Posted on 02/29/2016 11:55:17 AM PST by pilgrim
The New Deal’s executor held many positions similar to those of to one Donald J. Trump. ________________________________________________
Imagine a U.S. president who is bombastic, egotistical, and just a little racist. He worries opening the borders will mean an influx of undesirables. He implements capricious executive orders, and seems more concerned with his own power than with the Constitution. He’s often called a fascist by people who know what the term means.
No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Debate raged last December about whether President Trump would be a fascist. Steve Horwitz and Martin O’Malley, among others, claimed he would be. Not so fast, said Megan McArdle at Bloomberg View. A fascist president could never take power in America, McArdle argues, because, among other things, “America has neither the weak institutions nor the revolutionary organizations necessary for a Trump Reich to fester.”
But that’s not quite true. FDR may not have been Hitler or Mussolini. But the difference was one of degree, not of kind. And now Trump is following in his footsteps. Suspicious of Americans, Immigrants, and Refugees
FDR spied on political dissidents in the name of national security. In May 1940, he warned of a “fifth column” in America (a military term for civilian rebels), and claimed refugees might be enemy agents.
In “FDR Goes to War,” noted historians Burton and Anita Folsom tell the story of how FDR used the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and attorney general to go after his political enemies. He wiretapped phones, ordered tax audits of dissidents, and created a personal spy group to collect incriminating information about political rivals.
All of this was before FDR rounded up almost 122,000 Japanese-Americans and forced them into internment camps. While national security concerns were cited, FDR also considered Asians biologically untrustworthy.
FDR was also hostile towards refugees. When Jews sought to escape from Nazi Germany, FDR barred the gates. The State Department cut refugee immigration by 75 percent by imposing burdensome regulations. FDR defended his actions on the grounds that “among the refugees there are some spies….” But as with the internment camps, a darker motive also played in: FDR was an anti-Semite who waved away pleas to let in Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing.”
This isn’t to suggest that all opposition to immigration is fascist. Many reasonable Americans favor immigration restrictions. But FDR’s immigration ideas, summed up in his claim that immigrants ought to have “blood of the right sort,” were clearly prejudicial. So is Trump’s rhetoric about Mexicans. The New Deal’s Not So Different from Fascism
Economically too, FDR’s ideology closely resembled the fascist policies of Mussolini’s Italy. With the creation of the National Recovery Association (NRA), FDR set up a system that pushed each industry into a cartel that cooperated with the federal government to set wages, prices, and “fair practices.” One NRA report even stated directly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”
This similarity was not accidental. Rexford Tugwell, one of the architects of the New Deal, wrote that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.”
Roosevelt said he was “deeply impressed by what [Mussolini] has accomplished.” Mussolini returned the favor in his review of FDR’s 1933 book “Looking Forward,” noting that, “Reminiscent of Fascism is (FDR’s) principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.”
Like Trump, FDR had little respect for the separation of powers. When he tried to pass a 99.5 percent marginal tax rate on income above $100,000, Congress rebuffed him. So he issued an executive order mandating a 100 percent marginal tax rate, and lowered the ceiling to incomes of $25,000 per year (which Congress later rescinded). His attempt to do a similar end-run around the Supreme Court, the court-packing scheme, is infamous.
Paul Warburg, one of FDR’s first-term advisors, claimed, “I believe that Mr. Roosevelt is so charmed with the fun of brandishing the band leader’s baton at the head of the parade, so pleased with the picture he sees of himself, that he is no longer capable of recognizing that the human power to lead is limited.” FDR saw himself as a benevolent dictator, and his actions reflect that grandiosity. Trump has made a campaign of this same sort of grandiosity.
It’s true that FDR didn’t take total power in the United States, and that U.S. institutions prevented him from doing so. The Supreme Court struck down his ideas, especially before 1937. When he tried to pack the court with allies, the public rallied against him. Congress also refused to pass certain laws on his agenda. The Dictatorial Type Keeps Resurfacing
But FDR was both powerful and destructive. He was not Mussolini, but he ran roughshod over the rule of law, and dramatically transformed American politics—which should serve as an example of what a Trump presidency might look like.
In fact, a Trump presidency could be even more dangerous, because the powers of the presidency have expanded. The White House can place citizens on terrorist watch lists—spying on them and preventing them from flying. The president can order U.S. citizens who are abroad, like Anwar Al-Awlaki, to be assassinated without a trial. The National Security Agency allows the president to spy on political dissidents such as Faisal Gill (a Muslim Republican) and Nihad Awab (director of a Muslim civil rights organization), or even to wiretap news outlets like the Associated Press.
This doesn’t mean a Trump presidency would lead to brown shirts on the street. But there is more to fascism than goose-stepping and military style uniforms, and Trump, like FDR, displays many such characteristics. So when people look at Trump’s agenda and claim “it can’t happen here,” they’re ignoring history that’s not even a century old. Not only could such things happen, they already have.
The only sure way to guard against Trump is to roll back the enormous power of the government that he would be managing. History, even in the United States, shows that dangerous men dupe voters and take power. We should shrink government so that when they’re elected, they take as little power as possible.
Julian Adorney is a Young Voices Advocate. He has written for FEE, Townhall, The Hill, and Lawrence Read’s latest book “Excuse Me, Professor.”
Thanks for asking.
Imagine a U.S. president who is bombastic, egotistical, and just a little racist.
Racist? Really? Plays the race card. In the case of Trump, unsupported. It's just 'there.'
He implements capricious executive orders, and seems more concerned with his own power than with the Constitution.
Lists this as a similarity, but Trump has never been the President. That's projection.
But that’s not quite true. FDR may not have been Hitler or Mussolini. But the difference was one of degree, not of kind. And now Trump is following in his footsteps. Suspicious of Americans, Immigrants, and Refugees
Gives no example of how Trump is suspicious of Americans...I guess he thought he could slide that one through.
This isn’t to suggest that all opposition to immigration is fascist. Many reasonable Americans favor immigration restrictions. But FDR’s immigration ideas, summed up in his claim that immigrants ought to have “blood of the right sort,” were clearly prejudicial. So is Trump’s rhetoric about Mexicans.
Repeat after me...E-legal. E-legal. E-legal. Being against illegal immigration is not only fascist but racist? If you agree, DU is the place for you.
Suspicious of refugees...Trump says we should put a pause on Muslim refugees until we can figure out what's going on. Believes all refugees must be background checked. That's mainstream belief on FR. ISIS brags they are infiltrating among the refugees.
Steaming pile of excrement, indeed. I know it's easy to defend a Trump attack article, but isn't it exceedilgly irrational in this case?
Are these positions wrong?
From the article:
“He worries opening the borders will mean an influx of undesirables.”
“In May 1940, he warned of a “fifth column” in America (a military term for civilian rebels), and claimed refugees might be enemy agents.”
Now the other bits.
“Like Trump, FDR had little respect for the separation of powers.” - how does the author know this. Is enforcing current law violating separation of powers?
“FDR saw himself as a benevolent dictator, and his actions reflect that grandiosity. Trump has made a campaign of this same sort of grandiosity.” - again, based on what. Saying “same sort” doesn’t make it so unless “Making America Great Again” is the same sort.
” But FDR’s immigration ideas, summed up in his claim that immigrants ought to have “blood of the right sort,” were clearly prejudicial. So is Trump’s rhetoric about Mexicans.” - blatantly false. Trump never has disparaged legal Mexican immigrants.
“The president can order U.S. citizens who are abroad, like Anwar Al-Awlaki, to be assassinated without a trial. The National Security Agency allows the president to spy on political dissidents such as Faisal Gill (a Muslim Republican) and Nihad Awab (director of a Muslim civil rights organization), or even to wiretap news outlets like the Associated Press.” - I’m mixed on this. US citizens who side with the enemy should not be considered so. But again, it’s an assertion based on what? Trump wanting to curtail Muslim immigration and sending Muslim refugees back? I don’t see it.
“The only sure way to guard against Trump is to roll back the enormous power of the government that he would be managing.” - This has yet to happen at all. Government has grown without any relevance to Trump.
LOL!! Agree, most article could be better. Had not heard of that book. Sounds interesting.
Mr. Trump is a little difficult to be categorized. Think that is part of his appeal. He will be what I want or need.
Hope he can accomplish a lot of what he is promising now.
Agree re: depression time.
It has been said some 94,000,000 are no longer looking for work. Think they feel if they are in a depression.
I disagreed with that cartoon.
1. The Pope was seen to have erred when he addressed walls from nations whose citizen are invading the United States. Trying to cast the evil light on the builder of walls to protect his own nation, while giving a pass to those contributing to it’s destruction was dishonest and favored the lawless rather than the lawful. The Pope was morally wrong > IMO. So using him to cast Trump as anti-Christian was twisted.
2. Hate, bigotry, and racism are the wild-cards the Left always pulls out to trash Conservatives. Trump doesn’t hate Hispanics, Blacks, or even for that matter Syrians refugees. He does view these groups realistically based on things some of them do that cause harm to the U. S. Illegals, gangs, terrorists, these are concerns. They need to be addressed. Race has nothing to do with it.
3. Torture is not something that is accepted based on the Geneva Convention which was the basis for how active combatants should be treated when captured. Terrorists are not identifiable military combatants in the legal sense. They don’t abide by Geneva Convention standards. They are not the legitimate unformed combatants of a recognized government. They are not covered by the Geneva Convention. Trump said he would not only approve of water boarding, but would go farther. If some guy can be forced to give actionable information to stop a city from being nuked, do we error on the side of his comfort, or the protection of millions. Torture is tossed in here for shock value. “Trump is in favor of torture. Be aware of that!” Trump is a reasoned man who will have to deal with chaos with millions of lives on the line. Terrorists get no breaks!
4. Vulgarity is not something we desire to see in our leaders. I don’t want kids picking it up. I don’t want adults to place those sorts of examples out there for them to pick up. So I am not in favor of Trump or anyone else using this sort of language. Now, that being said..., we have had nothing but namby pamby leaders for decades. Terrorists have picked up on it, and so have our other enemies. That has to stop. Trump and his language leave no room for misunderstanding, this guy is a mother fletcher and he’s not going to put up with any nonsense. That doesn’t mean we’re always going to win, but it does mean the days of us being walked on constantly, bowing, and submitting to abject humiliation on the public stage are over, when Trump resides in the White House. It is true, but he and I need to work on our base language utilization.
5. As for Trump being a Christian or not, he’s the only guy that has stood up to the anti Christmas and other religious matters in public movement. That alone tells me he will be a lot better for Christians than some folks who claimed to be some of the best Christians. This was an attempt to belittle Trump on Christianity, and it was an example of how the Devil works, not how Christians work.
Frankly, I hope he pushes back hard on the issue of the Confederate flag when he’s in office.
It’s a source of pride in the South, and Whites there have a right to a culture of their own that hasn’t been sanitized out of existence.
At the same time, racism should not be tolerated and as a people we should recognize the historic past and try to reach out to each other. If the Confederate Flag had been solely a racist flag, I would object to it. It isn’t. It is seen by many to be a sign of Southern individualism and retention of pride despite being on the losing end of a terrible conflict. It is a reminder that the rebellious spirit did not end with the Civil War. Acknowledging the pride of the Southerner and living in peaceful co-existence is a tribute to our nation. The denial of that is the real objectionable goal.
With all honesty, not being sarcastic. Think you need to read or re-read the article.
Trump was never called racist
Never stated Trump was president.
A lot of the things you mention seem to assume it was all about Trump.
Can you rephrase the reply with just the items mentioned without assumptions?
Thanks.
Someone had a sheep graphic with a Trump topee (sp?) that was pretty funny. “Trump. Because thinking is hard.”
OK.
Think you need to have that conversation with the cartoonist.
I do not always agree with things I post.
Thanks for the response!
That is a question I had never heard put that way before.
I’m two months shy of 65 years of age.
Trump is basically saying, I’ve never given that specific question thought before.
This surprises you?
There are so many things to say on this subject.
1. Trump said he will defund Planned Parenthood abortion operations
2. Presidents can’t wave a wand and end abortions.
3. The Supreme Court will have a say in this
4. Congress will have a say in this
Acting as if this is a deal killer, while reassuring to Christians, isn’t in the end really in touch with reality.
I’d love to think Trump or Cruz could walk in and declare abortions over. They can’t.
If he mentions it in reference to FDR, it's implied in the case of Trump.
You asked for more specificity.
I wasn’t trying to take anything out on you.
I merely explained the problems I saw in the cartoon.
S P E C I F I C A L L Y
I only came back to provide that, because you made a nice response and I thought I should honor your prior request more than I had.
Sorry, was commenting on the cartoon you posted in post 13.
Shouldn't even mentioning curtailing a free press raise at least a bit question on where he is coming from and where he wants to go?
Not disagreeing with that statement.
Do not agree with everything the author wrote.
If there is any disagreement with the similarities would like to see what it is and reason.
Thanks for a reasonable response.
It was a rhetorical question concerning the first two items. The author seems to think they are bad things.
The rest are my counter points to the authors statements. The author is trying to make a case against Trump and I disagree with the items I listed.
James MacGregor Burns’ was a very well known historian and wrote a two volume Bio of FDR. None of the gossip just a very straight forward book, volume two is on the war years which what I am most interested in. Still volume one has a lot of information I did not know.
James MacGregor Burns’ was a very well known historian and wrote a two volume Bio of FDR. None of the gossip just a very straight forward book, volume two is on the war years which what I am most interested in. Still volume one has a lot of information I did not know.
LOL!!! That I did!
There is so much off topic stuff being posted I GET CONFUSED!!! LOL!! (cfeo) Wish there would be more responses to the item posted in lieu of attacks among other things. :^)
Thought you had responded to the original posted article. My mistake. “Mea culpa?” Being an ex-Texan hope that is correct!
Have to start following the post, in reply to the post being replied to, in reply to the post being replied to, in reply to the post being replied to, in reply to the post being replied to if you follow my recurrent babble.
Thanks again for the respectful response!!! Would like to see more of that type and IT IS APPRECIATED!!!! (cfeo)
Sometime cartoons are distorted!!!
Take care.........pilgrim
Thank you for your additional comments.
No problem at all.
Take care...
Trump is basically saying, I’ve never given that specific question thought before. This surprises you?
Not really. But, it does confirm that he has not thought deeply about the source of inalienable rights, or if he has, he thinks it is of no consequence. Abortion is but a consequence of a cavalier attitude toward Declaration principles.
We do not yet know all that we don't know about Trump. He is a slippery as an eel and no one seems to have the ability to nail him down.
My point is not that I want a POTUS to walk into office and outlaw abortion. But, I need to hear an unequivocal declaration that "loser" babies maintain their right to life.
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.