FDR, Obama And Mandates

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:47:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yesterday, I wrote about Jon Meacham's article about our Center Right country. In particular, I scoffed at Meacham's suggestion that FDR's Presidency provided an example of his thesis - that somehow FDR failed to win the ideological battle for Progressivism. Such talk is generally centered on FDR's failure to win primary battles in his own party in 1938. But it seems incredibly wrongheaded to me to judge FDR solely on that basis.

It would be ignoring everything that came before - when FDR revolutionized national government. Similarly, Matt Yglesias underestimates the power of the Presidency:

There’s a tendency to attribute FDR’s and LBJ’s achievements to something inherent to their character or their approach to governing, but the truth is simply that in 1933-34 and 1965-66 you had a lot of liberals in congress so a lot of liberal legislation passed.

This is simply not correct in my view. FDR had a lot of DEMOCRATS in his Congress, but they were not particularly liberal, even for the time. What there was was this new FDR creation, and in some ways, a very bad one, an Imperial Presidency:

The quantum leap in the president's power came with Franklin D. Roosevelt. He ushered in what historian's call "the imperial presidency." But the years from 1933 to 1945 were no ordinary time. When FDR took office and declared the Great Depression a "national emergency," few would disagree. In his first inaugural address, he announced that he would treat the Depression like a war. If Congress did not approve his policies for fixing the economy, he would take the same powers that presidents had previously assumed only in wartime. By the 1940s, he was a presiding over a nation literally at war. His powers became even greater. The emergencies of his day allowed him to take all that power with the blessing of most Americans.

Even Bill Clinton, a subject of Yglesias' post, benefited from this FDR creation - remember his 1993 budget barely passed on the strictest party lines (with Gore breaking the tie in the Senate.) Clinton was able to crack the whip on a Democratic Congress and get it passed. (Of course he could not do the same on health care as Yglesias properly points out.

There really seems to be a type of conspiracy to deny FDR his ideological victory. the funny thing is conservatives and Republicans know better. In 2007, Jonah Goldberg wrote:

[C]onservatives began to change their tune when the New Deal/Great Society consensus started to unravel and they discovered that the presidency could be theirs if they made peace with it.

Indeed, once Republicans and conservatives conceded that FDR had won the ideological battle in the country (23 years after FDR's death), Richard Nixon won the Presidency. But FDR won.

Circumstances create mandates for Presidents. Sometimes it is as a result of electoral landslides. Sometimes it is as a result of events (See 9/11.) It appears to me that the current crisis provides Barack Obama with opportunities that a Democratic President has not seen since LBJ's landslide win in 1964.

And these opportunities will not be dependent on the 41st most liberal member of the Senate, as Yglesias posits. I think it will depend on Obama himself.

Barack Obama the candidate has been good for the most part. Even on my terms (an aversion to the post-partisan unity schtick), Obama has been better. But the question now will be can he be an effective President in terms of forwarding a progressive agenda, or perhaps more interestingly, does he even want to? I think we will find out.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Fort Dix Terror Trial Begins: "Cold Insert" Snitch Testimony at Issue | The Polls - 10/20 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

FDR, Obama And Mandates | 108 comments (108 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

we can argue (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Turkana on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST

whether obama really ever intended to be a paradigmatic transformational figure. but circumstances have changed. even republicans are talking about regulation. even republicans are acknowledging the need for government intervention. the paradigm shift is just waiting to happen- all obama needs do is seize the moment.

If you'd asked me a year ago (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:01:11 PM EST

whether healthcare would be possible, I'd have said no. Now I'm not so sure.


he needs to set his priorities (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Turkana on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:03:19 PM EST

in terms of scheduling what to do first- what will be most popular- what will give him even more mojo- and then aim big, swing for the fences, throw the bomb, and other metaphors.


Depending on how big the victory is (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:08:27 PM EST

I'd be tempted to throw caution to the wind and put absolutely everything I want to do in HR 1. Pass it on day one and make the big reforms before anyone can stop it.

The complication is that the President is inaugurated after the new Congress is sworn in. So pass the bill in the Senate just in time to sign it as the Presidential swearing-in.


Health care will take years (none / 0) (#19)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:36:03 PM EST

to happen if Obama's proposals are the ones adopted. There is a lot of bureaucracy and industry negotiation to be done and the creation of an 'alternative' congress-like healthplan (notice Obama went from early on saying 'the same health plan' to a 'similar' health plan. I guess congress doesn't want the peasants screwing with their plan).

Now besides the time consuming bureaucracy, industry negotiation, and alternative plan creation there is not going to be any money for health care given the current economic landscape.

Actually the first thing that will have to be done domestically is that the current economic situation including new projections on tax revenue will have to be accessed to see what will have to be cut - not added. Tax revenues will shrink that is certain.

From there a new tax bill will have to pass and until it is passed nothing no new spending will be able to move forward neither domestically or global.

The two main things that will hold up Obama's tax plan is the Blue Dogs in both houses and the GOP. Obama's plan is DOA and he already knows it as he pitches it. It is no more than a campaign ploy to sound like a populist which he is not. He knows others will shoot it down and therefore will blame it on others, that is clear.

Forget health care. Ain't going to happen.


In other words (none / 0) (#22)
by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:47:38 PM EST

If Obama wins, and potentially the senate Dems have a large majority, we won't be able to get a progressive agenda because the country is too far to the right...

Ok...

And frankly I have no idea why you think his tax plan is DOA. All he has to do is let Bush's tax cuts expire. And that can be done with a presidential veto if they try to extend them.


What does (none / 0) (#29)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST

Bush's tax cuts have to do with Obama's plan? They are two separate issues. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire does not by itself guarantee Obama's plan passing.

Plus letting the Bush tax cuts expire immediately raises EVERYONES taxes until a new tax bill is hammered out. That may raise revenues but it won't make struggling people happy. Do you really think Obama will veto temporary extensions and hurt people in the wallet? Really?

More likely a new 'passable' deal will have to be on the table before letting the Bush tax cuts expire.


If Obama proposes (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:09:31 PM EST

a "middle-class" tax cut while allowing the Bush tax code to expire, Republicans will have to go along. They'll have no choice.

They can be blistered for 'raising taxes.' That's the ploy they use against Democrats when they claim a vote to not lower taxes is a vote to raise taxes.

The last of the GOP's weapons would vanish and they know it. They're not about to vote down or filibuster a cut for the folks.

If Republicans try to filibuster too many bills that the public wants, they'll pay. In 2010 they again have more seats at risk than Democrats.


Now I'm confused (none / 0) (#31)
by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST

Which part of Obama's plan do you think is unpassable? The hikes on the rich or the cuts for the middle class?

Do you REALLY think the GOP or blue dog dems will vote against a cut for the middle class?

I think that will pass without anything for the upper 5% easily. As for raising taxes on the uppper 5%, that doesn't have to be done actively, it can be done passively.

I don't think there will be any temporary extensions for him to veto. Why would dems even let it get to that point? They can pass a middle class tax cut easily on its own.


Nothing can be passed (none / 0) (#33)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:45:39 PM EST

without the GOP not filibustering, and they won't vote to raise taxes. And if during the fight congress votes to not raise taxes on the middle by extending the Bush tax cuts Obama would be a fool to veto that.

Not sure how you "passively" raise taxes on the top 5% as you don't spell it out.


Let me spell this out (none / 0) (#37)
by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST

No one has to vote to raise taxes. They just have to vote to cut taxes for the middle class. Then they sit there, passively, while the bush tax cuts expire. Why would dems introduce a bill that includes tax cuts for the top 5%? And Republicans will not filibuster a bill that includes a middle class tax cut just because it doesn't include a tax cut for the top 5%.

You can't filibuster a bill that is expiring. You can only filibuster bills up for the vote. Republicans would be complete idiots to filibuster a middle class tax cut just because they don't get money for the top 5%.


Good luck with that (none / 0) (#48)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:30:23 PM EST

How many times have I read your kind of creative maneuvering only to have reality come nowhere near where you are aiming? Too many to count that is how many.

"Why would dems introduce a bill that includes tax cuts for the top 5%?"

Gee I don't know - ask Obama he is the one introducing it, and the one who will introduce it if elected. Hows that for an answer?

And yeah you just go on believing the GOP will vote to cut taxes during a time where we don't have enough tax money to do what we need today. That's brilliant. It won't happen.

If anything a stimulus package costing much less than a tax cut long term would have a better chance of passing which is what is being talked about in congress right now - not your fantasy.


If anyone's fantasizing Pepe (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST

it's you.

This is incredible:

"Why would dems introduce a bill that includes tax cuts for the top 5%?"
Gee I don't know - ask Obama he is the one introducing it, and the one who will introduce it if elected. Hows that for an answer?

Obama ain't introducing a bill to cut taxes on the top 5%. He's running on a platform to RAISE taxes on the top 5%.

You're answer is an uninformed crock.


: My error (none / 0) (#67)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:45:56 PM EST

That's what sometimes happens when multi-tasking. Because we were previously talking about tax increase I read his quote in error. One eye on the screen, one ear listening to a VM. Shoot me.

Oh, and I like this one Pepe (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:36:55 PM EST

go on believing the GOP will vote to cut taxes during a time where we don't have enough tax money to do what we need today.

That's what the Republicans have been doing for the past 8 years. Have you been asleep the last 8 years?


Well (none / 0) (#72)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:53:23 PM EST

Democrats have been voting for those tax cuts also, right?

Now the difference today is you hear them, including McCain, talking about cutting expenditures not raising taxes to balance the budget and offset other tax decreases. History shows they go back and forth on the two issues of spending versus lower taxes depending on the situation. When Dems want to cut taxes on the middle and raise them on the more well off the GOP goes into the cost cutting mode. I take 1942 is your birth year so I shouldn't have to explain that to you.


: Most Democrats (none / 0) (#104)
by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 01:47:40 AM EST

voted against those tax cuts in both houses.
You've explained nothing to me.
You seem to believe that income tax policy as a major election issue is a constant in American history. You're just plain wrong.
The tax cuts in the Johnson administration, (followed by a tax surcharge for Vietnam expenses) were the first tax cuts (income tax rates) since the 1920s. Tax cuts weren't a constant unrelenting debate point. Nobody ran on tax cuts. Americans were better citizens prior to the Reagan years. Republicans constantly railed about deficits but campaigns weren't centered around tax cuts. Now and again conservatives would rail a bit about what they called confiscatory tax rates, but, they were considered the fringe of American politics. Hell the Eisenhower administration put in a 90% rate.
Tax cuts as an issue came with the conservative movement and sadly at the expense of American citizenship.

Pick your argument (none / 0) (#55)
by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:59:33 PM EST

First you said Obama would never be able to raise taxes. Then I point out, he doesn't have to raise taxes, he can just let the tax cuts expire. Then you change your rant to say he will never be able to lower taxes. Which, I agree, may be a slightly harder sell in this climate, but I think it's too politically risky to vote against a middle class tax cut, so it will pass.

Next, Obama and Dems WOULDN'T introduce that bill, it's not in his plan. Also presidents don't introduce legislation, congress does, although they usually confer with the president to make sure he'll pass it.

Finally, when have Republicans ever voted against a tax cut? What is McCain's platform? CUTTING TAXES. The GOP is not the fiscally responsible party. They have clearly shown that they have no problem with a deficit.


So your ears are lying to you? - LOL (none / 0) (#62)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:35:04 PM EST

"Next, Obama and Dems WOULDN'T introduce that bill, it's not in his plan."

Oh really? Then what everyone hears from him including you is false? He says he is for a tax plan he developed but that is not the truth? How interesting. Whose plan is it that he keeps saying is his?

"Also presidents don't introduce legislation, congress does.."

Really? Then all Presidents who introduce their budget and tax proposals and try to get it passed really don't introduce one at all to the nation - once again it is our ears lying to us again? Bush never did introduce his tax cuts which you say exist, but then disagree with yourself by saying he didn't?

You obviously have no idea what Obama has been proposing and what Presidents always propose. They propose their preferred legislation just as Obama would.

BTW the bulk of the Bush tax cuts don't expire until 2011 which you obviously didn't know given your previous proposal. Given that date I find it hard to believe any of Obama's plan that you say doesn't exist. I don't know how he is going to raise taxes on the top income earners when there is still a law on the books that actually lowers taxes until 2011. Seeing how he says the top tax increases will pay for the bottom decreases it all does not make any sense until 2011.

I think I will politely bow out of this conversation as none of what you have been saying makes any sense nor does it match up with reality and facts.


I don't know why I even bother (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST

Capital Gains Tax cut expires in 2009. As does the Divedens tax cut. The others wait till 2011 which is still in Obama's first term, although I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to move it up a bit and tried to repeal the other cuts (which is how you get rid of a law on the books). That may or may not be filibustered, but at the end of the day it's gone by 2011 anyway.

I don't know what tax plan you've read, but it's clear to EVERYONE ELSE that he plans on raising taxes on the top 5%.

Thanks Cal for calling out the lies and contradictions.


I already responded to Cal (none / 0) (#74)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:57:18 PM EST

I made a mistake in reading your post while multi-tasking. It happens.

Good to know that you are aware of 2011 now which shoots all kinds of holes in your original proposal. You should thank me for making you aware so you don't make the same misinformed argument again.


Not really... (none / 0) (#79)
by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:06:06 PM EST

When did I say any of this would happen before 2011? I said it would happen in an Obama presidency. Which guess what, doesn't end before 2011 if in fact he is elected.

My argument isn't misinformed, you just like to pretend I said something I didn't. Glad you realized you made a pretty huge mistake on tax plans. Frankly, the idea that you didn't already know that when it's been all over the news, and a big part of the whole "Joe the plumber", "Obama is a socialist" routine, makes me question everything you say about the election because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.


Middle class tax cut? (none / 0) (#101)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:58:02 PM EST

Can someone tell me what Obama is proposing regarding a tax cut for everyone? I can't seem to find any specifics. Does it include every family making under $250,000? How much of a cut will we get?

Thanks all.


Rates (none / 0) (#106)
by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 02:14:35 AM EST

for gross between $200,000 and $250,000 are unchanged. Cuts are for gross below $200,000.

Which really means that up to about 260 or 270, tax bills would be lower because of reduced rates in the lower 4 brackets. The higher rates begin at amount in EXCESS of $250,000.

Actually, if it were me, I would lower anyone's taxes but I would raise the current upper brackets and add several new brackets on incomes above the current max start point of $375,000. Say 500,000, 1,000,000, 2,000,000, etc.


: Missed an important contraction (none / 0) (#107)
by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 02:16:13 AM EST

I wouldn't lower anyone's taxes

You're response to me (none / 0) (#105)
by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 01:55:07 AM EST

was both arrogant and just plain wrong.


I think putting his energy policy first (none / 0) (#53)
by ThatOneVoter on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:48:17 PM EST

is correct.


: If the unemployment (none / 0) (#65)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM EST

rate is rising sharply by January 20, the best lead would be bread and butter bills.
Economic issues during times of rising unemployment are the most potent of all issues.
If you're out of work you don't give a damn about taxes or any other issue. You want a job.
If Obama does something dramatic like extending and increasing unemployment benefits, creating large numbers of targeted jobs, enforcing trade agreements and dropping others, Republicans will fold on the spot. Any resistance would be political suicide.

I think there is a good possibility (none / 0) (#12)
by CST on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST

That health care will happen. It has become a much bigger campaign issue than I ever imagined, and Obama is really using it to stick a fork in McCain. I think if he can claim a mandate for anything it will be healthcare. At least if he's being honest with himself...


: Except last weekend he told a fundraiser in PA he (none / 0) (#99)
by jawbone on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 09:31:01 PM EST

would have to make difficult decisions, like cutting out expensive programs like healthcare and education support programs.
I posted about it here.
I don't know what Obama will do--about many things--and based on what he says, he doesn't give us voters much help in knowing.
Pepe's remark that he used to say the uninsured would have access to the Federal healthcare insurance and now it's Federal-like...whoa! What does he mean?
And how to balance those campaign speeches with the private (well, less public, fewer reporters) remarks at the fundraiser? I simply do not know.
I will be delighted if he does turn out to be a liberal president. Or whatever label means roughly the same thing.

Where's there's a will (none / 0) (#34)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM EST

There ain't necessarily the money. Universal health care will cost a boatload. Is America ready to go into that much more debt to pay for it? I am not so sure. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Congress mandated that everyone must have health insurance.


What (none / 0) (#59)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:18:23 PM EST

makes you think that current budget expenditures will or must remain the same?

That's the hole in your argument. Our participation in Iraq will not last forever. That's $120 billion per year. Pentagon spending (Iraq War spending is a seperate item) is bloated beyond belief with foolish spending on weapons systems that are unusable. We have more than 700 military installations outside the US. The money spent on those installations is like flushing money down the drain. Plenty of room to cut without risk. If military spending and overcommitment continues at the present pace we can kiss our nation goodbye. These cuts not only can be made, they must be made.


: And Obama can change that quickly? (none / 0) (#102)
by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 12:06:30 AM EST

Nope. It will take more years than he's got to begin to change that. It won't happen within the next year, when people will really need a break.

so will having people uninsured (none / 0) (#68)
by coigue on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST

because they are un- or under-employed.


the times make the man (none / 0) (#66)
by coigue on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:44:21 PM EST

Obama will have 150 days (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:04:25 PM EST

to do what FDR did in his First Hundred Days. So says Joe Biden -- because, Tapper says today that Biden said yesterday, we're going to get attacked again by terrorists testing Obama's inexperience. (BidenWatch: How is this helpful in persuading people to vote for the guy who would get us attacked? Huh?)

Anyway . . . I hope Obama or whomever gets more time than that to devote to the domestic agenda. After all, FDR had three years after the market crash to plan for his First Hundred Days, and even so, he didn't have (or at least didn't delineate) a clear-cut plan until he came into office and could get access to the information needed from agencies. He got elected on hope, too.

So let us hope that we have another who figures out what to do, and fast -- and without expanding the imperial presidency already beyond FDR's dreams (or nightmares). A sign of hope would be if Obama's First Hundred Days includes rescinding his and others' actions in the majority on FISA.

Prediction: no changes to FISA until (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by oculus on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:15 PM EST

the current bill is due to expire.


All this talk (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:03:05 PM EST

of FDR (New Deal) and Obama in the same breath is kind of silly to me because our problems are not Depression like in any respect. Plus we live in different times. This is not the 1930's where we were self-sufficient, today is a global economy and much of our future rests on non-Americans and greedy global corporations, and out ability to drive ourselves further in debt. That is why I deplore Free Traders, they put everyone but America first to the point we can't control our own destiny.


Witness how many countries (none / 0) (#30)
by Fabian on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:20:18 PM EST

are highly upset with our financial crisis hurting their economies.

If we weren't part of a global economy, our financial crisis would more an opportunity for other countries to take advantage of our misfortune.

So...our governments are local, but our economies are global. This is due largely to multinational corporations of one kind or another.

It's somewhat reassuring to know that the economy is global enough that corporations can't escape any negative consequences of their actions. Do they have any safe harbor, anywhere to run?


Although I agree (none / 0) (#77)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:01:53 PM EST

that mentioning anyone in the same breath with FDR is ridiculous it should be said that there are deep underlying problems in our nation as there were in the 1930s. Our problems don't go as deep but there are significant problems nonetheless and among them is one of your points and that has to do with "free trade," today's term for laissez faire but with even deeper seated negative effects on the people and the strength of the nation as a whole.

When asked who would be crazy enough to want the President's job in our current circumstances, Bill Clinton said he would. He was right. Crisis times set the stage for greatness. I don't know if Obama's up to the task, but, the opportunity is there and fretting over taxes, budgets, etc. is the wrong approach to turning the nation around.


Remember that in 32, (none / 0) (#93)
by brodie on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:44:17 PM EST

Roosevelt himself was hardly viewed universally among the punditocracy as a man destined for presidential greatness. The leading political columnist of the time, one Walter Lippmann, referred to Franklin as (paraphr) an amiable fellow of limited intellectual ability who would very much like to be president.

Similar sentiments were directed at Kennedy in 60.

Both men proved to be up to the task, and then some.

Same's true, to a lesser extent, with Arkansas-bred Bill. His major crises had to do with that one personal misstep and his very negative relations from the outset with the Repubs in Congress and with the GOP-fed MSM. He had less success dealing with his serious PR, political and constitutional battles than the other two presidents had with their challenges, imo.

But he still rates higher, much higher in my book than HST ...


: Can't (none / 0) (#103)
by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 01:27:52 AM EST

agree at all about Harry - Clinton comparison.
Truman faced much more complex problems on a grander scale and handled them very well. His handling of the end of WWII was the best of some very difficult choices, the Berlin airlift was decisive and effective and avoided a showdown, the Marshall Plan secured western Europe, integrated the armed forces (an important step towrds civil rights leg. of 60s), first put Medicare on the table, guided wartime to civilian economy successfully, etc. Harry Truman wisely maintained American morality in foreign affairs by refusing to help overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran based on just that principle. Eisenhower did what Truman refused to do and set the stage for future problems in Iran and other parts of the middle east as well as making the Vietnam war inevitable.
Clinton didn't face a major perceived foreign enemy. He straightened out the GOP damaged economy, faced a beligerent, unprincipled conservative movement and a needlessly hostile press and often had to compromise with Republicans. Too often IMO.
There just isn't any comparison. Clinton had enormous ability but the times weren't right for a real test and a chance to showcase that ability.
Inasmuch as Kennedy is concerned, it should be noted that he got virtually none of his legislative agenda adopted even though Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

How long did it take FDR to make a difference? (none / 0) (#35)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:47:58 PM EST

Enough of a difference to begin to end the Depression? I sure hope it doesn't take Obama that long, since he can't by law serve a third and fourth term.


: Actually (none / 0) (#84)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:13:36 PM EST

he had an impact first on allevbviating a good deal of terrible suffering. By 1936 the economy had improved to the point of nearly reaching pre-crash levels. A big improvement over 1931-33. There was however more growth required to restore full prosperity. The problems were too deep seated for a rapid return to prosperity without even more drastic action. The economy was progressing until FDR attempted to balance the budget in 1937. That move backfired and within months he had to change course.
The massive government spending during Lend-Lease and rearmament ended the depression.
What FDR did before rearmament was right and was making headway. What was needed was more of the same a still larger scale. A large part of the FDR legacy is the New Deal regulatory reforms and lasting programs like Social Security, the production of the WPA, the GI Bill, etc. These led to incredible growth and prosperity in the post-war years.

FDR (none / 0) (#60)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST

said almost nothing about specifics during the 1932 campaign. His record as Governor of New York gave clues if anyone was willing to analyze.

After the election he was questioned about his plans but remained mum. FDR surrounded himself with progreesive people in his administration.

Many progressive minded people in this country have had more than the last eight years to think about reforms. There won't be any shortage of ideas. All that remains is whether Obama brings some of these people into his admiministration.


Obama has extended (none / 0) (#69)
by oculus on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:48:46 PM EST

an invitation to Colin Powell:

: I hope (none / 0) (#86)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST

that's nothing more than political nice talk.
I'm no Colin Powell fan.

Good question... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM EST

"...does he even want to?"

Will there be a 'honeymoon' or will the Democratic congress undermine any leadership coming from the WH as they did with Bill Clinton a la health care reform, don't-ask-don't-tell, etc.?

A progressive agenda that costs no dollars has a better chance than one that does. No excuses about waiting 'til we can afford this or that, given the debt and the economy.

Given Daschle's and Kerry's influence, I wouldn't expect much progressive or bold legislation from an Obama White House. But wouldn't it be nice to be surprised?

Of course, given the pathetic leadership in the House and Senate, not likely they will allow much to surface from the bowels of the congress. The Senate...maybe. The House? Not with Pelosi is my guess.

The prospect of Daschle getting anywhere near this (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:09:41 PM EST

concerns me greatly.


Chief of Staff is my bet. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM EST

Ugh (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST

I'd much rather have Rahm Emanuel.


Rahm is too much (none / 0) (#80)
by flyerhawk on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:07:14 PM EST

of a street fighter. I don't think he would be a good cat herder.


: The Chief of Staff (none / 0) (#88)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:24:15 PM EST

has to be a warrior.

Definitely (none / 0) (#76)
by flyerhawk on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:01:22 PM EST

Almost a forgone conclusion that Daschle will be a Chief of Staff.

Seems like a good role for him.


Daschle is the Democratic Bob Michel (none / 0) (#82)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:10:42 PM EST

He inclination at every step is to go along to get along. The best thing you can say about him is that he stopped a few terrible judges for a little while. Then he lost his own Senate race.

His first inclination--always--is incrementalism. And he is way too big on price supports and tariffs for farmers. But considering that those are two of the bigger problems I have with Obama, I'm preparing to grit my teeth.


: I'm not carzy (none / 0) (#87)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:23:12 PM EST

about Daschle either. The one hope is that he wouldn't have to run for re-election in such a role and wouldn't have to support bad policy as a result.
.... gritted teeth, crossed fingers

: I'll give some of these pols (none / 0) (#95)
by brodie on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:52:28 PM EST

credit for adapting to a different job role and different backdrop circumstances. Daschle was indeed a softy, as I saw it, in dealing with the Repubs, Junior and Bruce for that decade or so as Dem Leader. But some of the inner circle folks back then saw a quiet inner toughness (e.g., Bobby Byrd), which is why they picked him over the guy with the tougher-seeming exterior (Dodd). Shades here of Mike Mansfield, according to this view.
I'll also credit some pols with growing more of a backbone once they are out of office (or on their way out the door -- Ike, "MIC", Farewell Address 1961). Frees them to speak or act more boldly, particularly those who had to play it cautiously coming from difficult states like SD.
CoS for Daschle serving Obama might be the job for him to prove he does have that backbone of steel ...

YES! Agreed, that is a terrible prospect (none / 0) (#36)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:48:30 PM EST

"The Forgotten Man" (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by vector on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST

The most recent attempt to slur the achievements of Franklin Roosevelt is this book called The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. See: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/09/25/164910.php

The book asserts that FDR's policies made the Depression last longer than it would have if he had promoted "free market" programs, rather than direct help to poor people and working people.

In my opinion, the book is absolutely ludicrous. Unforunately, ever since the recent economic collapse, I've been seeing or hearing the author interviewed on TV and radio shows.

Many economists (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by bocajeff on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:52:33 PM EST

believe that the New Deal wasn't good economic policy at all but that it was great political policy. If you look at the data the Depression didn't end until World War II when unemployment abated due to enlistments and manufacuring roared due to military buildup.

I've been someone who believes that the New Deal and the Great Society were bad fixes to even worse problems. There were, and are, better ways of dealing with certain issues.


But the question is what would the (none / 0) (#47)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST

country have been like by the time WWII rolled around had FDR not kept people working and at least somewhat nourished? What would our prospects for growth have been like without all of the infrastructure including eletricity being delivered even to "unprofitable" regions?

To me the question is not whether or not his policies ended the Great Depression, but what lasting legacy and opportunity did those policies yield. I would argue that without many New Deal programs, the United States would have been a lot less powerful and properous a nation than it has been in the past sixty five years.


The economy went south again in 1937 (none / 0) (#81)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:10:07 PM EST

so, yeh, it was saved by World War II. Many economists and historians blame the economic problems of FDR's second term on the Second New Deal, his second Hundred Days. So we have to hope that the change needed is not as extensive in today's economy, and it can regain stability without the extraordinary ongoing expenditures that FDR's administration had to commit for two terms.


: I didn't say that the economy was (none / 0) (#108)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 10:24:02 AM EST

"good" at that time - I don't dispute the grim history of the 30's. I do dispute the notion that it was all for naught - many programs enacted by FDR contributed greatly to the long-term health and growth of this country.

Welll..................... (none / 0) (#41)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:03:57 PM EST

It did take FDR well over a decade to begin to end the depression. WWII really made the difference, not all of his government programs. Or so it would appear, time wise. Putting people to work in businesses and industry began to turn things around, not all of FDR's government jobs programs. Or maybe they just took 14 years to begin to work. Obama won't have 14 years in office.


Not true (none / 0) (#73)
by flyerhawk on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:53:25 PM EST

The economy was essentially out of the depression well before the war. Other than 1937 to 1938 the economy had been growing from 1935 onward. From 1940 to 1941 nominal GDP grew by 25%.

While military spending does account for that to some degree we were nowhere near a war economy at that time.


Actually, we were (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:11:55 PM EST

in a war economy from '38 on -- for the European war, for our Allies. FDR started assisting and supplying them even before the formality of Lend-Lease, etc. Without that, it might have taken much more to pull out of the '37 recession.


The European war (none / 0) (#97)
by flyerhawk on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:26:14 PM EST

didn't start until 39.

The English were still struggling and essentially broke. The US, at the time, required that all war making goods be paid in cash and no credit given. That didn't change until 1941. The destroyer loan didn't occur until 1940 and lend-lease was in 41.

In 38 there was strong resistance to military spending.

So while we did sell some goods it wasn't a significant part of the economy until 1941.


: You think the English (none / 0) (#98)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 06:19:51 PM EST

didn't know it was coming? And some manufacturers here?
I'm in a city strong in tool and die, textiles, etc., that started retooling factories as soon as '38 to make munitions and more to build inventories.

I thought the book... (none / 0) (#49)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:39:01 PM EST

... while certainly biased against liberalism, had some real merit. It did, however, cherry-pick Roosevelt's more counterproductive policies, like the National Recovery Administration, and mostly ignore the successful ones, like the FDIC and Social Security, which are less firmly associated with the New Deal because they were successful enough to still be around today.

Shlaes was also far harsher to Hoover than to FDR, in my opinion, since she essentially blames him for causing the Depression.


And of course (none / 0) (#89)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:32:43 PM EST

this clown recommends we do nothing or throw out all regulations, lower capital gains tax, etc. The usual conservatives drivel that's offered up no matter how wrong they're proven. This never stops. In another 10 years or so they'll try to eliminate Social Security again when they have a new crop of gullible young people.

The ridiculous thing is that people like this are given an audience. Another crackpot hits the airwaves.

When rearmament exploded federal spending employment surged. The consensus is that FDR should have done MORE of what he was already doing.


clearly, (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by cpinva on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EST

young mr. yglesias needs to do his homework, before opining on a subject. the main reason both FDR & LBJ were able to push their agendas were their own personalities, and timing/circumstances.

FDR had a population desperate for any measure of relief, LBJ had a country mourning the loss of a youthful, charismatic president, who had, however ambivilently, supported the growing civil rights movement. as well, LBJ himself supported that movement, more so than kennedy ever did, since he came from humble origins himself.

take these two out of the picture, it's doubtful either program would have been enacted. they met the "lincoln" determination standard, that so many of our chief executives have failed.

unfortunately, i am yet not convinced that sen. obama has either the spine or political acuity to be in that league.

i could be, and hope i am proven, wrong.

True, (none / 0) (#38)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:53:22 PM EST

Obama doesn't have the political experience, or the political skills, that LBJ had. Johnson could twist arms, and he could work the Senate like a master gamesmen. He knew how to wield the sword of words, and politics, in the Congress to get things done. Obama has never done that. He simply doesn't have the political skills and experience of LBJ nor the popularity and support that FDR enjoyed.


: LBJ was "brilliant" in getting (none / 0) (#58)
by brodie on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:13:29 PM EST

Congress to go along -- for the years 1964 and 65. After that, and as his Vietnam War was being unleashed, whatever political skills he had were increasingly being met with resistance by many in his party.
Which reminds me that one thing Obama doesn't have in common with Lyndon is a well-deserved rep for lying. Or for strong-arming political allies in most unpleasant hardball ways -- stuff that tends to get thrown back at you once the victims sense your political vulnerability.

: LBJ (none / 0) (#90)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:35:55 PM EST

knew how to talk to each individual legislator. He knew how to use carrot and stick and he really believed in what he was doing.

Spine perhaps (none / 0) (#94)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:50:44 PM EST

But as to political acuity, I'm pretty sold on that, the man has read the zeitgeist like a savant, seriously his course from say 2003 to now is one giant ride on the edge of the wave of public opinion with only a few minor missteps (FISA, Energy Bill- arguably, it might have been good for Illinois-- and running mate choice) in a way that is a bit unprecedented.


Two type of intellectual weaks (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by koshembos on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:08:39 PM EST

So, we learn from some intellectually dead journalists and semi-journalist that FDR is small change. I guess: FDIC, SEC, FTC reform, WPA, HOLC, social security, NLRB and Collective bargaining chop liver. How sad.

As for Obama and reforms and repair, let's wait. We may have our hunches but we should give the man an opportunity to lead and fight the fights he chooses and not only for 100 days.

: Being elected (none / 0) (#28)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:12:09 PM EST

will 'give him the opportunity.'
What we say or do here is neither here nor there.

: Our press (none / 0) (#91)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:36:51 PM EST

is a club of morons.

Seriously Yglesias thinks that (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:18:29 PM EST

LBJ's power simply came from the sheer number of Democrats in Congress?

He ignores several key aspects of history in that statement.

JFK's assasination like 9/11 was a national tragedy - a tragedy upon which LBJ played to quickly and efficiently pass both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. LBJ skillfully used the national state of mourning to pass those great pieces of legislation and when that public power-play didn't work, he threatened, cajoled and blackmailed members of Congress privately.

LBJ's foreign policy was a disaster and he was not sure-footed in that arena, but on domestic policy he had a vision and he was a man on a mission. His passion for building the Great Society was the most imoportant component in advancing his goals - that and he was a political genius and mean as a snake. In fact, LBJ fought his own party to the point where he knew he was destroying it at least for the short term. The Democratic majority wasn't as helpful to him as one might think especially with the likes of George Wallace and his buddies hanging around.

LBJ really didn't have a choice (none / 0) (#50)
by brodie on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:41:09 PM EST

about Kennedy's CR bill, imo, since he'd already told Congress and a huge nat'l tv audience that he would continue Kennedy's policies. The CR bill was obviously the most important item JFK had on the agenda by the time of Dallas.

But, interestingly, as Vice President he'd told Kennedy (after being curiously reluctant to even voice an opinion when asked) that he didn't think sending up the CR bill (May-June 63) was such a good idea and that it was better to wait for more politically favorable circumstances. JFK heard him out, told him he understood the difficulties in Congress, but nonetheless, he said, he would be pushing forward.

The VR bill was passed, iirc, in 65. That one, unlike the post-Dallas/Kennedy sympathy/LBJ threatening and cajoling CR bill process, might have owed more to Lyndon's overwhelming election victory in 64. Plus the (probable) fact that the 64 cong'l elections saw not only a more solidly Dem majority, but a more liberal one overall -- the foot-dragging southern Dems saw their power to stop such legislation diluted.

As of 1966 though, LBJ had lost his touch with Congress -- certainly true after the diasastrous midterms of that yr. He spent the last half of his 5-yr presidency basically with greatly diminished power both with the Dem Congress and with the public. So much for his vaunted "legislative skills" ...


: He still was in tune with much of Congress (none / 0) (#85)
by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:15:12 PM EST

but much of Congress and Washington -- and, of course, that part of Virginia called the Pentagon -- had lost touch with the people beyond the Beltway, the part of the country that sent our sons and fathers and brothers and friends to die in war.

If past is prologue (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM EST

then Obama had better figure out his legislative priorities for the entire Presidency and try to ram them through Congress by March.

This has the potential to be a transformative Presidency, but I think there's a good chance whether we'll know that it is by my birthday next June.

: and my first post, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Turkana on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:01:31 PM EST

after he is elected, will be a call to start vetting potential judicial candidates!

No predictions? (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST

FDR and Johson were the most powerful presidents (none / 0) (#6)
by Saul on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST

in history IMO. If you want to be a successful president in trying to pass your agenda you better have power. One of the best way to get that power is to have a full proof filibuster congress. I believe 23 senate seats are up for grabs by the republicans. This is a good time to start to get that power.

filibuster-proof majority (none / 0) (#20)
by Nasarius on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST

Not quite, not this year. FiveThirtyEight.com shows eight seats likely to flip, which would bring us up to 58 with Bernie Sanders.


Even 60 seats (none / 0) (#23)
by Pepe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM EST

in the Senate won't be 60 with the likes of Obama "supporters" the Ben Nelson's and Mary Landrieu's of the world.

Of course I think they support him because they have always known something we were never told but is easy to see for those without blinders.


: ben nelson is of course (none / 0) (#43)
by sancho on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:13:03 PM EST

an obama supporter and i've wondered if this is b/c ben figures obama won't embarrass him by asking him to make an unpleasant vote.
then again, i would not be unhappy to see obama throw ben under the bus of real reform.
but will obama ride that bus?, that is the question.
my doubts overrule my hopes at this point.
time will tell.

: Who exactly (none / 0) (#78)
by flyerhawk on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST

do you think they would be supporting other than Obama?

: Um (none / 0) (#96)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST

They think he'll be like Bill Clinton you mean? Because other than Carter, there hasn't been a non-compromising Dem President in nearly half a century (since LBJ at least), welfare reform was more a give to the Blue-dogs and the GOP than anything I can think that Obama would likely do.

he'd also better gain some political skills, (none / 0) (#39)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:56:25 PM EST

Real quick.

Many people in the Senate actually believe that they are smarter, and more skilled, than Obama. They will be happy to match their ego to his. He had better learn how to deal with them, if he expects to gain their support. They expect to have HIS support, not the other way around. He has to earn their support.


: LOL. THey are idiots if they cannot see that (none / 0) (#70)
by coigue on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST

Obama has broken the mold for Democratic politics.

There is also Reagan... (none / 0) (#51)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST

... who got a lot of what he wanted even though the Democrats always controlled at least the House, and sometimes the Senate. If Obama can master his skill of talking over the heads of Congress and directly to the voters, he can overcome not having all the votes in his pocket. I don't know if he can do that, since I don't think there are that many blue state Republicans left, unlike the conservative Dems that Reagan was able to sway. But it is another way to do things.


FDR (none / 0) (#92)
by cal1942 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 04:41:10 PM EST

didn't start with a filibuster proof Senate.

Senate rules in those days required a TWO THIRDS majority to break a filabuster.

Democrats had a 59-36 edge in the Senate. 61%.


Do you think he will try to push his tax cuts (none / 0) (#16)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST

through first? When it comes to tax cuts, people have a long memory of politicans who promise but do not come through.

An economic package (none / 0) (#17)
by oldpro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:32:54 PM EST

with both middle-class tax cuts and raising taxes on the wealthy should be at the top of the list. If not, something is dreadfully wrong somewhere.


Hopefully it will pass. (none / 0) (#21)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST

How can Republicans not vote for tax cuts?


: When they are tied to tax increases (none / 0) (#52)
by ruffian on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:48:12 PM EST

In 1992 (none / 0) (#32)
by Steve M on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:41:47 PM EST

Clinton's people took polls after being elected and were surprised to find out that even though Clinton had promised a middle-class tax cut in the campaign, people mostly didn't know or didn't care.

I suspect Obama's proposed tax cuts will, in fact, be passed as part of an overall program of economic stimulus. But I'm not sure there's much empirical evidence for the idea that the public holds a grudge against politicians who don't follow through on their tax-cut promises.


Interesting (none / 0) (#42)
by lilburro on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:11:25 PM EST

So it is not a "betrayal of trust" issue?

I was too young to pay studious attention in 1992. Did Clinton run on the tax cuts as strongly as Obama does now? Will it matter that more of the public will be voting for Obama and presumably paying attention?


: I think the "betrayal of trust"... (none / 0) (#54)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:53:25 PM EST

... comes when your taxes go up. I don't think anyone will really be surprised if Obama doesn't cut their taxes. I certainly won't be.

: Iirc, Bill ran slightly less (none / 0) (#56)
by brodie on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:06:27 PM EST

on his middle-class tax cut than is Obama today. Certainly, while he framed it in terms of a "promise", in politics there are promises and there are promises. Bill's was more of a pledge to work to achieve one, imo. Whereas, by contrast, Mondale gave a much firmer promise to raise people's taxes in 84, and the say-anything-to-get-elected Poppy in 88 set his promise in concrete (soon to be forgotten once in office) with his Read My Lips famous line.
As for Bill, once he took the oath, he discovered that Poppy had misrepresented/underestimated the size of the deficit, and so, since Clinton had decided upon a balanced budget based economic stimulus approach, he had to scale back his middle class tax pledge. Of course, the robust economy he eventually produced more than made up for any minor disappointments over all that.

Not a chance (none / 0) (#40)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST

Get real. Anyone who believes that they will see a tax cut is in lala land. Families making under $50,000 pay very little in taxes. Their tax cut won't be a ripple. Everyone else will see a raise in taxes. There has to be an increase, if Obama is to do anything.

With everything that Obama wants to do, and with tax revenues dwindling, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that he will give a tax cut to anyone. He will be forced to raise so many taxes, including the FICA tax, and tax on most of the goods we use. We will see less money in our pockets. But I think most Americans are prepared for that because they know the shape that the economy is in. They know that it cannot support less money coming into the government.


There will be some sort of (none / 0) (#45)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:23:14 PM EST

economic rescue/stimulus package aimed at middle and working class voters passed almost immediately I think. The Congress and an Obama Administraion will be highly motivated to provide some immediate economic relief to "The People".


GOP talking point myth (none / 0) (#75)
by flyerhawk on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:58:28 PM EST

A person who makes 50K pays 8K in taxes unless they itemize which they are unlikely to do unless they own a home.


: A family pays that much? (none / 0) (#100)
by BrassTacks on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:44:54 PM EST

Nope. Individuals making $50,000 do pay federal taxes. Families making less than that pay very little in income taxes.
Who will receive the Obama tax reductions? Those families who make $50,000 and under? That will not be enough to stimulate the economy. If everyone who makes under $250,000 gets a large enough tax break, that might have some stimulus effect. But I still don't understand how everyone can get a tax break AND the government have enough money coming in to start all the new programs that he's promising.
I sure hope that you all are right and that it's just my sucky math skills that can't make it add up right. While I don't know any families making less than $50,000 a year, I do know some individuals who make that little. And everyone I know makes less than $250,000 and every one of them would LOVE a tax break!

My reading of the history (none / 0) (#46)
by brodie on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:29:37 PM EST

when FDR came to power suggests that Roosevelt didn't need to threaten Congress with any "wartime" wielding of "imperial" executive power -- the preceding several months of the lameduck Hoover admin saw the absolute depths of the Depression, and the majority of members of Congress, who'd been elected in the two post-Wall St Crash elections, knew the times called for swift and bold action, and of a progressive nature decidedly different from what rigidly conservative Hoover had offered.

Congress not only didn't need to be threatened to act, they seemed eager to give the very popular FDR whatever extra powers, or "flexibility", he might need to ameliorate the crisis.
FDR ran into political trouble only following his landslide 36 election, both in terms of his suddenly conservative (budget-cutting) policies and his several (stupid) political moves. But we're talking there about negative political consequences (38 midterms) which occurred only after he'd governed for nearly 6 yrs.

As for Obama, if elected, he'll be sitting somewhat as the optimistic Roosevelt was, assuming a continued downturn in the economy and a serious long-term recession, as both ran optimistic campaigns in major Change elections where the general themes of trying something different were more important than specifics. Given the volatile economic situation and the inability to predict what he'll face come late Jan 09, it's all the better that Obama hasn't placed too many specific promises into the Read My Lips category.

re: FDR's Imperial presidency (none / 0) (#64)
by coigue on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:43:27 PM EST

Don't for get his fight with the CJ of the SCOTUS over worker's rights....he threatened to add a few more judges to the court in order to get the votes he needed.