I first published this on October 26, 2010, so please bear that in mind. I'm republishing the article as it was then, with no updates, as it actually would require extensive editing now, because of the time that has now passed and the fact that we know the results of the 2010 election, which were held about a week AFTER this article was published. People in both parties can have short memories, often when they want to, but this should refresh some memories. I know many like the "Word History" segment, but be aware, this is the same "Word History," too. By the way, I've left the original article in place also, as there was a comment by a reader. For anyone interested, I'll put the link to the original Oct. 26, 2010 posting below the notes and above the Word History further down the page. Here is the article:
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 a while 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 right wing, and from conservative elements within
the Democratic Party, primarily from some Southerners, who in those times, were Democrats). 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 interventions 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 (and he had a superb political adviser in Louie Howe). 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 right wingers
(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 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 health care 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 was 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 (horseback and carriage were the main means of transport and communication), 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 on 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?
LINK to original October 26, 2010 article: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-fdr.html
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 out, 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.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, English, etymology, Franklin D. Roosevelt, George W. Bush, health care, Herbert Hoover, politics, Republicans, stimulus package, the Great Depression, the Great Recession
