Conservatives vs. History
Tweet
The conservative Chicago Trubune reprinted, and Newsbusters links to a cartoon critical of FDR and his team from 1934. It is supposed to parallel – negatively – what is happening now under the Obama administration.
Things that happened in the decade or so after that cartoon was originally published:
* America defeated the Great Depression
* America and our allies defeated the Nazis
* America entered into one of the biggest economic booms in its entire history
* Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected three more times to the presidency
Why would America and a Democratic president want to repeat that feat? Please, Br’er Fox, don’t throw me in that thar briar patch.
These are things practically every American child knows. Conservatives would know it too if they cracked open a book.
55 Responses to “Conservatives vs. History”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
We already know they operate in their own reality. They actually think they have some sort of “momentum” against Obama because everyone they talk to and every media outlet they frequent tells them so.
Because WW2 didn’t cause and/or help ANY of those points to happen..
Is red-baiting back in style? I’ll have to root around in Grandpa’s attic and see if he still has those “Support Tailgunner Joe” banners.
Conservatives never do real research before having an opinion.
Bengt Larsson: “Conservatives never do real research before having an opinion.”
You’ve read the posts by J.G.Thayer, I take it?
LOL,
So has anyone here actually linked through and read the text that accompanies the cartoon? Oliver links that cartoon with events that take place 10 to 20 years after it’s publication. Amazing.
As a palliative, one could watch this 1944 UAW-CIO sponsored Roosevelt re-election cartoon directed by Chuck Jones, called Hell Bent for Election!.
Don’t forget – the current target base for the GOP are those people who have _always_ thought FDR destroyed the country.
With an overlap of those people who think the problem with WWII was that we picked the wrong side.
Reagan started out as an FDR Democrat.
But Republicans don’t do history very well.
Often a man get wiser as he gets older. Might happen to you too Jaim.
Reagan admired FDR (as do most reality-based Americans) even after he switched parties. He had a problem with the scope of the New Deal, but he never questioned the basic fact that FDR a) won WWII and b) pulled us out of The Great Depression.
AO, you really need to go back to school and brush up on your American history.
The point being, there are grounds to criticize FDR’s policies, but trying to re-write history and turn him into a bad guy? Yeah, that’s why the GOP and its members are a complete joke among Americans these days. Have fun not mattering, AO.
AO: “Often a man get wiser as he gets older.”
You mean you used to be even dumber? That must have been fucking amazing.
Oliver links that cartoon with events that take place 10 to 20 years after it’s publication. Amazing.
Well of course he does, AO. The cartoon makes a prediction about events to come. OW kindly compares the prediction against events that followed.
It may seem amazing, but for those familiar with temporal order, it’s quite commonplace.
Jaim,
LOL, You’re an insolent young pup who hasn’t quite grown up yet. Reagan had a lifelong admiration for the man but not his policies. He admired his communication skills and found his rhetoric reassuring as a young man. He thought FDR would have rolled back parts of the New Deal if he had lived. Here is a view of Reagan and FDR that doesn’t quite fit your narrative.
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1082&loc=r
“an insolent young pup”
Christ, where did you learn to speak English, in the Middle Ages?
And I made it clear that Reagan had problems with the New Deal. Not sure what point you’re trying to make.
FDR was one of our greatest presidents ever, and Reagan greatly admired him. Period.
American History is a fascinating subject AO, one that I think you would find interesting if you actually studied it.
And as long as we’re talking about Reagan, it’s interesting that he actually raised taxes during his second term and that he thought deficit spending was a bad idea. Funny how cons don’t bring those issues up very often.
Jaim,
Are you more comfortable with snot nosed kid? Insolent pup fits better with your stage of life and understanding better but I disgress. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Being a slick communicator is not the same as being a wise man. Otherwise we could look for our leaders at the lots of successful used car dealers.
FDR was not an evil man but he changed this country in ways that have helped create the welfare state that you admire. He was not intellectually honest and his programs were not at all consistant. His staff was riddled with socialists and communists and the results show. He gave away the farm at Yalta much to Churchill’s chagrin. But he did have a good command of the then new communication medium radio. His bullshit was soothing.
Cons are always bitching about deficet spending and cursing the Republicans for being seduced by the power of the purse strings when in Washington.
Thanks for your interest in learning about American History. As I’ve said before Howard Zinn doesn’t count.
Perhaps you could offer a primer on the course so we can see where your young mind was led astray.
“insolent pup”
The 19th century called, AO. They want their moronic phrases back.
Seriously, how old are you? 93?
“FDR was not an evil man but he changed this country in ways that have helped create the welfare state that you admire”
FDR got us out of the Great Depression and oversaw the greatest economic expansion of the US ever. Because of him we don’t have poor-houses any more. We don’t (for the most part) have elderly people starving to death or eating cat-food. Because of him, America is an even greater country despite the efforts of cowards like yourself to tear it down.
“Cons are always bitching about deficit spending”
Um, Dick Cheney said “deficits don’t matter.” I realize you aren’t very adept at history, but this is recent enough that even you should know it.
“Thanks for your interest in learning about American History. As I’ve said before Howard Zinn doesn’t count.”
I’ve asked you to cite one credible historian to back up your moronic claims that a) socialism = fascism and you’ve failed to do so. Like your friend Jay, just because you say something doesn’t make it so. Facts are stubborn things.
But like I said, have fun not mattering. Keep huffing the GOP’s lame attempts to falsely revise history.
LOL Jaim’
I probably do seem like I’m 93 to you. None of the young pups can see themselves in thier fathrs and grandfathers. That will never happen to me.
Earth to Jaim, we got out of the Great Depression despite the New Deal not because of it. And he was inconveniently dead at the time of our greatest economic expansion. But keep lecturing me about history, I’m fascinated and amused by your interpretation.
So has anyone here actually linked through and read the text that accompanies the cartoon?
Have you, AO? Because conservatives today sound just the like the critics in the cartoon but you see, none of the criticism leveled at the New Dealers in that cartoon — “Depleting the resources of the soundest government in the world” or “Junking the Constitution and Declaring a Dictatorship” — actual happened and the country emerged from the New Deal and the Great Depression stronger than ever, as Oliver rightly points out.
Taking the long view of history, it’s the critics in that cartoon who were wrong.
Fafaroo,
From the article in question.
“Both Ickes and Richberg were key players in pushing the National Industrial Recovery Act which imposed fascist codes of conduct on American industry which dictated how key industries in America were to be run. The National Recovery Administration was ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935, which decision led to FDR’s effort to “pack” the Supreme Court with more cooperative justices.”
These are things practically every American child knows. Conservatives would know it too if they cracked open a book.
Isn’t that an oxymoron? Conservatives haven’t opened a book in ages. Especially ones that pass for “the elite”. Do you really think Darth Cheney has read Doughbob Loadpants’(that’s Jonah Goldberg) book? Or BillO?
AO forgets that the “Reagan Democrats” were FDR democrats. The central conceit of the Reagan campaign was to tell voters, “I, like you, think FDR is great, but the liberals who came after him Went Too Far&trade.”
Right-wing anger from the FDR era should be a reminder that the situation we find ourselves in today isn’t unique: the right wing has always been nuts. We’ve just forgotten what it’s like when they’re shut out of power and facing Democratic hegemony.
“Earth to Jaim, we got out of the Great Depression despite the New Deal not because of it.”
Uh-huh. Feel free to cite actual historians who make this claim, Sparky. Some commenter at Free Republic doesn’t count.
LOL Jaim,
UUnemployment never dipped south of 15% from 1931 until 1940. Roosevelt’s demonization of capitalism and business left the people who can create jobs and prosperity reeling with uncertainity. Not a climate for recovery.
left the people who can create jobs and prosperity reeling with uncertainity
Yes, no wonder they re-elected him. Just from a political point of view, what you guys on the right are asserting is nonsense. Americans don’t re-elect people and parties they see as responsible for economic mishaps. Ask Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, or John McCain. If we believe your reasoning, FDR did such a bad job on the economy he was re-elected in 1936 with 60% of the vote and in 1940 with 54%.
And you’re wrong on the economics, too.
So what you’re saying AO is that Herbert Hoover was an amazingly great president when it comes to the economy?
I love wing-nut batshitinsanity. The intellectual corners they manage to paint themselves into are incredibly amusing to anyone with a solid, high-school level or above knowledge about American history.
Also, unemployment numbers would have to factor in the mobilization for war — not just men entering the military, but women going to work for the first time. It’s a fascinating subject, but one you simply lack the brain-power and factual evidence to have an adult conversation about, AO.
Or should I say, you insolent old fart.
Oliver comes through with some propaganda from his day job. You know its an unbiased source.
Jaim you flatter yourself. Nobody said FDR wasn’t a good politician. After all going into a war he commanded an 8% margin of victory. But his greatest accomplishments were turning this nation down the path towards a welfare mentality.
I doubt if either one of you actually has any idea what Roosevelt did or did not do. Both of you make it perfectly clear that you prefer socialism to capitalism and have no more regard for the Constitution than Roosevelt did.
Because Nobel Prize winners like Krugman simply can’t be taken seriously, since they aren’t Republicans or believers in tax-cut Jesus?
And America is a “welfare state”? Compared to whom? Canada? England? Holland? For a modern nation, America is less socialist than almost any other place I can think of. Hell, even much poorer countries offer more in the way of goverment provisions for things like health-care and caring for the elderly.
What FDR put in place was a safety net called “Social Security.” This has been one of the most successful and important programs in American history. It means we don’t send people to the poor-house any longer. It means we don’t expect the children of the poor to work in factories instead of going to school.
But please, keep trying to tell us that we’re victims of a program that guarantees some income after we retire so that we don’t have to live in a sewer or freeze to death in the forest. Keep trying to sell your tired, failed Conservative b.s. to an America where people over 65 like getting their Social Security checks (even Republicans like my Dad would freak the hell out if you tried to take away his SS, even though he could get along comfortably without it due to his pension). Because really, with only older white males willing to vote “R” these days, about the only thing that could send them to vote “D” would be doing exactly what your party wanted to do — privatize Social Security.
Btw, since you aren’t giving any citations for your ludicrous arguments, could you please tell us at what American university you teach history at? Otherwise I’m going to have to ask you to cite some reputable sources. OW linked Krugman. You linked nothing but your insane rantings.
“Both of you make it perfectly clear that you prefer socialism to capitalism”
Huh? Capitalism thrived under Truman and well into the 1950′s. The economic recover that took place under FDR allowed capitalism to succeed. You know what’s funny? You know when capitalism fails? WHEN REPUBLICANS RUN THE COUNTRY (1928-1932, 2001-2008). But I’ll grant you the late 70′s were bad under Carter. Certainly not as bad as under Bush II and a Republican Congress, however.
If Republicans really believed in the long-term prosperity of America, they would stop running for obvious. They aren’t fit to lead when it comes to the economy and yes, capitalism.
err, “obvious” should read “office.” And I’ve said enough anyways.
AO, I appreciate your writing because it makes me feel confident that the current state of the GOP and what passes for its “thought” couldn’t be any more ludicrous, delusional, and most importantly, so out of touch with he 4/5 of reality-based Americans who vote.
The Chicago Tribune’s never been wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman
Jaim,
You are the backbone of the left, lost in an area full of trees looking for a forest. You favor a society built around the the idea of the diminishment of the individual and placing the needs of the state above the rights of the people.
The greatest shortcoming of a centrally controlled economy is the lack of knowledge to make rational decisions.
Social Security is a failure, its mathmatically flawed and unable to sustain itself. It can not continue in the fashion that it has been. Baby boomers will fight tooth and nail to try and keep the goodies for themselves. They may or may not succeed. You on the other hand can just about count on not getting as much out as you pay in. You aren’t paying into an insurance fund, you’re just being taxed. Perhaps not you, depending on where you draw your paycheck and how long you stay out of the country, but I disgress.
Either the retirement age will go up, or the benefits will go down, or the whole cover story of social security insurance will fall apart if it is means tested. At that point it becomes a tax that redistributes wealth, making one group of Americans pay for the retirement needs of another group of Americans
Some commenter at Free Republic doesn’t count.
Nor does Amity Shaeles.
Both of you make it perfectly clear that you prefer socialism to capitalism and have no more regard for the Constitution than Roosevelt did.
You really should stop talking now.
“Both of you make it perfectly clear that you prefer socialism to capitalism”
FDR saved capitalism from itself. Obama is doing much the same thing. Where’s your gratitude?
Social Security is a failure,
No, it isn’t.
its mathmatically flawed and unable to sustain itself
No, that’s wrong also.
It can not continue in the fashion that it has been.
Yes, it can. Steerrrrike three! Yer out!
He gave away the farm at Yalta much to Churchill’s chagrin.
AO, this is utterly false. FDR did no such thing. Eastern Europe wasn’t FDR’s to give; the Red Army already held it.
Can you honestly tell me that in FDR’s shoes, with your ally Stalin (who you are asking to join the fight against Japan) holding that territory and promising you elections will take place, you’d have said no, we’re fighting you for it?
I bet you can’t.
So what you’re saying AO is that Herbert Hoover was an amazingly great president when it comes to the economy?
I know he gets ragged on a lot, but a lot of what he did in his last year – probably reluctantly, as he was a dogmatic ‘get the government out of the way’ guy for much of his career – paved the way for FDR’s New Deal package.
In fact, though, Hoover as commerce secretary did try to sound the alarms on stock speculation during the Coolidge Administration, but Coolidge blew him off. So he ain’t all bad.
Parthenon,
FDR believed Stalin, Churchill did not. Churchill wanted to push east as far as they could trying to save Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. He then foolishly invited Stalin to participate in the final push on Japan. We lacked sufficient will to do it but Patton had the right instincts.
AO, the allies slowed at Eisenhower’s recommendation, not Roosevelt’s, and I know how you guys always listen to the generals first. We can probably be pretty thankful that the worst/craziest of Patton and Macarthur’s goals were reined in, unless war with China or Russia sounds like a good time.
In any case, the Soviets lost 20 million people in WWII, had been invaded by the Germans, the French and the Americans all in relatively recent history, and were not going to let those satellite states go without a fight. Our human cost was peanuts next to theirs; if you think Stalin was going to just go on home without a seat at the table, you must not be that familiar with him.
And I don’t want to run the thread off the rails, but I’d love to know why it was ‘foolish’ to invite the Soviets into the war with Japan.
“You are the backbone of the left, lost in an area full of trees looking for a forest.”
Actually, as of 2009, my views on Iraq, the economy, the GOP, and Obama are solidly mainstream as in — held by the majority of Americans.
This has kind of been a pet peeve of mine since 2005 or so when the occupation of Iraq started to turn into a disaster. The media (so-called liberal media) kept putting up this dichotomy between “Red State” pro-occupation folks and unwashed, hippie protesters, when in fact you had lots of “Red State” types and lots of moderates, people who formerly supported the occupation when it was supposed to last less than a year, who were now solidly against the occupation.
But silly me, trying to have a factual discussion with AO. I’ll put it into two and three-syllable words that you might understand: It isn’t 1983 any more. It is 2003 any more. The majority of Americans are solidly pro-Obama (not always pro-Democrat, I’ll admit), opposed to a long-term occupation of Iraq, and generally happy with Obama’s handling of the economy. This could all change, of course, but to operate as if people don’t like Obama is silly and delusional. Of course, AO is the definition of silly and delusional.
Because of the in it gave Stalin in Asia. We didn’t get enough help from Russia for it to have mattered. Agressively pushing back would have yielded better results than rolling over. It is ironic that Eisenhowers caution was fueled by not wanting to make Mongomery look bad while Churchill had no illusions about the Russians.
Jaim,
As usual you’re mostly mistaken. The current spread between people who strongly aprove and strongly disaprove of Obama’s performance as president is 3% in his favor. 35% to 32%, not even a majority. A majority of the country still likes him as a man but that is not the same as approving of his performance.
Jaim,
And while it is petty and I do understand your meaning you are such a spelling nazi that I might point out that you are doing your students a grave disservice if this is the typical care you take with grammer and the English language. We of course know better but they are at your mercy.
“It isn’t 1983 any more. It is 2003 any more.”
Go ahead and use the big words you know, I’ll try to keep up. LOL
The current spread between people who strongly aprove and strongly disaprove of Obama’s performance as president is 3% in his favor. 35% to 32%, not even a majority.
Overall job approval rating: 61%
Wrong Quaker,
That’s approval of the man not his performance.
Both of you make it perfectly clear that you prefer socialism to capitalism and have no more regard for the Constitution than Roosevelt did.
Right. The National Industrial Recovery Act was passed by Congress and challenged in court.
FDR didn’t like the court’s decision so crafted another piece of legislation that would, in effect, allow him to pack the courts.
That bill failed to pass in Congress and FDR moved on, having spent a considerable amount of political capital and good will in the fight.
So what you have here is a president trying to advance his agenda through legislative means and being shot down, first by the courts and then by Congress.
I don’t think we’ve ever seen such a blatant disregard for the Constitution. The horror.
In other words, AO, whatever you may think about the legislation FDR sought to make law, he did it entirely through the means of the Constitutional process. To suggest, that suggest that what he tried was anything but Constitutional is just hogwash.
Fafaroo,
You have a strange interpretation of what the separation of powers means in this republic of ours. I would and did charactorize an attempt to change the structure of the Supreme Court for blatant short term political gain an assault upon the Constitution. Perhaps it would have been more precise to term it an assault upon the independance of the Judicial branch.
I would and did charactorize an attempt to change the structure of the Supreme Court for blatant short term political gain an assault upon the Constitution.
AO, you seem to have a strange interpretation of what it means to “disregard” the Constitution.
There’s nothing unconstitutional about trying to pass legislation that would change the make up of the Supreme Court through legislation.
The Constitution specifically grants the power to set the number of Supreme Court judges to Congress. Congress has increased the size of the court three times since the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Yes, FDR was trying to change to make up of the court for short term political gain. That isn’t in dispute.
But he tried to do so through entirely Constitutional means.
So, again, to assert FDR had no regard for the Constitution, as you did, is complete hogwash.
Maybe you should actually know something about the Constitution before you start deciding who is and who isn’t “regarding” it.
Now you’re questioning FDR’s war strategy. Keep digging.
Fafaroo,
You are correct in your literal understanding of the Constitution and I will forever hold you to that strict constructionist standard. Strangely you forgot to quote this part of my post where I acknowledge that you are indeed correct.
“Perhaps it would have been more precise to term it an assault upon the independance of the Judicial branch.”
To not understand that FDR’s attempt to pack the court was an assault upon the integrity of the court is naive at best. While you are correct about the ability of Congress to change the size of the court, to do it in a naked grab for power for the sake of a short term political agenda is hardly what the founders intended. I don’t think it entirely unfair to charactorize FDR’s legal attempt to thwart the separation of powers an assault upon the Constitution. But rest easy Fafaroo, FDR got his wish and was forever enshrined although not specifically named in the 22nd Amendment.
Wrong Quaker,
That’s approval of the man not his performance.
Did I forget to provide a link? Silly me.
Sucks to be part of the fringe these days, doesn’t it AO?
To not understand that FDR’s attempt to pack the court was an assault upon the integrity of the court is naive at best.
And I never said it wasn’t. But the Constitution allows for what FDR tried.
If you want to argue the FDR should have followed “the spirit” of the Constitution, great. I’ll remember that the next time you bitch about Roe v Wade and the right to privacy.