The Problem(s) Of Centrism

12 Comments

1. 

   Arthur Gilroy on September 7, 2014 at 1:35 pm

   How about a litte “extremism” from the left,, fer chrssake!!!

   It’s about time.

   If FDR was running on the platforms that propelled him into perhaps the greatest, most effective presidency in the history of the U.S.,  he would be derided by the Government Media Complex as “an extremist.”

   It’s about time.

   The clock’s a’tickin’.

   Bet on it.

   AG

   • 

     MassCommons on September 8, 2014 at 9:59 am

     Didn’t FDR run in 19832 on reducing the federal deficit?

     • 

       Arthur Gilroy on September 8, 2014 at 11:02 am

       He ran on moral grounds. What he decided to do tactically once elected was determined by specific political, social and economic conditions in the country at the time, but the overall strategic goals that he set were based on what would be best for the common man. And…unlike our quite possibly well-meaning current president…he stuck to his guns and he ran a tight ship.

       Wiikipedia:

       When Roosevelt was inaugurated March 4, 1933, the U.S. was at the nadir of the worst depression in its history. A quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Farmers were in deep trouble as prices fell by 60%. Industrial production had fallen by more than half since 1929. Two million were homeless. By the evening of March 4, 32 of the 48 states – as well as the District of Columbia – had closed their banks.[121] The New York Federal Reserve Bank was unable to open on the 5th, as huge sums had been withdrawn by panicky customers in previous days.[122] Beginning with his inauguration address, Roosevelt began blaming the economic crisis on bankers and financiers, the quest for profit, and the self-interest basis of capitalism:

       Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence… The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.[123]

       Historians categorized Roosevelt’s program as “relief, recovery and reform.” Relief was urgently needed by tens of millions of unemployed. Recovery meant boosting the economy back to normal. Reform meant long-term fixes of what was wrong, especially with the financial and banking systems. Roosevelt’s series of radio talks, known as fireside chats, presented his proposals directly to the American public.

       —snip—

       No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.
       –President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act.[130]

       Like dat.

       AG

       • 

         MassCommons on September 8, 2014 at 11:18 am

         Thanks for the reply, but your Wikipedia citation is from 1933, after the campaign was over.

         Eighty years from now, people will be able to pick similarly high-minded statements from President Obama’s public record and use them as evidence of his interest in the common person.

         And, people will be able to cite the priorities Obama identified in his 2009 inaugural address and point to his successes in accomplishing his goals(despite facing a far more powerful and united Republican opposition than Roosevelt did).

         I write this not so much as a defense of Obama or an attack on Roosevelt as an observation that politics remains much as it was three (or even 30) generations ago.

         • 

           The Voice In The Wilderness on September 9, 2014 at 8:11 am

           Bush also ran on balancing the budget.

       • 

         The Voice In The Wilderness on September 9, 2014 at 8:10 am

         “Roosevelt began blaming the economic crisis on bankers and financiers”

         While Obama began by insulating them from the effects of the crisis and guaranteeing their bloated bonuses.

2. 

   Arthur Gilroy on September 8, 2014 at 11:59 pm

   Yes, indeed.

   Only…

   Obama tanked in terms of popular opinion about a year after re-election. FDR did not. The difference? Success. The reason for that success? Holding to that morally defined strategic line in FDR’s case as opposed to deviating from it in the name of political expediency in Obama’s case.

   As MLK Jr. said:

   The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

   Believe in this idea and success is available. Try to compromise with it and it’s back into the common toilet with you.

   So it goes.

   Courage tells.

   Moral courage.

   Bet on it.

   AG

   • 

     MassCommons on September 9, 2014 at 5:58 am

     Maybe! Or maybe Roosevelt’s popularity came from the fact that he took office 3 1/2 years after market crash that precipitated the Great Depression, and the economy (and the unemployment rate) improved markedly in 1933-34.

     By contrast, Obama took office 4 months after the failure of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing market collapse, and while the economy was still losing over 700,000 jobs a month.  And while the economy began to turn almost as soon as Obama’s policies went into effect, unemployment continued to worsen well into 2010.

     • 

       The Voice In The Wilderness on September 9, 2014 at 8:13 am

       So you agree with the Republicans that FDR only made the Depression worse and it would have burned itself out without intervention?

       • 

         MassCommons on September 9, 2014 at 10:27 am

         No, I disagree with them.  I think it’s pretty clear that Keynes was right and that Roosevelt’s willingness to be flexible and to use what seemed to be working (i.e., deficit spending to spur the economy) played an important role in starting an economic recovery in 1933-34.  (And that war-induced deficit spending ended the depression.)

         I’m just saying that if, say, Obama had taken office in 2010, 3+ years into the Great Recession, then his record might like more impressive.

         Similarly, if Roosevelt had taken office in 1930, then his economic record might not have looked as good by the time of the 1932 elections.

         • 

           The Voice In The Wilderness on September 9, 2014 at 12:34 pm

           Fair enough.

         • 

           MassCommons on September 9, 2014 at 6:10 pm

           Thanks, and thanks for the pushing me to clarify.