Checkmate, True Leftists

[Skill and Chance]

"FDR was a neoliberal racist warmonger." - True Leftists, probably

Well, yeah, that's pretty much historical fact

Stop. Please.

Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen imo.

No, no. This is a thread about FDR, not Harry Truman... though it is easy to mix them up, as they are both neoliberal genocidal warmonger racists.

A neoliberal woudln't have created the CCC or vetoed Taft-Hartley.

If he wasn't a neoliberal then how come he didn't abolish private property in its entirety?!

Why, might I ask, is President Roosevelt a neoliberal genocidal warmonger racist?

I'll try:

1) Neoliberal - Obviously, this makes no sense.

2) Genocidal - Nothing comes to mind.

3) Warmonger - As I recall, Adolf Hitler began WW2, and FDR did not start any wars during his presidency.

4) Racist -

Number four is certainly not outrageous, given that he vetoed anti-lynching legislation, appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court and ordered the internment of an entire ethnic group...  If someone with an R next to his name had done any of those three, he'd be demonized as one of the true monsters of American history, regardless of his economic "accomplishments."

I agree that FDR was certainly racist by modern standards.  But so were ~90% of middle-aged adults in the 1920's and 30's.  I think there is a compelling case that FDR was less racist than the average American in his day and certainly less racist than the average 1930's Democrat.  And while Hugo Black was once in the KKK, he was also the strongest proponent of using the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states and voted with the majority in Brown, Loving, and all the major civil rights cases except Harper (VA poll tax).  That's right, a former KKK member voted to strike down bans on interracial marriage!  Either he's a modern day St. Paul or he was never sincere about the KKK in his youth (he claimed the latter). 

[Skill and Chance]

Seriously, people? 1934-38 = most economically left a majority party has ever been in US history.  Lincoln might have beaten this had he lived and actually brought about "40 acres and a mule" in 1866, but no other time period since the Founding even comes close to the mid 1930's.

It's a PRETTY big stretch to try to put politics into left vs. right (how we use the terms now) any time before the 1920s, IMO - Early 1900s at the earliest.  To say Lincoln was economically left makes no sense.  He enacted the first income tax, but it was an absolutely tiny tax, it was temporary and it ended up affecting the poor a lot more than the wealthy (and we all seem to completely ignore that it was a Democratic Congress in the late 1800s that enacted the first PERMANENT income tax, against Republican opposition).  He supported a high tariff, but we've discussed many times how that was a very pro-business policy that actually ended up screwing over many working class people (hence why Democrats supported free trade for a long time but now are more likely to be protectionists - they weren't supporting an ideology, they were supporting the interests of working people).  I think it's really irresponsible to look back at things like "free land for farmers!" (NO ONE OWNED THIS LAND!  LOL, this policy position was a very "keep the government out of your pockets!" type stance, helping out the small, free market loving, self-made entrepreneur, a darling figure of the GOP since its foundation) or "support for the continental railroad/infrastructure!" (big business was begging for more efficient railroads, and guess which party was ready to cater to their every demand for decades to come!) and say they're "progressive" or "liberal" things to do.

It's just silly to simplify those times' politics into liberal or conservative.  For example:

"It was 'socially liberal' to be an abolitionist because defenders of slavery were trying to CONSERVE the tradition of slavery, while 'liberals' were trying to change it!"

"No, it was 'socially conservative' to be an abolitionist, as the first abolitionists were from the most conservative Christian denominations such as the Quakers, and many defenders of slavery often used 'scientific' arguments that Blacks were inherently inferior and told abolitionists to start worrying about poor, disadvantaged White people instead of slaves; it has a lot of parallels to conservatives' opposition to abortion and liberals' defense of it."

Both of those statements are ridiculously simplistic.

Acknowledging that modern day social ills can't hold a candle to slavery and civil war, can you imagine a modern politician of any stripe publicly calling for reparations approximately equal to the average white family's wealth at the time to an entire ethnic group on account of even the worst mistreatment imaginable?  To strip wealthy, powerful group X of their citizenship and use force to redistribute their property to group Y whom they severely abused is a libertarian position now?  You can't be serious.  That was the revolutionary left talking, at the most morally justified it's ever been in the US.

[WVdemocrat]

"FDR was a neoliberal racist warmonger." - True Leftists, probably

Well, yeah, that's pretty much historical fact

Stop. Please.

Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen imo.

No, no. This is a thread about FDR, not Harry Truman... though it is easy to mix them up, as they are both neoliberal genocidal warmonger racists.

A neoliberal woudln't have created the CCC or vetoed Taft-Hartley.

If he wasn't a neoliberal then how come he didn't abolish private property in its entirety?!

Why, might I ask, is President Roosevelt a neoliberal genocidal warmonger racist?

I'll try:

1) Neoliberal - Obviously, this makes no sense.

2) Genocidal - Nothing comes to mind.

3) Warmonger - As I recall, Adolf Hitler began WW2, and FDR did not start any wars during his presidency.

4) Racist -

Number four is certainly not outrageous, given that he vetoed anti-lynching legislation, appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court and ordered the internment of an entire ethnic group...  If someone with an R next to his name had done any of those three, he'd be demonized as one of the true monsters of American history, regardless of his economic "accomplishments."

Like Skill and Chance said, times have changed. He's racist by modern standards, but back then things were different.

On Hugo Black, I believe he later repented against his youthful support of the KKK. And on the internment of Japanese Americans, eh...I can't really defend that. I mean, I imagine with another global war beginning and with the attack on Pearl Harbor, that it was a very scary time, so I guess that helps not to justify it, but to understand why it was done.

[Ebsy]

Throwing the racist grenade at FDR, Truman, or Eisenhower is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response.

[Skill and Chance]

Throwing the racist grenade at FDR, Truman, or Eisenhower is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response.

Ike?  It's plainly obvious he would have signed the CRA/VRA in 5 seconds if there were enough votes to put it on his desk!

[WVdemocrat]

Throwing the racist grenade at FDR, Truman, or Eisenhower is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response.

Yeah. If they're racist, then so is every president before LBJ. But saying that would be ridiculous.

[Skill and Chance]

Throwing the racist grenade at FDR, Truman, or Eisenhower is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response.

Yeah. If they're racist, then so is every president before LBJ. But saying that would be ridiculous.

Grant and Harrison (got VRA equivalent through the House in 1890) really stand out between Lincoln and LBJ as possibly non-racist even by 1970 standards.

[© tweed]

"neoliberal" is a timebound word.  you can't say anybody was a neoliberal or neoconservative prior to, say, the circulation of the Powell memo.  FDR and Truman were liberals, in the true sense of the word: compromisers, who graciously allowed labor a seat at the table, but not to run the show.

nowadays anyone who even pretends to allow labor a seat at the table gets called a communist.  that's some effective corporate indoctrination at work.

[Skill and Chance]

"neoliberal" is a timebound word.  you can't say anybody was a neoliberal or neoconservative prior to, say, the circulation of the Powell memo.  FDR and Truman were liberals, in the true sense of the word: compromisers, who graciously allowed labor a seat at the table, but not to run the show.

nowadays anyone who even pretends to allow labor a seat at the table gets called a communist.  that's some effective corporate indoctrination at work.

It's not either parties fault that most voters no longer feel that their interests align with labor unions.  As I have said before, if the late 21st century economy is again driven by skilled labor that is as dangerous as 19th century coal mining and steel smelting, I can assure you unions will come roaring back.  Also, it's worth remembering the role that labor unions played in entrenching traditional gender roles in the early-mid 20th century before giving them too much reverence on the left.

[Joe Republic]

This is a fascinating debate sparked by a clickhole article.

atlas.txt

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"FDR was a neoliberal racist warmonger." - True Leftists, probably

Well, yeah, that's pretty much historical fact

Stop. Please.

Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen imo.

No, no. This is a thread about FDR, not Harry Truman... though it is easy to mix them up, as they are both neoliberal genocidal warmonger racists.

A neoliberal woudln't have created the CCC or vetoed Taft-Hartley.

If he wasn't a neoliberal then how come he didn't abolish private property in its entirety?!

Why, might I ask, is President Roosevelt a neoliberal genocidal warmonger racist?

I'll try:

1) Neoliberal - Obviously, this makes no sense.

2) Genocidal - Nothing comes to mind.

3) Warmonger - As I recall, Adolf Hitler began WW2, and FDR did not start any wars during his presidency.

4) Racist -

Number four is certainly not outrageous, given that he vetoed anti-lynching legislation, appointed a Klansman to the Supreme Court and ordered the internment of an entire ethnic group...  If someone with an R next to his name had done any of those three, he'd be demonized as one of the true monsters of American history, regardless of his economic "accomplishments."

I agree that FDR was certainly racist by modern standards.  But so were ~90% of middle-aged adults in the 1920's and 30's.  I think there is a compelling case that FDR was less racist than the average American in his day and certainly less racist than the average 1930's Democrat.  And while Hugo Black was once in the KKK, he was also the strongest proponent of using the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states and voted with the majority in Brown, Loving, and all the major civil rights cases except Harper (VA poll tax).  That's right, a former KKK member voted to strike down bans on interracial marriage!  Either he's a modern day St. Paul or he was never sincere about the KKK in his youth (he claimed the latter). 

Eleanor Roosevelt wasn't a racist.