Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FDR, Hillary, The Democrats' Legacy of Demagoguery, and "The Forgotten Man"
Imprimis ^ | September 2007 | Amity Shlaes

Posted on 10/01/2007 10:05:35 AM PDT by Jim W N

In his 1932 campaign, Franklin D. Roosevelt had talked about helping someone he called “the forgotten man.” He was thinking of the poorest man, or as he put it—invoking the time of the pharaohs—“the man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.” The phrase came from an essay (and later a book) written decades before, called The Forgotten Man. Written by a famous Yale professor named William Graham Sumner, this essay defined “the forgotten man” differently.

Sumner employed an algebra to explain what he meant: A and B want to help X, he wrote. This is the charitable impulse. The problem arises when A and B band together and pass a law that coerces C into co-funding their project for X. Sumner identified C as the forgotten man. He is the man who works, the man who prays, the man who pays his own bills, the man who is “never thought of.”

But this did not matter to Roosevelt, who of course won handily in 1932 without thinking much about the phrase again. He spent the next few years trying to help the poor through the now famous New Deal measures. But three years into his presidency, his efforts were still failing. The New Deal was having mixed results. Unemployment in May 1935 stood at what we today would compute to 20.1 percent—a large share of Americans were still forgotten men. The Dow was stuck in the low hundreds, nowhere near even the 250 it had been in 1930 under Hoover, well into the downturn. As a result, in July 1935— the year before the 1936 election—Roosevelt decided to refine his definition of “the forgotten man.” The forgotten man would now be the member of certain defined constituency groups—groups like senior citizens, farmers, writers and artists, and union members.

(Excerpt) Read more at hillsdale.edu ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: amityshlaes; demagoguery; democratparty; fdr; forgottenman; hillary; politics; progressivism
The following quote from Plutarch sums it up pretty well as the Hillary's Tyranny of Liberalism prepares to steamroll over us.

The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.

1 posted on 10/01/2007 10:05:46 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
I had the rare opportunity quite unexpectedly to see Ralph Nader at our local book store and he was signing his rather bucolic book titled "The Seventeen Traditions." He started out as I thought he would talking about a simpler time from his youth and the values that his family gave him. Then quite suddenly his talk turned into a stump speech about impeaching Bush, the Iraq War, and the need for national health care.

In short he is a New Dealer and that's what all the nosalgia was about.

It was supposed to be quite impromptu according to the owner but it came off as a staged event with Vanessa Redgrave, her daughter, Liam Neisson(son-in-law) and Nader supporters planted throughout the room.

I asked him what he thought about Litvinenko's claim that Putin and the FSB/KGB are behind al-Qaeda and he professed not to know who Litvinenko is, or should I say was.

While we're at it why don't we nationalize grocery stores and every other business too? LOL

2 posted on 10/01/2007 10:22:18 AM PDT by RichardMoore (gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
As long as we're throwing out quotes, let's not forget De Tocqueville's warning in Democracy in America:

From the chapter WHAT SORT OF DESPOTISM DEMOCRATIC NATIONS HAVE TO FEAR...
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild.

3 posted on 10/01/2007 10:22:59 AM PDT by antinomian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
De Tocqueville, even as far back as the 1830's, was able to aptly describe Hillary's (or indeed the entire modern American federal government's) Tyranny of Liberalism...what De Tocqueville called the "Despotism of Democracy". He described the typical welfare state government as follows:

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.

For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of all happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances -- what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

4 posted on 10/01/2007 10:23:28 AM PDT by uxbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antinomian

You and I had the exact same thought


5 posted on 10/01/2007 10:24:19 AM PDT by uxbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

I’m currently reading her book. Outstanding thus far.


6 posted on 10/01/2007 10:28:27 AM PDT by mainepatsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RichardMoore
I asked him what he thought about Litvinenko's claim that Putin and the FSB/KGB are behind al-Qaeda and he professed not to know who Litvinenko is, or should I say was.

Would this surprise anyone? Someone should also remind Nader that it was the very leftist Jimmuh Carter that issued the first executive order (in July of 1979...months before the Soviet invasion) to provide secret funding to the Islamists (OBL and his allies) in Afghanistan...so as to help the Islamists agitate against the Communist government in Afghanistan and draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan

INTERVIEW OF ZBIGNIEW BREZINSKI

National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [intigrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

7 posted on 10/01/2007 10:34:16 AM PDT by uxbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: uxbridge

And the cold war is not over, is it. These globalists are Darwinian in their approach to human misery.


8 posted on 10/01/2007 10:43:10 AM PDT by RichardMoore (gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: uxbridge
Just after 9-11, I saw a conservative-institute (not sure which one) forum on how to fight Islam and the Arabs. There was agreement that although we may need certain Arab countries, factions or tribes as allies against the Taliban, these same factions in a later phase of the war could well be our enemy and our intelligence and military tactics and strategies needed to accept the reality of this Arab-world volatility.
9 posted on 10/01/2007 10:50:37 AM PDT by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

when liberalism doesn’t work, try socialism, when socialism doesn’t work, try communism, when communism doesn’t work, try genocide, when genocide.....


10 posted on 10/01/2007 11:35:39 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson