As we know,
Brit Hume mangled an FDR message to claim FDR would support privatization of Social Security. The blog reaction was swift, exposing the lie for what it was, a partisan hack-job (see for example
Kevin Drum's post). Last weekend I had a brief email exchange with a conservative commentator who had written that while Hume's remarks were perhaps careless, Bush's proposal on SS was consistent with that same FDR message. Initially I posed counter arguments to his position but ended up focusing on a bigger message in FDR's address. A message that points to the leadership legacy of FDR that is in direct contrast to GWB's bait and switch approach to enacting policy.
This isn't new, nor will it sway a Bush worshiper, but it may resonate with moderate Bush voters who have been sold on his "leadership qualities"; particularly the next time allusions are made to FDR.
Hume's distortions were lifted completely from the 9th paragraph of
FDR's January 17th 1935 message to congress. I found it refreshing to read the full text. (I'll not refer to this 9th paragraph further as it's been covered elsewhere).
FDR begins by stating that he is fulfilling his promise,
In addressing you on June 8, 1934, I summarized the main objectives of our American program. Among these was, and is, the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation against certain hazards and vicissitudes of life. This purpose is an essential part of our task. In my annual message to you I promised to submit a definite program of action. This I do in the form of a report to me by a Committee on Economic Security, appointed by me for the purpose of surveying the field and of recommending the basis of legislation.
It's interesting to read the preceding June 1934 summary where he discusses the accomplishments of the (1st) New Deal and lays out the groundwork for the 2nd New Deal including a promise to promote "social insurance" in the 1935 legislative term. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that this proposal (in a message to Congress) entered the debates of the 1934 midterm elections. You may have heard of these elections. They are cited as the only post-Civil War midterms prior to 1998 in which the president's party increased its representation in congress.
Bush, on the other hand, doesn't have such a promise to fulfill since he really never made one during the campaign (in 2000 he said he would grab the third rail, but in 2004 he merely suggested we "should" reform SS). I'd say this is a bit of a problem with his political capital since he didn't actually run for re-election on his privatization plan. And I think we know why he didn't.
Anyway, back to the 1935 message. FDR's proposal was not just a broad outline. No,
The detailed report of the Committee sets forth a series of proposals that will appeal to the sound sense of the American people. It has not attempted the impossible, nor has it failed to exercise sound caution and consideration of all of the factors concerned: the national credit, the rights and responsibilities of States, the capacity of industry to assume financial responsibilities and the fundamental necessity of proceeding in a manner that will merit the enthusiastic support of citizens of all sorts
Where's George`s plan? Did the man in the big yellow hat eat it?
For those looking under the covers for the hidden support of private accounts, you'll first need to square it with FDR's 3rd principle on which these proposals are based.
Third, sound financial management of the funds and the reserves, and protection of the credit structure of the Nation should be assured by retaining Federal control over all funds through trustees in the Treasury of the United States.
For further refreshment, and without the luxury of a calculator, FDR specifies,
The amount necessary at this time for the initiation of unemployment compensation, old-age security, children's aid, and the promotion of public health, as outlined in the report of the Committee on Economic Security, is approximately $100,000,000.
With the details laid out, FDR ends the message by lamenting the damage brought onto our society by economic insecurity and proclaims the need for action.
We pay now for the dreadful consequence of economic insecurity - and dearly. This plan presents a more equitable and infinitely less expensive means of meeting these costs. We cannot afford to neglect the plain duty before us. I strongly recommend action to attain the objectives sought in this report.
Look as I might, I could not find in here where FDR was "negotiating with himself". He was showing us what real leadership looks like: recognizing real problems and proposing real and explicit solutions. This wasn't the bait and switch politics of GWB; no attempt here to create a crisis to force a solution. When the right makes allusions to FDR, show them this mirror.
Needless to say my email correspondent was unimpressed. But with this "leadership contrast" in place I derided their misuse of FDR's words, saying it reminded me of a passage from Lincoln's Cooper Union speech. Lincoln argued that a majority of the Founding Fathers believed the federal government should control the spread of slavery in federal territories and included actions and words of George Washington in support of his thesis. Since others were using Washington's farewell address to suggest the opposite conclusion, Lincoln ended his speech decrying such arguments,:
Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - [] - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Those who argue for private accounts should do so plainly and not in a way that unsays what FDR said or undoes what FDR did.
postscript:
It didn't occur to me to throw this into a diary until a couple of nights ago when I heard someone on the radio discussing global climate change and the need for leadership to avert disaster. He used FDR as an example. (disclaimer: I didn't attempt to verify this example)
In a speech as the war began, FDR told the nation that we would mobilize our manufacturing capability to provide the thousands of planes, tanks, jeeps, and other armament to win the war. He knew at the time that this capacity, if it did exist, existed in the automobile industry which was producing several million cars per year. He met with their leaders and told them of his plan. They responded with skepticism that their excess capacity could be used to reach these goals. He told them they didn't understand. He would be outlawing the sale of new automobiles. He wasn't interested in tapping their excess capacity but their full capacity. Very few cars were built from 1942 to the end of the war while FDR's armament goal were largely met or surpassed. This was a stamp of leadership. The war was more important than near-term economic goals and treated as such.
Compare this with Bush's brand of leadership. He talks the big talk about the WOT, but when he meets with the "captains of industry" (e.g. big-oil, big-chemical, big-pharma, ...), he asks "what can I do for YOU?". All the while he wages an inept WOT leaving the true costs of the war in Iraq to fall on the shoulders of our military and their families, paid for with our credit card.