Interesting...

[LBJ Revivalist]

I've gotten a bunch of political books recently--most bios of the 20th century Presidents. One book, "The New Deal: The Great Depression Years 1932-1940", is particularly interesting so far. It's amazing the parallels our own time has to the 1930s, though of course, they had it MUCH worse especially in the early '30s, but one example: I read in it (not sure if true) that FDR was attacked as being a socialist by the Republicans (particularly Wilkie) as early as at least 1936--much like Obama is now and has been since the Campaign--and that on the far left, some attacked FDR as being too much of a compromiser with his political adversaries, not going far enough, etc.

So...I apologize for my hyperbolic rhetoric. When you see so much political bickering and hostility, at 20, when you've never really experienced the blood sport of politics before, it seems insane and in a passionate mind produces a passionate if hyperbolic response, but it seems like the more things change, the more they really stay the same, so...yes, the world is not ending lol.

[specific_name]

There are quite a few parallels between our own time and then. The decline of the British empire and now perhaps the American version has lead to some of the same issues. My position is that we're in the middle of a period more like the aftermath of WWI in Europe and that East Asia is more akin to the US in the same period. Nonetheless we can't be deterministic based on past trends.

I would suggest checking out "The Long Twentieth Century" by Giovanni Arrighi, or pretty much any major work by Fernand Braudel. Those works approach history and political economy from the long duration and focus less on events and individuals and more on long term trends. It's not a bad perspective to consider, the "longue durée," as they called it in the Annales School of history. If you consider our times in the context of the last several hundred years and the expansion of the European economy into a global economy; I think you'll calm down in some ways. A more circumspect view tends to do that.

Some people here think you're trolling, I never really thought so. I'd rather take people at their word even if I'm wrong. We live in interesting times and it's quite natural to be fired up. This board is heavily focused on elections and candidates in a way that engenders strong cynicism; we are dealing with politicians after all.  I have a rather strong Marxist tendency myself and I look upon much of this as a horse race, but an entertaining one - and one not without consequences.

[Franzl]

The difference is that FDR was actually a socialist, unlike Barack Obama. (And don't get me wrong, the U.S. needed some socialism at that point in time.)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How much death points for this hyperbole?

[LBJ Revivalist]

The difference is that FDR was actually a socialist, unlike Barack Obama. (And don't get me wrong, the U.S. needed some socialism at that point in time.)

What makes you say he was a Socialist?
By today's standards, what was "Liberal" then is called "Socialist" now....
I mean if you go by the modern GOP's standards, Ike and Nixon were Socialists. Nixon's administration was called in it's time the "biggest peacetime government intervention in the economy since the New Deal", and some even claimed Nixon went further with his wage and price controls.

[Franzl]

The difference is that FDR was actually a socialist, unlike Barack Obama. (And don't get me wrong, the U.S. needed some socialism at that point in time.)

What makes you say he was a Socialist?
By today's standards, what was "Liberal" then is called "Socialist" now....
I mean if you go by the modern GOP's standards, Ike and Nixon were Socialists. Nixon's administration was called in it's time the "biggest peacetime government intervention in the economy since the New Deal", and some even claimed Nixon went further with his wage and price controls.

"Liberal" is the last word you can associate with Franklin Roosevelt. No way.

[LBJ Revivalist]

The difference is that FDR was actually a socialist, unlike Barack Obama. (And don't get me wrong, the U.S. needed some socialism at that point in time.)

What makes you say he was a Socialist?
By today's standards, what was "Liberal" then is called "Socialist" now....
I mean if you go by the modern GOP's standards, Ike and Nixon were Socialists. Nixon's administration was called in it's time the "biggest peacetime government intervention in the economy since the New Deal", and some even claimed Nixon went further with his wage and price controls.

"Liberal" is the last word you can associate with Franklin Roosevelt. No way.

I'd say he defined Liberal in the modern sense...He wasn't exactly a Progressive (I do think there are differences between Liberals and Progressives), and I don't believe he was a Socialist. Socialists attack him for saving capitalism, for God's sake.

[President Mitt]

Good, now you can stop posting. Forever.