FDR Mania

If you want to catch something of the fears and hopes of Americans right now, go to News.Google.com and try searching for a few words. For instance, put in "FDR" -- the well-known initials of the man who was president four times and took America through the Great Depression and all but the last months of World War II -- and endless screens of references pop up.

The Nation and the National Review have both devoted space to him. Paul Krugman and George Will both thought this was the moment to focus on him. Checking out the headlines you might think that the intervening sixty-four years since his death had simply vanished: ("Will FDR Inspire Obama?" "Obama's jobs plan could echo FDR's," "Clinton's potential pitfalls seen in FDR's secretary of State," Channeling FDR," "FDR saved capitalism -- now it's Obama's turn," and so on); headlines galore, not to speak of that Time Magazine "Obama as FDR?" cover.

Or, if you have another moment, try "the New Deal," or even the 2008 Barack Obama version of the same, "the new New Deal"; or, if you really want to get a sense of the moment, try "since the Great Depression," which now seems to be embedded in any article about the present economic situation -- as in the "worst crisis since the Great Depression," or "the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression," or even "the most severe credit crunch since the Great Depression." It's a phrase that hovers between horror and euphemism, between the urge to invoke the word "depression" for our moment and an almost superstitious fear of doing so.

Historian Steve Fraser, author of Wall Street: America's Dream Palace, has just returned to the dawn of the Rooseveltian era at TomDispatch.com to offer a unique and telling comparison -- between FDR's expansive, experimental "brain trust" and Obama's new "team of rivals." Particularly in light of Obama's introduction of his national security team today -- all of whom qualify as "custodians of empire" -- his conclusion is germane indeed. Considering Roosevelt's 1932 team of fiscal conservatives, anti-trusters, corporatists, and Keynesians, all of them, jostling and disagreeing, Fraser writes: "Roosevelt was no radical; indeed, he shared many of the conservative convictions of his class and times...Nonetheless, right from the beginning, Roosevelt cobbled together a cabinet and circle of advisers strikingly heterogeneous in its views, one that, by comparison, makes Obama's inner sanctum, as it is developing today, look like a sectarian cult."

Comments (10)

1. Save your right-wing "The economy is NOWHERE near as bad as the Great Depression" posts, guys.

   True enough...but that's just as long as Dubya is still in office.

   Just wait until Obama is inaugurated and it becomes "his recession"...suddenly they'll all sound like Huey Long!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 4:46pm

2. Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 4:46pm |

   Recession starts in summer of 2001: Clintons recession

   Recession starts in Dec 2007: (according to HAPPY there is no recession!)- Obamas recession.

   Get it?

   shall I quickly cover some more rightwing talking points, many echoed, or "dittoed" by the likes of SJ, HAPPY and my dad?

   Iraq has wmd's that threaten the US.

   Obama will appoint Bill Ayers and Prof Rashid Khalidi, or someone just like them, to his cabinet.

   Obama will centralize the US guvt.

   Iraq is the central front of Islamic terrorism (2003, when there was no Islamic terrorism in Iraq. )

   Iraq IS the central front for Islamists that want to kill Americans (not a talking point anymore)

   January 2008, there is no recession.

   Anti-trust laws prevent competition

   Detroit is safer than Baghdad.

   Baghdad is just like Indiana.

   (said in 2003, 2004, 2005,2006,2007 and 2008)- Iraq will be like Japan or Europe post WWII.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 6:04pm

3. Was FDR a half-breed?

   Did Obama have polio?

   Was Obama a son of affluence?

   Was his cousin a President?

   Do we need to seek parallels where there are few to none? Or is it just the end of Bushinomics that reminds us of 1893 and 1928?

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 6:11pm

4. I left out Jerome Corsis' claim that the US and Mexico would merge under a North American Union, under George W. Bush.

   Isn't Jerome a great source for info, including his belief that John Kerry is a Communist, much like the President Elect.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 6:26pm

5. Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 12/01/2008 @ 7:37pm

   I believe the usual idea is that Roosevelt MITIGATED the harsher effects of the Depression and there was a slight boost in production from selling war material to the British...but the war itself didn't "end the Depression".

   BTW, surely you'd agree that there was an economic boom under Ike, right?

   With a 90% top marginal rate and the highest unionization levels ever!

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 7:54pm

6. I think it is quaint on how many of us here still hang on to the notion that our government works for the people. And FDR was a great President. Our fears and hopes? Give me a break. Most of us don't have the slighest clue what is going on right now, much less the economy of the 1930's. We get what that ignorance deserves.

   Someday we'll wake up and realize our freedom is gone. Our healthcare will be free, leading to us being told how to live and when to die. Our housing will be free, leading to our being told where we may live and in what manner. Our education will be free, leading to our being told what we may learn (oh wait, that's already well underway).

   Remember, those realities will apply to YOU, not to those in power. They will retain their choices and privilege.

   Imagine what a wonderful world that will be. No more cheating capitalists and greedy CEO's. No more unfair competition. No more horrible consumerism. True equality. A cleaner environment. Utopia? Hardly.

   Be careful what you wish for and study more. FDR didn't rescue capitalism or anything else. Like Bush and now Obama, in fact every President since Wilson, FDR had no interest in changing the status quo. They just wanted to help steer, by sitting in the driver's lap.

   We now have an incoming administration that "won't waste a good crisis". I wonder how many of us actually understand what that means.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2008 @ 8:12pm

7. "in fact every President since Wilson"----Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2008 @ 8:12pm

   So essentially FREI, you are so far off to one edge of the political spectrum that everything done in NEARLY the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS...is too "socialist" for you?

   Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 9:16pm

8. No, wrong, Mask. I don't believe the interests of the american people have been the priority for over a century.

   And they aren't now.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2008 @ 10:46pm

9. FREI, I know people that collect Soc Security, nobody tells them where to spend it, how to spend it or where to live. I know people that take medicare, they go to the doctor they choose. Are you in favor of letting 8 year olds choose their subjects?

   Is your take just more of the "Obama is a Marxist" fear mongering AFTER the appointment of such Socialists as Eric Holder and Gen Jones?

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/02/2008 @ 07:26am

10. Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2008 @ 10:46pm

    You're in for a very disappointing political life, then, aren't ya?

    I don't think too many Republicans are EVER likely to try a "Back to the 1910s" Agenda, do you?

    Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 09:21am