Franklin D. Roosevelt, on September 23, 1932 gave a speech that laid out the future of the Democratic Party's philosophy on the role of government in the economy and in the lives of the American People. He begins by discussing the American Industrial Revolution, remembering that, "The dream was the dream of an economic machine, able to raise the standard of living for everyone; to bring luxury within the reach of the humblest; to annihilate distance by steam power and later by electricity, and to release everyone from the drudgery of the heaviest manual toil". This dream was a dream of national passion and enthusiasm, so much so that we did not pay too much attention to the means, so far as we achieved our ends. So long as the railroads were built, we did not complain too much how they were built, how the railroad companies acquired their land, how the workers were treated, or even how the laws applied.
"So manifest", Roosevelt trumpeted, "were the advantages of the machine age, however, that the United States fearlessly, cheerfully, and I think, rightly, accepted the bitter with the sweet". Yet, eventually the expansion could only go so far before all that free land had become private property and powerful companies began closing in on monopoly, and the hopes of the average man were no longer in discovering the American Dream, but rather in laboring for those who already had. While we were not a nation that had historically desired too great a relationship with our Government, these Business concerns commonly petitioned the government for aid.
Roosevelt reminds us that, "The railroads were subsidized, sometimes by grants of money, oftener by grants of land; some of the most valuable oil lands in the United States were granted to assist the financing of the railroad which pushed through the Southwest. A nascent merchant marine was assisted by grants of money, or by mail subsidies, so that our steam shipping might ply the seven seas". And so, the US Government paved the way for American Business to prosper, in the hopes of establishing a better life and living for all Americans. In Roosevelt's mind, this hope was exhausted at the end of the Industrial Revolution when after receiving all this help and grace and charity from Government, these Corporations did not spread the wealth. Roosevelt lamented, "More striking still, it appeared that if the process of concentration goes on at the same rate, at the end of another century we shall have all American industry controlled by a dozen corporations, and run by perhaps a hundred men. Put plainly, we are steering a steady course toward economic oligarchy, if we are not there already".
The question remains, then, what must the government do?
"Clearly", Roosevelt opined, "all this calls for a re-appraisal of values. A mere builder of more industrial plants, a creator of more railroad systems, an organizer of more corporations, is as likely to be a danger as a help. The day of the great promoter or the the financial Titan, to whom we granted anything if only he would build, or develop, is over. Our task now is not discovery or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand, of seeking to re-establish foreign markets for our surplus production, of meeting the problem of underconsumption, of adjusting production to consumption, of distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the service of the people. The day of enlightened administration has come".
And Thus the pinnacle of American Liberalism was born. The argument was made that the governments' role in the United States economy was to change, to be an instrument for regulating production, redistributing wealth, and securing economic equity with the objective of better serving the people. Which people? The people who failed to rise to the top in that great Industrial Race for the American Dream. The people who now worked for the victors. The people who no longer had a frontier to conquer, or a steam engine to invent, or access to land and resources to live off of. The Government must evolve, to involve itself in the careful planning, regulating, and legislating of an equitable national economy.
"As I see it", Roosevelt laid out, "the task of Government in its relation to business is to assist the development of an economic declaration of rights, and an economic constitutional order. This is the common task of statesmen and businessman. It is the minimum requirement of a more permanently safe order of things...".
An so a "permanent revolution" was began in America. The American People were about to gain new Rights.
"Every man", proclaimed the President, "has a right to life; and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living. He may by sloth or crime decline to exercise that right; but it may not be denied him. We have no actual famine or dearth; our industrial and agricultural mechanism can produce enough and to spare. Our Government, formal and informal, political and economic, owes to everyone an avenue to possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs, through his own work". And of course there is the rub. The question that has faced the Democrat Party for generations. Can all Americans possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs through his own work? And in what ways can the government open an avenue for them to possess a portion of that plenty?
Roosevelt continued, "Every man has a right to his own property; which means a right to be assured, to the fullest extent attainable, in the safety of his savings. By no other means can men carry the burdens of those parts of life which, in the nature of things, afford no chance of labor; childhood, sickness, old age. In all thought of property, this right is paramount; all other property rights must yield to it. If, in accord with this principle, we must restrict the operations of the speculator, the manipulator, even the financier, I believe we must accept the restriction as needful, not to hamper individualism but to protect it".
This is a profound economic sentiment in stark contrast to the economic observances of Adam Smith. In Smiths' Theory of Moral Sentiments, (part 4, Chapter 1), he states, "The rich ... divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its inhabitants". President Roosevelt has a much different vision for the future of the American Economy. No longer shall we trust the prosperity of the poor to an invisible hand, or to the laws of nature, or even to the charity of the rich.
"This implication is, briefly, that the responsible heads of finance and industry, instead of acting each for himself, must work together to achieve the common end. They must, where necessary, sacrifice this or that private advantage; and in reciprocal self-denial must seek a general advantage. It is here that formal Government - political government, if you choose - comes in. Whenever in the pursuit of this objective the lone wolf, the un-ethical competitor, the reckless promoter, the Ishmael or Insull whose hand is against every man's, declines to join in achieving an end recognized as being for the public welfare, and threatens to drag industry back to a state of anarchy, the Government may properly be asked to apply restraint. Likewise, should the group ever use its collective power contrary to the public welfare, the Government must be swift to enter and protect the public interest".
That this new role of government would seem like a threat to capitalists and individualists did not go unnoticed by President Roosevelt. He concluded that all the rights, liberties, and protections would and ought to remain in place for the individual and that "every individual may attain such power as his ability permits, consistent with his assuming the accompanying responsibility". And so, the great economic debate began. The questions were laid out and the philosophies proscribed. And still today, the views of Roosevelt and Smith are compelled to combat each other in the public discourse, unresolved, but each gaining and losing popular support with each consecutive generation. Just as Aristotle and Plato, Empiricism and Rationalism, has waged an intellectual battle for over 2,000 years, Capitalism and Liberalism (for lack of a less offensive term) may well continue to engage each other for the years to come.
(Roosevelt Quotes from an Address by Franklin D. Roosevelt given at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, September 23, 1932. Printed in American Government: Readings and Documents, by Peter H. Odegard, second edition. Published by Harper & Row, New York, Evanston, and London, 1964).
by
Steven Tucker
Member since:
August 27, 2009 FDR & The Role of Government
August 29, 2009 07:15 AM UTC
(Updated: August 29, 2009 07:18 AM UTC)
views: 0
|
comments: 2
Find Gather groups:
Gather Politics News Channel
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
||||
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.




Comments: 2
By Jonah Goldberg
"America has a dictator," Benito Mussolini proclaimed, watching FDR from abroad. He marveled at how the forces of "spiritual renewal" on display in the New Deal were destroying the outdated notion that democracy and liberalism were "immortal principles." "Roosevelt is moving, acting, giving orders independently of the decisions or wishes of the Senate or Congress. ... A sole will silences dissenting voices." That almost sounds like Harry Reid talking about Bush.
Mussolini reviewed FDR's book, Looking Forward proclaiming the author a kindred spirit. The way Roosevelt "calls his readers to battle," he wrote, "is reminiscent of the ways and means by which fascism awakened the Italian people." "Without question," he continued, the "sea change" in America "resembles that of fascism." Indeed, the comparisons were so commonplace, Mussolini's press office banned the practice. "It is not to be emphasized that Roosevelt's policy is fascist because these comments are immediately cabled to the United States and are used by his foes to attack him."
The German press adored FDR. In 1934, the Vlkischer Beobachter, the Nazi Party's official newspaper, described Roosevelt as a man of "irreproachable, extremely responsible character and immovable will" and a "warm-hearted leader of the people with a profound understanding of social needs." Hitler sent FDR a letter celebrating his "heroic efforts" and "successful battle against economic distress." Hitler informed the U.S. ambassador, William Dodd, that New Dealism was also "the quintessence of the German state philosophy."
The New Dealers were not so much mimicking the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. They were attempting to recreate what they had built -up under Woodrow Wilson's war socialism. Today we have no historical memory of how brutal the Wilson Administration was, nor do we realize that many Progressives supported the war not so much because they championed its foreign policy aims, but because they yearned for the "social possibilities of war," in the words of John Dewey, the 20th century's premier political philosopher.
The war provided an opportunity to force Americans to, as journalist Frederick Lewis Allen put it, "lay by our good-natured individualism and march in step." Or as another progressive put it, "Laissez faire is dead. Long live social control."
It was this spirit which informed FDR's administration. By 1944 he made good on Wilson's conviction that the US constitution was outmoded and in need of replacing with a new "living constitution." FDR's proposed innovation was a new "economic bill of rights" which included:
>The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
>The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
>The right of every family to a decent home.
>The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
You read correctly, the right to 'recreation'.
With the intellectuals on their side, Wilson recruited journalist George Creel to become a propaganda minister as head of the newly formed Committee on Public Information (CPI).
Mr. Creel declared that it was his mission to inflame the American public into "one white-hot mass" under the banner of "100 percent Americanism." Fear was a vital tool, he argued, "an important element to be bred in the civilian population."
The CPI printed millions of posters, buttons, pamphlets, that did just that. A typical poster for Liberty Bonds cautioned, "I am Public Opinion. All men fear me!... [I]f you have the money to buy and do not buy, I will make this No Man's Land for you!"
Meanwhile, the CPI released a string of propaganda films with such titles as "The Kaiser," "The Beast of Berlin," and "The Prussian Cur." Remember when French fries became "freedom fries" in the run-up to the Iraq war? Thanks in part to the CPI, sauerkraut become "victory cabbage."
Under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, Wilson's administration shut down newspapers and magazines at an astounding pace. Indeed, any criticism of the government, even in your own home, could earn you a prison sentence. One man was brought to trial for explaining in his own home why he didn't want to buy Liberty Bonds.
The Wilson administration sanctioned what could be called an American fascist, the American Protective League. The APL - a quarter million strong at its height, with offices in 600 cities - carried government-issued badges while beating up dissidents and protesters and conducting warrantless searches and interrogations. Even after the war, Wilson refused to release the last of America's political prisoners, leaving it to subsequent Republican administrations to free the anti-war Socialist Eugene V. Debs and others.
The left claims that president Bush seeks to do something like this with the war on terror. But look at the evidence. No newspapers closed down, a sum total of three detainees water-boarded, two hard core terrorists who happen to be American citizens have had their habeus corpus rights "infringed." After 9/11 President Bush asked the American people to go shopping, not to give up capitalism.
Meanwhile, on the left, self-styled progressives keep trying to recreate the New Deal and the progressive era. New York Times columnist pines for a "new progressive era." Barack Obama gushed about how he was re-dedicating his campaign at the University of Wisconsin where the Progressive movement was born. Hillary says she's not a liberal but a "modern progressive."
Now, obviously, none of the current crop of self-described progressives are eager to replay the darkest chapters of the past. But we make a mistake when we assume that we can cherry pick only the good parts of our past to re-create.
Jonah Goldberg is the author of the New York Times bestseller Liberal Fascism
zon%2Ecom%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0385511841%3Fie%3DUTF8%26tag%3D
glennbeckcom%2D20%26linkCode%3Das2%26camp%3D1789%26creative%3
D9325%26creativeASIN%3D0385511841&tempid=dd00337b47ef447c9ae3e5ce46> .