Capitalism's Savior (Everything You Believe About FDR Is False)

Wall Street Journal ^ | Wednesday, October 29, 2003 | CONRAD BLACK

[presidio9]

Those worried about the recent sluggishness of the American economy should look to the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt. When he entered office in 1933, unemployment was at 33%, there was almost no public-sector relief for the jobless, 45% of family homes had been -- or were in imminent danger of being -- foreclosed, and the Chicago Grain Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and the banking system had collapsed. Almost no one was engaged in agriculture on an economically sustainable basis and the nation's food supply was apt to be severely interrupted at any time.

[JohnGalt]

FDR ran as a libertarian in 1932, and won mostly because of Hoover's poor handling of the Bonus Army marchers. FDR governed as a fascist, the worst of all worlds, and it's hard to look at the results of the election and draw Black's conclusion:

1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrat 472 22,821,857
Herbert C. Hoover, Republican 59 15,761,841
Norman Thomas, Socialist ... 884,781

[Sofa King]

ost authentic historians credit Roosevelt with swiftly reviving the American banking system, guaranteeing bank deposits, minimizing the number of bank failures and substantially alleviating the Depression. Yet as with most other historical achievements, the revisionists have been hard at work. Jim Powell of the Cato Institute (cited approvingly in a recent column by Robert L. Bartley) argues in a new book that FDR actually prolonged the Depression!"

...and the fact that the Great Depression didn't end until World War II means nothing, apparently.

[JohnGalt]

They 'chose' because the British were starving them as a matter of government policy. How nice that Lincoln had some cozy gubmint jobs lined up for them when they got off the boat. Lick the boots of your masters all day long, I was raised differently.

Slavery was the supreme evil of the day, I have never argued otherwise.

[presidio9]

Can you believe this?

This a-hole has been arguing that Lincoln was our worst president for some time now. He acquired his vast knowledge of Irish immigration watching Martin Scorcese's "Gangs Of New York." Seriously.

[oyez]

(Everything You Believe about FDR is False)

What if you don't belive in anything about FDR?

[presidio9]

Slavery was the supreme evil of the day, I have never argued otherwise.

Of course you did. Your whole premise that Lincoln was our worst president is predicated on your incorrect belief that the Civil War was somehow started by the United States (It wasn't) and that the cure was worse than slavery. Again, it wasn't.

[KC_Conspirator]

I agree with you. FDR was a great president, but not for the reasons that liberals and academics like him - for creating big government. He is great because of his leadership during a real time of crisis in America, during the Depression and WWII, which today's liberals never seem to cite when fawning over FDR. Now I think that many of his programs were flawed and his big government schemes were not some carefully thought out plan, but just rash decision making. They certainly did not lift the US out of depression, but I don't think it prolonged it. Ceratinly his attempt to pack the Supreme Court should be met with scorn, but once again liberals alwasys seem to ignore his overstepping the Constitution.
Hell, if Reagan can admire him , so can I. I would also rank President's Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt over him for the 20th century.

[Restorer]

Nothing was gained by eliminating slavery at the expense of 600,000 American lives so Northern factory owners could import yours and my starving Irish ancestors to work their miserable factories and live in their miserable tenements.

Nothing was gained? The elimination of slavery was not a good thing in and of itself? I can certainly agree it was a high price to pay and intelligent people can certainly disagree about whether it was too high a price. But only an idiot would claim that it was not a good thing in and of itself.

FYI, genius, the Irish Famine started in 1845 and was over by 1850, at the latest. Irish continued to move the America after slavery was destroyed, but not because massive numbers of Irish were starving in Ireland.

Just curious, would you have preferred a situation where Irish were prevented from immigrating in order to protect the value of black slaves?

[hchutch]

Yep, I belive there are idiots out there (the paleo-conservatives) who would love to turn back the clock.

For more paleo-con idiocy (through advocacy of a cowardly foreign policy) see this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1010486/posts

[Dead Dog]

Not to mention Black's nod to Dean Acheson. Ole' Dean was the only member of the US delegation to write the UN Charter who was NOT a member of the Communist Party. His lawfirm, however, represtented the Soviet Union as a client. Sever conflict of interest, at best, but something defenately smells with Dean.

[RebelBanker]

I agree with your point on the major shifts in the 20th century, but would counter that these would not be possible were it not for the massive changes by Lincoln in the 19th. I would also argue that Lincoln was a life long adherent to the principles of the Whig party: a nationalized currency and "internal improvements." Therefore, I doubt that he would have been willing to decentralize anything.

We can split hairs on whether or not the WBTS was technically a "civil war" or a "revolution" but a lot of the problems the Confederate States had in fighting it were caused by the lack of central power. Thus, your point on this is well taken.

At to the outcome of the War, it happened and no preference of mine can affect it. I would certainly concur that some good came out of it (notably the abolition of slavery) but also believe that it was an unnecessary war, even to that end. As a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I have promised to defend the Confederate soldiers' reputations and honor, NOT to re-fight the War.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Your Humble Servant...

[JohnGalt]

Like any good liberal, you cling to abstract ideas not the actual cost of implementing your ideas.

The War Between the States began when Lincoln's Armies invaded Virgina.

You are entitled to your opinion, it's just a leftwing opinion and this is a conservative site.

[presidio9]

Like any good liberal, you cling to abstract ideas not the actual cost of implementing your ideas.

The War Between the States began when Lincoln's Armies invaded Virgina.

Lincoln's armies? Try the US army went to resuply US fort. But seriously: Do you wish you owned a black person right now?

[hchutch]

The thing is, while they might not have been perfect solutions, they were good enough to prevent what could have been far worse (see the examples of Russia and Germany). As a result, FDR did as well as one could have done in those circumstances.

[Restorer]

They 'chose' because the British were starving them as a matter of government policy.

The causes of the Famine are a lot more complicated than this. The primary cause was the British determination to stick with Free Trade even in the middle of a catastrophe. The government refused to confiscate food for the benefit of those who were starving from those who were still growing it and exporting it from Ireland.

Those who starved were the peasants who lived almost entirely on the potato, and weren't really part of the market economy at all. Essentially all they did was grow potatos and eat them. Since they had absolutely no money to buy food when their potato crop failed, the only way to prevent the famine would have been for the government to buy them food and give it away. I'm curious how you would square this with your "presumably" Objectivist principles.

[JohnGalt]

American cities were filled with Irish and German immigrants (as well as hundreds of other ethnic groups) long before the war broke out. The large presence of cannon fodder gave the federalis plenty of reserves to call forth (same for the South BTW.) I am not sure what your point is.


Do you think we should lock of the 20,000,000 women who contracted to murder their own children? Or do you believe the cost to our country and society would be too high? Or does the end justify the means?

Now, what kind of idiot am I?

[Restorer]

I have no objection to defense of the honor of Confederate soldiers' reputation and honor. They fought as valiantly as any group of men in history. I have myself often defended them on this board and elsewhere.

The tragedy of the Confederacy is not that it lost, but that it represented one of the worst causes in all of history. So much bravery in the service of such a rotten cause...

[presidio9]

I for one would support a war to abolish abortion on demand. I would be willing to fight in it.