Posted on 08/08/2025 12:06:27 PM PDT by TBP
There was a kerfuffle a couple weeks ago involving criticism of Winston Churchill as a leader. I find it strange the way that conservative Americans treat Churchill as if he were one of the greatest American leaders, as the third in the sequence after Washington and Lincoln.
I’m not the only person who’s noticed this. The academic Tanner Greer said, “The boomercon historical pantheon of heroes is something like this: Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln. Your pick among Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.”
Without taking anything away from Churchill, this is strange because America had its own incredible wartime leader: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
My sense is that American conservatives alighted on Churchill rather than Roosevelt because of their deep hostility to the New Deal. Opposition to the New Deal was one of the major threads that congealed to create postwar conservatism. As with civil rights, conservatism ultimately made peace with the New Deal, but they originally believed it needed to be rolled back. Historian George Nash wrote in his canonical history of conservatism:
To Meyer and most of the Buckley circle, liberalism itself was the target, the New Deal was a revolution to be fought relentlessly, and Adlai Stevenson was not in the least a model for conservative political action. The enemy was the Left, period—not just its extremist fringe. National Review was not about to acquiesce in the post-New Deal Zeitgeist.
To these conservatives, FDR was thus a great villain. Again Nash:
Indeed, with rare unanimity the Right believed that the administration of Franklin Roosevelt inaugurated a revolution both in the agenda and structure of American politics. It was the second great crisis in the decline of the Republic.
While I don’t know exactly how the American conservative fascination with Churchill came to be, it’s definitely convenient in allowing them to continue taking a negative view of FDR.
Many conservatives today continue to have an extremely negative view of FDR. When I posted about him on X, I got a torrent of hate from both the left and right, for example.
I think it’s fair to say that there’s a lot to dislike and disagree with about many of FDR’s policies and actions. I’m not here to defend all of the particulars of his administration, which includes much I disagree with.
But there are many things he got right, and many patterns of his administration that are directly in line with what we need today.
1. FDR provided a needed institutional reset for the modern industrial age
America periodically resets its institutions to adapt to changing conditions. The first attempt at an institutional structure was the Articles of Confederation, quickly rejected as not working and replaced with our Constitution.
Sectional disputes, primarily around slavery, precipitated a national crisis that resulted in the Civil War. Northern victory lead to an institutional reset in which slavery was abolished, America was turned into a genuine nation rather than a confederation of states, and industrialization and the turning of the continent into an integrated “empire” was accelerated.
The second industrial revolution, along with its related large scale immigration and urbanization, created a lot of challenges for the country. Some of these started to be addressed during the Progressive era, but the old laissez-faire system still proved inadequate, first during the Depression and secondly in World War II.
While not perfect, Roosevelt’s New Deal and other reforms provided a second institutional reset that was badly needed in a modern industrial economy. There was, and is, no way we could go back to the old laissez-faire robber baron system, or get rid of social security and such programs. FDR’s reforms set the stage for the period of postwar prosperity in which industrial jobs became middle class jobs, and America experienced mass prosperity on a previously unknown scale. The postwar institutions like NATO, the UN, etc. coming out of Roosevelt’s war victory provided for America’ new global role and ultimate victory in the Cold War.
While there have been some updates, this is still the basic institutional structure of America. People like Christopher Caldwell argue that the civil rights revolution was a “second constitution” for America, but things like civil rights did not change the institutional structure of America in the way the New Deal did.
We are now 80 years on from FDR and facing a new set of problems in America. We are due for a third major institutional reset to address the very different needs of a post-industrial, high tech world. And to set the stage for the next phase of American growth and transformation.
Unfortunately, no one today seems to be able to think in those terms. It’s possible to imagine new policies in many areas, but the institutional framework seems basically taken for granted. In fact, daring to question the role of any of the old institutions like NATO is treated with horror.
I’m not saying we should get rid of NATO, but we do need an institutional reset - something that is completely within the American tradition. As a writer in Palladium said about the old upper class that spawned FDR:
To be an elite is to act in the world as an independent historical player with the collective power and ambition to not simply accept established institutions, but to change them. Our late American upper classes maintained a sense of stewardship over their institutions—from universities to the United States—because these were the vehicles by which they could act in the world. And when they need something different, a true elite creates and re-creates its institutions, rather than merely staffing them.
Today, our elite merely staff the institutions. But they need to be transformed. Hence, we need a contemporary FDR who can do that once again.
2. FDR was a populist who could execute
FDR was a populist, who was able to go direct to the masses through radio and other means. An inner party member of the upper class, he was able to use his connection with the people to effectively be a class traitor who helped tame corporate power. Remember, most WASPs of his era were Republicans.
But he wasn’t just a blowhard. He actually knew how to accomplish things. Did everything he tried work? No. But you can’t look at, for example, the rapid conversion of US industrial production towards war matériel, or something like the Manhattan Project, and say that he wasn’t able to pull off some pretty incredible things.
This ability to execute grew from his upper class background. He had lots of training and experience in leadership, and a vast network of high capability people to draw on in carrying out his work.
Today’s populists tend to come from subaltern backgrounds and do not have a track record of running large organizations or high level leadership in elite domains. This cripples their ability to make changes or even run the office they were elected to effectively. The result is often a circus.
We need a better brand of populist today. One who cares about the people, but has the background to get things done and willingness to betray his class do them. In short, someone a lot like FDR.
3. FDR built up our nation and our people
FDR was a builder, and also someone who cared about helping the people towards the bottom of society.
One of his notable initiatives, for example, was rural electrification. The Rural Electrification Act and the Tennessee Valley Authority were created. Prior to FDR, people said it would never be economical to provide electricity in rural areas. He helped bring modern technology, conveniences, and lifestyles to all of the country, not just parts of it. This shows his focus on helping the left behind.
His various public works projects also built a tremendous amount of infrastructure, some of which is still used today. For example, the school I attended in first through fourth grades was built by the Public Works Administration in the 1930s. It’s still in use as a community center building that includes a library branch.
Other pieces of iconic American infrastructure were built at this time, from the Hoover Dam to the Lincoln Tunnel.
The infrastructure that was built was high quality and beautiful. That’s one reason it still exists today. FDR even funded a substantial amount of artwork, lot of which was good. In fact, the postwar art world dislikes the New Deal era art because it’s too traditional and too pro-American.
Reclaiming FDR In sum, America could use a leader in the style of FDR today, one who operates within the American cultural and political tradition, who has a populist connection to and genuine concern with the people who aren’t among the privileged, who is competent and capable of leadership and execution at the highest level, and who has a mindset towards building, beauty, institutional change, and national greatness.
The actual contents of this person’s program would be different from FDR’s of course. Our situation is different from his, and FDR flat out got some things wrong. But until they recognize the virtues of FDR, American conservatives won’t even understand the kind of leader they should be seeking, much less vote for one.
In today’s world, American conservatives need to reclaim FDR as one of their own.
“America could use a leader ... who operates within the American cultural and political tradition, who has a populist connection to and genuine concern with the people who aren’t among the privileged, who is competent and capable of leadership and execution at the highest level, and who has a mindset towards building, beauty, institutional change, and national greatness.”
Sounds like he is describing President Trump. Forget FDR.
Yes he is, really needs to study FDR the president with communists in office appointed by him. Between FRD and Wilson most of today’s problems can be laid at their feet.
Describes himself thusly. I think he is a bit all over the board. He says some of the right things, but a lot of it seems to be attacking "traditional" conservatism, while trying to "fix" conservatism Going from traditional conservatism say as practiced in "solidly red" Indiana including a "Republican governor since Mitch Daniels was elected in 2004." Pence, anyone?
Now if you want to talk about how the American slouching towards Gomorrah has been going on ever since the New Deal, and how the GOP has been marhing step and step with the democrats, that's fine. But that's not conservatism. That's RINOism, like Pence.
Franklin DeLano Romanowski?
Beautiful WPA parks in Minnesota. Incredible.
FDR was a socialist surrounded by communists.
This is a classic apples-oranges piece where the setting today versus the 1930-40’s simply doesn’t lend itself to comparisons. FDR’s approach to things in today’s environment simply wouldn’t work.
As far as WWII, I think any normal president could have played a similar role in that war, I think the great wartime president was Reagan, there was no automatic end to the Cold War, in fact it seemed impossible to end and that history was on Russia’s side, Reagan brought his personal decades old strategy to the forever war and did something unique, while most any competent president could have been in charge during WWII.
Something revealing about El Presidente for Life? The Protestant vote (the most conservative American voters) went against him in his last two elections.
Nope - socialism and the Great Depression. Don’t need that.
Wilkie would have been a better wartime President than FDR, although Wilkie really was a Democrat who ran as a Republican.
Churchill’s mother was an American.
My parents loved Roosevelt. They hated Truman. And they particularly disliked Bess Truman.
I'm the exact opposite. In my opinion, Truman, Reagan, and Trump were the only great Presidents after the year 1900.
Truman was a far better President than Roosevelt, and I love Bess Truman.
FDR thought he was above limiting himself to two terms. There are a lot of dead people who thought they were indispensable
FDR was a socialist surrounded by communists.
Especially his VP, Henry Wallace. Thank God he ditched him for Truman.
Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative, he was a liberal.
His presidency saw the largest rise of government power in history up to that time. He favored High Taxes, Protectionism, Expensive government projects, Major give aways to large corporations (Railways act of 1862), Social *CHANGE*.
He was a sleazy northern Lawyer. Just as the Democrats have fled Texas to deny a quorum, he fled the Statehouse in Illinois to deny the legislature a quorum. (by Jumping out a window.) He was a non-Christian, and mocked Christianity in private. (According to his long term law partner William Herndon.)
Lincoln was involved in a railroad swindle in Illinois that cost the state some 13 million dollars.
He was the closest thing to a dictator this nation had ever seen. He initiated a war that killed 750,000 people directly, and perhaps millions indirectly. He Violated constitutional law without hesitancy, and he created the corrupt "Deep State" that made the DC bureaucracy the permanent ruling class in this nation.
The period following his presidency was regarded as the most corrupt in US History. He traded bribes for political favors, and he used the government to threaten people who opposed him.
He used Mafia like tactics to secure his nomination for the presidency. (In corrupt old Chicago)
The nation would have been far better off if William Seward had won the nomination, as he rightfully would have done but for the fact of all of Lincoln's hired thugs who intimidated, bribed, shouted down, and tricked the delegates at the convention. The thugs were bused in by the railroad corporations on their railroads, just like the modern day Democrats did with their hired thugs. Lincoln worked for the railroads, and rewarded them greatly when he took power.
Lincoln was a liberal.
How do you feel about illegal aliens voting in American elections?
You can’t make silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Calvin Coolidge.
I find it amusing and appropriate that, in Savannah, the Truman Parkway is an amazing and important traffic artery connecting the northern and southern sections of the city, with an exit ramp on the comparatively small street named for Eisenhower. I don’t think there’s anything named for Roosevelt there.
FDR was dyed-in-the-wool progressive who turned a blind eye to marxists all around him and subverted the Constitution for another 100 years
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.