impossible. For more than a few critics, race was the important variable.
A careful scholar might find that FDR also had the advantage of a much more active and effective liberal network of liberal pundits, broadcasters, and publications. Today’s Democrats seem hesitant and confused, and there is no way they can match the massive rightist propaganda machine, which is aided and abetted by the fake even handedness of CNN and most of the rest of the mainstream media. Like their opponents on the Right, they take little notice of what Obama is up against and expect him to accomplish miracles despite Republican control of the House and possession of an absolute veto in the Senate.
In the 1930s, there was substantial worker activism, many leftist demonstrations, and many who challenged capitalism itself. However, some studies showed that most of the unemployed blamed themselves for their plight. Today there is very little possibility that there will be large street demonstrations. Labor is weak and divided, with some workers in the private sector approving the savaging of teachers and public employees.
Very few would breach decorum by suggesting that capitalism demonstrated its bankruptcy in the events of 2007-2009. Indeed, the most vigorous political movement today wants a larger does of unfettered capitalism and the shredding of the social safety net that FDR initiated. They seem to despise the poor and unemployed, blaming them for their condition.
In Roosevelt's day right-wing populist followers of Father Charles Caughlin blamed Jews and Wall Street for the nation's ills. Now we have a far more powerful and numerous group of right wing fundamentalists called the Tea Party. Some say they began as an angry reaction to Wall Street shenanigans, but they soon became the unwitting defenders of the big Wall Street bankers, fighting to wreck legislation that would prevent some of the financial schemes and fraud that nearly destroyed the financial system. The Tea Baggers also have a long hate list: liberals, Hispanic immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims, and African Americans. Like Father Caughlin's followers, they are out to cripple labor unions.
Roosevelt made the mistake of slashing spending in 1937-1938 and triggering greater unemployment. This time, the voters put Republicans in the driver's seat in 2010, thus endorsing cuts in spending that will trim at least 2 or 3% from economic growth and perhaps create another recessionary dip. It could well be that voters will punish Obama and the Democrats for these grim results of Republican policy.
There is no evidence that today's voters share their grandparents' and parents' ability to discern their own self interest. Nor have they recently shown any ability to identify those who want to reduce their standard of living and safety net. In fact, there are many ordinary people who have been convinced that Roosevelt's New Deal was a great mistake.
The comparisons are disheartening. From a purely neutral standpoint, one must give a lot of credit to long term Republican efforts to shape public opinion and build an extremely powerful political mechanism. From the standpoint of one who cares about ordinary people and our political system, the only conclusion is that progressives must get to work getting out their message and explaining why the economy is such a mess today.
If FDR were here today, he would be talking about economic royalists and making it clear that the cause of the masses is not that of those who own the media, export jobs, and control the Republicans in Congress.