Obama & FDR

I think it is safe to say that all presidents get compared to other presidents or to other historical figures, sometimes favorably and sometimes not so favorably. When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, many Americans had high hopes about what he would accomplish. Some people compared him to Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka, "FDR"), especially since Obama was entering office at a time of serious economic trouble. The high hopes were probably unrealistic, and the comparison with FDR was just too premature, and no two eras are ever exactly the same.

For those unaware, FDR, a Democrat, was elected in November 1932, ousting the incumbent Republican, Herbert Hoover, who was beleaguered by his failure to halt, let alone reverse, the Great Depression. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by substantial majorities.* FDR took office on March 4, 1933.** Obama, a Democrat, took office January 20, 2009. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, with the Senate alignment similar to FDR's time, but with it being slightly less favorable for Obama, particularly because of the required 60 votes needed to pass most legislation, due to a more modern deal worked out between the two parties awhile back on Senate rules. The House alignment was somewhat less favorable than during FDR's time, although not usually affecting the outcomes of key votes (see Note #1 below regarding House rules on bill passage). In fairness to Obama, Republican members of Congress had been so decimated in the previous two elections (2006 & 2008), that the "survivors" tended to be VERY conservative, coming from solid Republican districts or states, with a few exceptions, and therefore unwilling to compromise much on anything. Unlike the President, who has been blasted by conservatives as "radical," and by progressives as "too moderate;" thus getting little, if any, political credit, the congressional Republicans' hard line stance has earned them the cheers of their conservative base, a base now so energized for the upcoming election, that Democrats, now the unmotivated party, may lose seats in Congress in historic numbers, even though polls show the American public dislikes Republicans even more than they do Democrats!

Okay, so what is the difference between FDR's time and Obama's early time in office? First, and most importantly, FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of Hoover's failure to stem the developing economic depression. Hoover tried new ideas and traditional ideas, but the economic storm got worse,*** with millions out of work, and millions more reduced to part time. Not only did FDR and Democrats win big in the 1932 election, but Republicans were so discredited, that mounting major opposition to FDR was not easily done (he DID face opposition from various conservative factions, including the extreme rightwing, and from conservative elements within the Democratic Party, primarily from some Southerners). But the country wanted change, and the Great Depression era was a watershed, with many working class and middle class Americans so terrified and traumatized by the economic mess, that they were willing to forget ideology and support new ideas (unemployment reached a high of about 25%, but many other Americans had reduced work schedules, making the "effective" unemployment rate somewhere between 30 and 40%). Roosevelt and Democratic leaders rushed through legislation to try to change the psychology of the country. All did not pass easily, and it was not a "tea party" for FDR (ah...maybe I should change that line?), but gradually the tide was turned against the downward spiral, however, the struggle to repair the severely damaged economy took a decade, and unfortunately, it took World War Two to bring the U.S. back fully.

Unlike FDR, Obama took office only about a year after the actual recession began, and only MONTHS after the financial meltdown and the (2008) Wall Street crash began. In this case, he was more in the position of Herbert Hoover, than FDR. Hoover assumed the presidency only a couple of months before the economy went into recession, and less than seven months before the Wall Street Crash of 1929. With many structural problems in the American economy, there wasn't a hell of a lot he, or anyone, could do to halt the initial downturn, at least in the sense of what was considered proper government involvement back in 1929, which was essentially "no involvement." In this sense, Obama had more of the FDR situation on his side. Hoover, who believed in deficit spending to limit economic downturns, was, however, limited in that action by the political considerations of that time (and his own limitations), including those of his VERY conservative Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, who believed in balanced budgets, pretty much regardless of circumstance. Americans just didn't accept big government deficits in peace time, and major government involvement in the economy was a "no no," at least during the early part of the "Depression." Hoover's more activist programs, and especially FDR's major activism, paved the way for future presidents, including Obama, to take action against economic downturns, although, as we have witnessed in the last couple of years, many hard line Republican members of Congress have opposed virtually ANY intervention into the economy, including those proposed by President Bush. The economic stimulus package passed by Congress in early 2009 and signed by Obama helped keep the country from going over the cliff, but the President needed to take charge, and not farm out the work to Congress. The stimulus probably should have been bigger, and with MUCH more job-creating infrastructure programs. (Note****) & (Note ^)

Lastly, unlike Hoover, FDR was a politician of the first magnitude. He had a "feel" for what the public wanted and how far he could go on policies, especially early on. He had no qualms about blasting business and wealthy interests (virtually all men, back then), and in fact, he seems to have relished their nasty comments about him, which only served to bring additional scorn to these interests from a substantial part of the American public. Obama, on the other hand, never really took charge politically. As a result, he has had the worst of all political worlds; being called a "socialist," "fascist," or "communist" by rightwingers (and those may be the "nice" terms they've used about him), but seen by his base supporters as being too timid, and seemingly unwilling to challenge the "laissez faire," "business is always right," "let's all be concerned about the plight of millionaires," "if you're not rich, the hell with you, you're on your own," system that has evolved during of the conservative era we've been in. He chose to do "health care reform" almost from the start (which showed poor judgment, and poor political instincts, in my opinion, although I understand the moral argument, trust me), but then he refused to really do battle over essential cost controls (like the "public option"), or even to try to change the very insurance system itself; instead continuing with the same employer-based system that business people, even when Bush was president, complained has limited their abilities to compete with foreign countries, ALL OF WHICH HAVE SOME SORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! Further, it retains a layer of costs, insurance company profits, to the overall system. Once he chose this battle however; he couldn't get out, as this would have weakened his overall position. The resulting year long battle played out in front of the television cameras on a daily basis. All the while Americans wondered who was minding the economic ship, as the captain they elected for the job was now at the helm of a different ship. Previously demoralized Republicans and their business allies went on the attack, and the President's ambitious agenda played right into what they began telling Americans; "The President and congressional Democrats are overreaching, and they're going to tax the hell out of you," "The health care bill will create 'death panels' to decide if elderly people will get expensive treatments for certain ailments, or be left to die," "The Democrats are spending trillions and they are bankrupting the country." While many of the attack lines were totally ridiculous, unlike the President, the conservative Republican machine was not the least bit squeamish about seizing the political initiative, using vast hyperbole, or letting little things, like facts, get in the way of their assault, including the fact that the country had been running budget deficits ("bankrupting the country") under Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan took office, and that the 2009 deficit was almost entirely inherited by Obama from President Bush. The President and the overall White House seemed absolutely overwhelmed by, and unprepared for, the attacks. With such a complex subject, the President and his supporters were unable to ever articulate a concise reason why Americans should support the bill, or why this divisive legislation was needed "right now." Polls showed a solid majority of Americans opposed to the measure. In the end, progressives, fearful of the consequences of a major legislative defeat for the President, rallied to the bill's support, even though it was not anywhere near what most of them wanted. A very limited (in my opinion, but it does have some good things in it) bill passed, but the President and congressional Democrats took an absolute pounding, and they have never recovered. The bill was so poorly crafted, that after a year of bruising, almost bare-knuckled brawling, most Democrats running in this year's midterm elections never bring up the health care law, unwilling to cite it as an achievement. On the other side, a number of Republican candidates are calling for repeal of the law, or at least parts of it, or of essentially killing parts of the law by not funding them, if Republicans take control of Congress.

Unlike FDR, this President seems to lack that feel for politics, especially needed in the age of 24/7 news coverage, where virtually everything makes it to some news outlet, be it on television, or on the Internet. Some sort of "pension-type" program for elderly Americans was a priority for many progressives (in both parties) in FDR's time, but he didn't just wade into that battle right off. He built overall political support for himself and Democrats first, by dealing with the economy, which had THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, then later he pushed for the establishment of "Social Security," with even a good number of Republicans voting for the measure. President Obama, like with the "stimulus," farmed out the health care bill to Congress, unwilling, or unable, to even take charge of his own political party.

(A Word History is below the extensive notes)

* Democrats controlled the Senate initially 59 to 36, with one "Farm-Labor" senator, who was really a Democrat (The "Farm-Labor Party" was in Minnesota"), so the Dems had a majority of 60 to 36, and that number varied from time to time due to deaths or appointments to other offices, but essentially it was 60-36. Remember, in those days there were only 48 states, not the 50 of today; thus there were 96 senators. In the House of Representatives, which as today had 435 seats, the Dems were overwhelmingly the majority, essentially having a 316 to 117 superiority, with 2 vacancies (the Dem number includes Farm-Labor members). The number of vacancies frequently changed during this period (not an uncommon occurrence) and the alignment therefore changed periodically, but not all that drastically. It is important to remember, the rules of the House of Representatives requires only a simply majority vote to pass legislation; so, on any given issue, a bill only needs to have one more "yes" vote, than "no" votes, for passage. Remember too, even if a bill passes the House, it must also pass the Senate in the same exact form, and then be signed into law (with some exceptions) by the President to actually become law. Unlike today, there was much more bipartisanship in FDR's time, and it was not uncommon for some Republicans to support legislation backed by FDR, just as it was not uncommon for some Democrats to oppose his legislation, but it was a totally different era, when the two major political parties both had large numbers of conservatives and progressives.

** Up to that time, presidents were inaugurated on March 4, not January 20, as they are today. The 1933 presidential inauguration, however, was the last held on March 4, as the time between the election in early November and the inauguration (if for a new president) was considered to be too long. When the Constitution was first ratified, the four month period between elections and inauguration was much more necessary, as, for one thing, travel and communication could take quite some time back then, and a new president also had to assemble his staff and make cabinet appointments, also with communication and travel time having to be considered. Then when Lincoln was elected, southern states began to secede from the Union BEFORE Lincoln took office. With the new president not yet in office, and likewise with the new Congress, the situation took the course that it did (maybe it would have anyway, but we'll never know). The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the date to January 20, was ratified in January of 1933, but did not take effect until October 1933; thus FDR's March 4th swearing in. Almost as if to make a point, the time between FDR's election and his taking office saw a major banking crisis develop in the country, with hundreds of banks either failing, or being of the brink of failure. I wonder now if American conservatives, if they do indeed win big in the 2010 midterm elections, will try to go back to the March 4th date? After all, we continually hear from some of them that the Constitution is the Constitution, and that liberals and Democrats are always trying to change it. It says what it means and means what it says, damn it! (Oops, they probably say "darn it," fearful that a bolt of lightening will hit them otherwise.)

*** If interested, I did a whole series on "The Great Depression." You can access the series by clicking on "The Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of this article. That will take you to all articles where I've done something on the "Depression." Scroll down until you come to those on the "Great Depression," which will be listed from last to first. You probably should read them in order, so just scroll to "Part One."

**** To be fair here, while I often disagreed with President George W. Bush and his administration on economic matters, my ego is not so fragile that I can't give credit to Bush and others in his economic circle to what they (finally) did right. While VERY unpopular, even with many Republicans, what came to be known as "the bank bailouts" was essential to preventing a total collapse of the American economy. It should have had "conditions" for the banks to meet in order to get the money, but it helped the country, and a good sum has been paid back to U.S. taxpayers, with interest, although there is an overall outstanding balance due. Obama and his economic team continued and expanded certain aspects of the basic policy, although now, many Republicans barely, if ever, acknowledge that it was Republican Bush who started the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, and auto companies. The argument that the Bush Administration should have enforced existing regulations more and taken measures to avert disaster is something I totally agree with. Their reliance on "free markets" to police themselves was total nonsense, and the notion, "let everyone do whatever they want to do, especially business people; after all, it's a free country," has brought us to the point where we are today.

^ Even though "stimulus" jobs would have, by nature, been limited by time, when Americans are working, they pay taxes. Taxes, in spite of this conservative nonsense that has been spouted for decades, do reduce deficits. So the investment would have had some payback, plus, it would have instilled far more confidence that the economy would steadily recover, something that is now lacking. The recent financial crisis in Europe hasn't helped matters here, though, and there's no question it has hampered the American recovery, as banks and businesses seemingly drew back. A larger stimulus, with more jobs, might have been able to supersede the European crisis in the overall psychology about the economy, but who knows?


WORD HISTORY:
Riddle-There are two distinct words, but with the same spelling. (1) The noun meaning "puzzle, mystery," goes back to the Indo European root "ar," which seems to have had something of a reverse form variant, "re," with the general notion of "fit together." (To solve a "riddle," we need to "fit together" clues.) This root gave Old Germanic "raedislijan," with the general meaning "advise, counsel" (it is also the ancestor of "read" and "rede," this being archaic, but meaning "advise, counsel"). This then gave Old English "raedels/raedelse," with meanings "counsel, conjecture, imagination, riddle." Later, the spelling changed to "redel/redels," before settling on the modern spelling. Close relatives are: German has "Rätsel," meaning "riddle, puzzle;" Dutch has "raadsel," with the same meaning.

Riddle (2)-meaning "fill with holes, perforate," as when a gunslinger warned, "I'm goin' ta riddle yer hide." Actually, the past tense usage is more common, "riddled." This goes back to Indo European "krei," which had the notion of "separating, distinguishing between," which then gave the Old Germanic offshoot "khridan," and the variant "hridan," where the "k" sound was not present; this meant "sieve, sift" which retained the original notion of "separate" (This may initially have come from the related Old Germanic form "(k)hrid," which meant "to shake," presumably with the notion that when you "shake" something, it separates items, as when you "shake the dust off of your clothes). This gave Old English "hriddel," also meaning "sieve." Later the spelling changed to "ridelle" (and "ridelen," the verb form, "to sift"), before eventually moving to the modern spelling. German has "Reiter," also meaning "sieve," but it is not commonly used anymore, to my knowledge, although perhaps in some dialects. A variant of the Old Germanic word, however, eventually evolved into modern German "rein," which means "pure, clean" (again, "possibly" with the idea of "shaking" something clean, or perhaps "filtering/sifting" something until "pure"). The other Germanic languages all have some form of this word with the same basic meaning, however, at this time, I have not been able to find a related word in English.