The 'Economic Royalists'-1936 FDR Speech (Now You Know Why Cons Are In Attack Mode)

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
President Obama has to understand that the Republican Party is isolated. Dominated by the far right wing corporatists , but bolster by their allies in the mainstream media. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

source: New York Times

July 10, 2000

Roosevelt to War on 'Economic Royalists'; Hailed by Throngs in Acceptance Ceremony; Garner Named as Weary Convention Closes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battle Today Is Like That of 1776, He Says, With New Set of 'Royalists' in Power

By ARTHUR KROCK
Special to The New York Times


RANKLIN FIELD, PHILADELPHIA, June 27. -- Under a cloud-veiled moon, in skies suddenly cleared of rain, to a mass of more than 100,000 people gathered in the stadium of the University of Pennsylvania, and by radio to unnumbered millions all over the nation and world, Franklin Delano Roosevelt tonight accepted the renomination of the Democratic party for President of the United States and, avoiding personalities of any description, defined the issue of this campaign as it appears to him.

The President said that, as the fathers of the Republic had achieved political freedom from the eighteenth-century royalists, so it was the function of those who stand with him in this campaign to establish the economic freedom they also sought to establish, and which was lost in the industrial and corporate growth of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Vice President John N. Garner of Texas, in this same place, renewed his pledge of allegiance to the President, made four years ago, and added a vow of fealty to the New Deal. The President was notified of his renomination by Senator Robinson of Arkansas, permanent chairman of the Democratic National Convention that closed today. Senator Harrison of Mississippi acted as proxy for Senator Barkley of Kentucky, temporary chairman, whose function it was to notify the Vice President, but who sailed for Europe on official business today.


Crowd Roars Its Enthusiasm

The arrival of the President in the stadium was greeted by a real demonstration, as distinguished from the artificial efforts of conventions. One hundred thousand people rose and roared unmistakable acclaim as Mr. Roosevelt entered the platform on the arm of his eldest son and clasped the hand of Vice President Garner while "The Star-Spangled Banner" was sung.

Thunderous cheer after cheer rolled out as the President finished, and, led by his mother, members of his family gathered about him. He mopped his brow, drank copiously of ice water and then stood waving his clasped hands above his head, while the tumult continued and the band played. Before Mr. Roosevelt left the stand on the arm of his son, James -- as he entered -- he waited for "Auld Lang Syne," and cheered its last echoes with the crowd. It was a personal triumph of the kind given to few men.

If the high tenor of his speech can be taken as an indication of what sort of campaign the President will conduct, Postmaster General Farley's prediction of the "dirtiest" contest of recent times will not be realized, so far as the chief protagonists of the parties are concerned, for Governor Alf M. Landon has implied the same tactics.


For Those Who Weary of Struggle

The only conceivable reference to Alfred E. Smith and other Democrats who have attacked him that the President made was when he said that some had grown weary of the struggle and relinquished their hope of democracy "for the illusion of a living." The crowd roared approval.

Informed by Senator Robinson that the administration "has vindicated the faith of plain people in the processes of democracy," and confounded those who demanded a dictatorship in 1933, the President took up this major theme, which is also sounded in the Philadelphia platform.

The following is a summary of the President's speech, which was more of a rededication of the New Deal to obtain and secure "economic freedom" than an acceptance speech, outlining a definite program, according to custom:

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">This occasion is for dedication to a simple and sincere statement of an attitude toward current problems. The speaker comes not only as party leader and candidate for re-election, but ''as one upon whom many critical hours have imposed and still impose a grave responsibility."

For loyalty in cooperation thanks are due the people, Democrats everywhere, Republicans in Congress, many local officials and especially those who have borne disaster bravely and ''dared to smile through the storm." The rescue was not the task of one party; the rally and survival were made together.

Fear which was the most dangerous foe in 1933, has been conquered. Yet all is far from well with the world. The United States is better off than most, but ''the rush of modern civilization" has created problems for solution if both political and economic freedom are finally to be attained.

The eighteenth-century Royalists sought to perpetuate their special privileges from the British Crown. They regimented the people in labor, religion and the right of assembly. The American Revolution was fought to win political freedom, and political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia July 4, 1776, when the Declaration was penned.

But modern industry and invention have raised new forces that produced new royalists and new dynasties, with new privileges which they seek to retain. Concentration of economic power pressed every citizen into service, and economic freedom -- the twin ideal, with political freedom, of Jefferson and Washington -- was lost again.

Small business men, with the worker and the farmer, were excluded from this new royalty. "New mercenaries sought to regiment the people." The average man once more confronts the problem faced by the Minute Men. He is entitled to a living that means something to live for as well as something to live by.

The collapse of 1929 revealed the new despotism for what it was. In the election of 1932 the people gave to the present administration a mandate to end it. It is being ended.


Freedom No Half-and-Half Affair

The modern royalists contend the economic slavery is nobody's business, and certainly not the government's. But the administration contends that freedom is no half-and-half affair; the citizen must be free in the market place as well as in the polling place.

To the complaint of the economic royalists that the New Deal seeks to overthrow American institutions, the President answer that what they really seek to retain is their kind of power, hidden behind the flag and the Constitution. But the flag and the Constitution stand for democracy and freedom, and no dictatorship either by the mob or the overprivileged.

"The brave and clear platform * * * to which I heartily subscribe," sets forth the inescapable obligations of the government, protection of family and home, establishment of equal opportunity and aid to the distressed. The opposition will beat down these words unless they are fought for, as for three years they have been maintained. The fight will go on as the convention has decreed.

Faith, hope and charity are not unattainable ideals, but stout supports of a nation struggling for freedom. The nation is poor indeed if it cannot lift from the unemployed the fear they are not needed in the world. That accumulates a deficit in human fortitude. The bearers of the standard of hope, faith and charity, instead of privilege, seek daily to profit from experience, to learn to do better.

The sins of the cold-blooded and of the warm-hearted are, as Dante say, weighed in different scales. The overt faults of a charitable government are preferable to the consistent omissions of an indifferent one.

This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny. Some who have long fought for freedom have wearied and yielded their democracy. Success of the New Deal can revive them. The war is for the survival of democracy, to save "a great and precious form of government for ourselves and for the world.
"</SPAN>

The President accepts the nomination and is enlisted "for the duration of the war."
 
Republicans’ Latest Talking Point: The New Deal Failed

source: New York Times

By ADAM COHEN
Published: January 11, 2009

On Christmas Eve, the conservative pundit Monica Crowley argued on Fox News that instead of rescuing America from the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s spending on public works made it worse. She insisted that this bizarre claim was confirmed by “all kinds of studies and academic work.”

The show’s host backed her up. “Yes,” said Gregg Jarrett, “I think historians pretty much agree on that.” In the same vein, a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece said F.D.R. helped turn “a panic into the worst depression of modern times.” Now, as Congress begins to debate President-elect Barack Obama’s ambitious economic stimulus plan, this anti-New Deal talking point is popping up all over.

Conservatives have railed against the New Deal from the start. In 1934, H. L. Mencken was already decrying it as “a saturnalia of expropriation and waste.” When F.D.R. ran for re-election in 1936, a headline in William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers insisted that “Moscow Backs Roosevelt.”

But Americans were not fooled. They knew F.D.R. was on their side in a way that Herbert Hoover and his fellow free-marketers hadn’t been. They could see first-hand the good that Roosevelt’s jobs programs were doing for the Depression’s victims and the slow but unmistakable improvements in the economy.

In the 1934 midterm elections, the voters delivered their first verdict on the New Deal, expanding the Democrats’ margins in Congress. In 1936, F.D.R. won in a bigger landslide than he had four years earlier. By 1940, the Republican nominee, Wendell Willkie, was supporting much of Roosevelt’s social welfare and regulatory regime.

Anti-New Deal rhetoric has never disappeared from American political life. When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, he attacked President Dwight Eisenhower for having presided over a “dime store New Deal.” But in recent years, the attacks have heated up.

At the start of the Bush administration, conservatives talked openly about rolling back the New Deal. They were trying to unravel the regulatory state, including protections for workers, consumers and investors. They were also promoting a favorite cause of Wall Street’s: privatizing Social Security, the crown jewel of the New Deal.

These days the public is in no mood, given the high costs of deregulation in the mortgage industry and the Bernard Madoff scandal, for more talk about dismantling regulations and federal oversight. But today, the new focus is Mr. Obama’s stimulus package. If F.D.R.’s New Deal spending made things worse, it follows that the Obama administration should not make the same mistake.

The anti-New Deal line is wrong as a matter of economics. F.D.R.’s spending programs did help the economy and created millions of new jobs. The problem, we now know, is not that F.D.R. spent too much priming the pump, but rather that he spent too little. It was his decision to cut back on spending on New Deal programs that brought about a nasty recession in 1937-38.

The second problem is that the criticism overlooks the relief Roosevelt’s programs brought to millions. When F.D.R. took office, unemployment was 25 percent, and families were losing their homes, living in shantytowns, even fighting one another for food at garbage dumps.

The difference that the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Works Progress Administration and other New Deal public works programs made in people’s lives is incalculable.

F.D.R.’s labor secretary, Frances Perkins, described in her memoir what a relief job meant to an “almost deaf, elderly lawyer” she knew whose practice had failed. He had gotten a job as a caretaker at a small seaside park. “He made little extra plantings,” she recalled, “arranged charming paths and walks, acted as guide to visitors, supervised children’s play.” When she saw him, she said, “he would always ask me to take a message to the President — a message of gratitude for a job which paid him fifteen dollars a week and kept him from starving to death.”

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"> Congressional Republicans say Mr. Obama’s stimulus will cost too much, and that over time the economy will cure itself. When critics raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs, his relief administrator, Harry Hopkins, had a ready answer:</SPAN> “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”
 
Re: The 'Economic Royalists'-1936 FDR Speech (Now You Know Why Cons Are In Attack Mod

Economic Royalists - and The Rest Of Us

by Rick Perlstein

May 1st, 2007

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/economic-royalists-and-rest-us

I mentioned my unfortunate encounter with William F. Buckley's heirloom rug. I didn't say, but I bet you can guess, that the glass of scotch I spilled on it was probably quite expensive. William F. Buckley is a very wealthy man.

It was inherited wealth, not running National Review, that made him so; his father was an oil tycoon, who built a patio onto the family manse (which had formerly housed the governor of Connecticut) with gorgeous ceramic tiles plundered from Mexico after they ran him out of the country for organizing against the revolution.

Many of the people running the Republican Party and conservative movement are like Buckley and President Bush. They're aristocrats - "economic royalists," as FDR called them long ago. They've just learned to hide it.

They weren't always so skilled.

Once upon a time, in 1934, American conservatives united against the class traitor running the country by forming something called the "Liberty League." Roosevelt had just passed the Securities and Exchange Act to regulate Wall Street. This they could not let stand. They had to take him down, in the name of all that was good and true.

The great man swatted them away with the back of his hand. "To put it in a Biblical way, it has been said that there are two great commandments—one is to love God, and the other is to love your neighbor," he told the assembled reporters at one of the informal press conferences he used to convene in the Oval Office. "A gentleman with a rather ribald sense of humor suggested that the two particular tenets of this new organization say you shall love God and then forget your neighbor, and he also raised the question as to whether the other name for their God was not 'property.'"

The Liberty League regrouped. They decided they would put paid to the New Deal once and for all—by convening a black-tie only banquet.

It was January, 1936. Two thousand American aristocrats—we call them "economic conservatives" now—sat in eager anticipation as the former Democratic presidential candidate Al Smith - a 1930's Zell Miller - took to the podium for his keynote speech. The packed tables," The New York Times said, "represented, either through principles or attorneys, a large portion of the capital wealth of the country."

Some people would call them "elites." I would call them George W. Bush's base.

Al Smith hectored for over an hour: "It's all right with me if they want to disguise themselves as Norman Thomas or Karl Marx or Lenin," he said of the administration the American people had awarded the White House in a landslide, "but let me give one solemn warning: There can only be one capital, Washington or Moscow."

The crowd went wild. They had grasped the nettle. They finally had Franklin D. on the run.

Actually, all they had done was make themselves look like pompous asses. FDR's popularity surged. His right-hand man James Farley called the Liberty League offensive "one of the major tactical blunders of modern politics." By June, the Republican Party was all but pretending they had never heard of them.

If only Fred Thompson had a time machine. The far-right former Republican senator, who may soon announce a presidential run, has made the keystone of his platform the fact that he owns a beat-up old, red pickup truck.

I was reminded of all this watching President Bush speak at a recent "town hall meeting in Ohio." Beneath their jeans and work shirts, they still wear black tie and tails. And monocles. And spats. Spiritually, they do. Sometimes they let it slip. It's something I'll be writing about a lot in the future: how if you want to know how conservatives really think, you really have to pay attention to the slip-ups.

Like that time the other week in Ohio. President Bush was explaining why we need an immigration plan that "recognizes that people are doing work here that Americans are not doing." He illustrated his argument with a quip he probably thought, in his heart of hearts, was as "folksy" as they come:

"If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."

A small slip, but stunningly revelatory one, really. "If you've got a chicken factory": so casual. Instinctively, it's easier for the president of the United States to call to mind someone—to empathize with someone—who owns a factory than someone who works in one.

The emperor is wearing a monocle.


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>

cheney-constit-uses.jpg
 
Re: The 'Economic Royalists'-1936 FDR Speech (Now You Know Why Cons Are In Attack Mod

Bump, don't be afraid.
 
Re: The 'Economic Royalists'-1936 FDR Speech (Now You Know Why Cons Are In Attack Mod

The Tea Baggers are looking for a solution. FDR had it 75 years ago!

Your sleeping Lamarr.
 
Re: The 'Economic Royalists'-1936 FDR Speech (Now You Know Why Cons Are In Attack Mod

Read the post and learn!
 
Back
Top