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.
FDR was a socialist who made the depession worse, until it ended only by the onslaught of war.
His New Deal policy of crop destruction to prop-up farm prices was so absurd that even Stalin thought it was nuts.
Jackson wouldn't have started it. Were Jackson the President, the South likely wouldn't have seceded.
Also, by 1828, Jackson was pretty long in the tooth. I know he threatened to hang John Calhoun, but I doubt he would have been able to do it.
True. Jackson is my Pitical hero, like he is President Trump’s.
The ideals of Jacksonian Democracy were ALWAYS going to clash with the Skave Power, because the Jacksonians valued the Union and the Common man.
You are correct. Read Burt Folsom’s great book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?” He exposes how the slimy FDR used the tax system to pummel opponents, dished out money like candy to get reelected in certain districts, and was 100% liberal.
There is nothing at all any conservative should praise. He’s in my bottom 5.
The author doesn't help his credibility with that kind of talk ...
deep hostility to the New Deal
The "New Deal" was and is indistinguishable from Mussolini's Fascism.
FDR built up our nation and our people
FDR laid the foundation for the grossly bloated, excessively powerful, absolutely unaffordable Federal Leviathan under which we labor today.
FDR gave us withholding — or took it from us. It was to pay for the war. The Income Tax and the IRS were around before him.
FDR and what he did aren’t going away, but there’s no reason to make him a hero.
We could do with a little less Churchill. He was a great man, but he made a lot of bad decisions.
Jackson hated the British. He probably felt the Union had to endure just to hold back the British.
He probably felt that any attempt at disunion would be catastrophic because the British would try to come in and reclaim the pieces.
In 1828, this was still a serious, though waning possibility.
But Jackson hated the central bank too, and he did his best to kill it, which he did. But it didn't stay dead.
A lot of people think it is from that central bank that we developed the fed, and the deep state cabal of unelected bureaucrats who rule us now.
Yes
Actually, with FDR, you also get Harry Hopkins.
The Wagner-Connery National Labor Relations Act (or the Wagner Act, for short):
FDR also belatedly threw his support behind the Wagner-Connery National Labor Relations Act, which had been languishing in Congress. This legislation guaranteed labor unions the right to organize and bargain collectively—and established the National Labor Relations Board to enforce these rights. It also curbed employer use of "unfair labor practices," like blacklisting union organizers or unionized workers. Because of the legitimacy conferred on unions by the Wagner Act, the legislation came to be known as the "Magna Carta" for American labor unions. With this new political power, union membership swelled to more than 13 million Americans during World War II.
Unable or unwilling?
Professor Folsom is from my alma mater.
We need to start making it go away.
Truman kept the Communists from taking over France, Italy and Greece.
People don’t realize just how close the Communists were to taking France and Italy after the war.
Japan and The United States were on a collision course, ever since the US got Hawaii and The Philippines.
The guy was a terrible president.
Willkie supporters in 140 had buttons that said “No third termites.”
To which FDR’s people replied, “Better a third termer than a third rater.”
“Unable or unwilling?”
Question for the ages. I think Roosevelt was generally sympathetic to communism. I suspect Hopkins was an active agent of the Soviet Union, although there’s no proof if that like there is with many other Roosevelt admin officials. And, I think Stalin was a huge personality that overwhelmed everyone around him.
I can kind of understand lend-lease to Russia until the Russians reached Karkhov. At that point, the war was won and helping the Soviets occupy all of Eastern Europe and build the Soviet economy with lend-lease was a really, really stupid idea. Especially since it came at the expense of Eastern Europe and the Nationalist Chinese forces.
FDR is second only to segregationist Woodrow Wilson in screwing up this country, in my book.
And just slightly ahead of bH0 in doing everything necessary to unnecessarily extend an economic Depression.
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.