Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Share, Timber.

You don't think he was sort of forced to make serious adjustments during that time?

Very interested.

No it wasn't Roosevelt's fault. As Lash said he was the man for his times and he did what needed to be done. Every now and then I still run into those work projects many of which are still standing after all this time.

Roosevelt never envisioned people living decades on social security or that program being utilized for everything from hangnails to work disabilities. He never envisioned the country taking people out of the work projects and putting them on permanent welfare, thus destroying nuclear families and creating a permanent underclass. I think he would be horrified at what we made of his well-intentioned temporary rescue programs.

Those following Roosevelt up to Kennedy were not the problem either. The downward spiral started in the 60's with Johnson's Great Society and it has been getting progressively worse ever since.

It was just one of those cases of not having enough vision. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. . .

(Edited to correct a phrase even I couldn't figure out what I said.)

FDR's wartime foreign ploicy set the stage for the Cold War, for the rise of Asian Communism, and played a huge part in the series of miscues and bungles yhat ensured the current Middle Eastern chaos. His caterin' to isolationist sentiment - despite his under-the-table dealin's to the contrary - emboldened the expansionists of The Axis. His domestic policies fostered what has become today's entitlement binge, set the stage for activist courts, held real integration back at least a generation, resulted in The US emergin' from The Great Depression at a slower pace than most of the rest of the developed world, and institutionalized the totally absurd criminalization of pot.

But who could have envisioned the results of the policy? Then as now there were a substantial number of Americans who thought peace at any price is better than going to war, thus there was consent for Hitler to take that little country and maybe one or two more and he would be happy and there were be no need for hostilities.

Roosevelt was more fiscally conservative than the current administration. If we think about it and we were President and we could see the distress and agony and humiliation of men out of work, unable to care for their families, and you had the power to put them to work? Wouldn't you have done it?

Social Security was a program of compassion with no intent for it to become the megolith that it has become--that was for those who succeeded Roosevelt to decide. Roosevelt in fact wanted to do almost exactly what George Bush is proposing now re privatization of individual retirement accounts.

Was he the first of the big government benefactors that taught subsequent generations of politicians that they could bribe people into voting for them? Of course he was. And everything Timber said is true.

I just don't see Roosevelt and his administration to be as corrupt as some who followed. He may have left some holes in the dyke but I don't believe he intended to profit from them as subsequent administrations would do.

I have had major disagreements about his WWII policy. I was focusing on domestic.

But, thanks Timber.

All of that and worse may well be, nonetheless there was one overwhelmingly right decision that FDR made, which was that Germany had to lose the impending struggle of WW-II. The decision seems to have been that Russia would never represent an overwhelming threat to us but that Germany clearly did. Germany's leaders all had major kinds of elevator problems and left to their own devices, the Germans would assuredly have come up with some overwhelming military/technical advantage which we'd have had no answer to.

How Yalta changed the face of Europe

<No mention of Alger Hiss?>

That is my take on it too Gunga. Roosevelt (and most of the rest of America) turned a blind eye to the developing horror in Europe and did exactly what some in America would have us do now: largely ignore it and pretend it was none of our business.

When finally we were thrust into the fray via the bombing of Pearl Harbor, much as we were thrust into the fray via the attack on 9/11, we girded our loins so to speak and set about to get the job done with 'losing the war' or turning tail and running before a decisive victory was accomplished being no option whatsoever.

Of course Roosevelt and America had not yet had to endure the counter culture of the 60's and 70's that has produced so much fuzzy thinking re war, politics, economics, and our socioculture now either.

Roosevelt's social policies were the classic example of good intentions producing unexpected bad consequences as Timber says. but Roosevelt at least was of a generation of work ethic. Maybe he instinctively knew that government welfare is just another form of enslavement.

He had no problem with people being required to work for government largesse and he put the people to work on projects to improve America. Even today you can drive across Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas et al and see the impressive hedge rows and water conservation projects that are still standing and still helping to save water and prevent soil erosion. (I have always believed there was nothing wrong with asking people receiving welfare to do something for it just for their own sense of dignity if for no other reason.)

Roosevelt's policies did not produce a government-dependent class--it was left to the future generation of Democrats to create that.

I can see the good intentions going awry. I can believe some things should have been thought through better or a more efficient crystal ball would have been useful. But I can't see Roosevelt as a failed president.

Man, talk about a hijacked thread...

WTF are you blinding-light conservatives (that's blinding as in Guantanamo-torture-room-blinding-lights-in-your-eyes) doing, posting your vomitus in here for?

Get back to your sty -- oops, your hundreds of ungoing gloat threads. Away with you all. <makes shooing motion with hands>

Whew. It's turned into a fest of calling Democrats names instead of tending to the business intended. Who cares what those dolts think of Roosevelt? Time to get back on track.

Hmm I thought we were discussing pros and cons of Democrat policies.

I thought we were in the 21st Century.

Oh right. So let's don't talk about Democrat polices that worked before and just brag on the current screwball policies and mindset that is shrinking the Democrat base and losing elections at every turn. Works for me.

That list of Dem Presidents, and their "contributions" was obviously more than they could bear.

My sympathies.

I don't think I'll be shoo'd. All the threads are open.

my fault, p.d. i was talking with foxy about the "impression" voters had of the dem agenda. which she summed up (though perhaps not her own impression? )as ;



i then asked for names of those that she felt espoused those views, then came foxy's list of contemporary dem leaders in response.

after that came the usual assortment of "blame democrats first" for all eternity rants that, as usual, redirect from the immediate discussion.

now, to get back on topic with foxy;

1) some dems and even some republicans are fine with gay marriage. once again, with the often cited polls saying that something like 75-80% of americans being against it, the numbers do not hold up that all dems are for it.

2) not all non-republicans are against the faith based initatives. at the same time, not all republicans are in favor of this entitlement. i, for one, am not in favor of it. my parents are both conservatives, one is for one is not. so that's 1 former, 1 current republican against, 1 current republican for.

3) abortion. okay. i am not "pro abortion". i am "pro choice". but, to me, with choice comes responsibility. partial birth abortion, other than cases where the mother is at risk or the child will be born so physically disadvantaged as to suffer a life of misery, does not seem like responsibility has been exercised. but over all, my view is that, as a man, i have no right to make that kind of choice for a woman. the conflict over parental notification is a dicey one. some want it so that the teen can be forced to have the child, and also catch the brickbats of condemnation. the opposing argument is obvious.

i tend to believe that in a lot of cases, it might be a good thing for parents to be notified. one that comes to mind is that understanding parents would be able to support a teen during a very difficult time.

4) anti-iraq. anti-military. this "perception" is a real fave with some. it has time and time again been equated with "anti-american". that is a complete red herring, used only for political purposes.

those against the initial iraq action have listed reasons a billion times, and i have never heard a single person say that they were against because they hated america. similarly, i have not heard anyone say that they hope that america loses and that "hope all of those guys get killed". it's again a stupid charge based on political expediency. everyone i talk with is backing the soldiers to come home safe. and now that american soldiers are there, we are all for completing mission before leaving iraq.

one thing that has really bothered me about the "kerry is anti-military" schtick is his actual voting record. on most of the important military and veterans issues, he voted either for the veteran's rights, or against the same weapons that were cited by bush I, cheney (sed) for discontinuation or abandonment. remember the big flap over "gutting the intelligence budget" ? republicans, led by spector, approve the same cuts (at +2/3s of kerry's vote) citing the same examples of "over budgeting" and "waste" that kerry noted.

i spent a hell of a lot of time looking through the congressional voting records on a bill/vote basis. talk about a arduous tasking!!

5) anti-god in the pledge of allegience. i have not heard a single democratic leader speak out against this. but, if you look back on the way that it was added, it had little to do with god and a lot to do with politics. same with "in god we trust". at least the second time around on "igwt". seems like if it was all that important to have in there, it would have been included by the baptist minister that originally composed the pledge in the late 1800s.

6) being against tax cuts is okay, depending on what the taxes affected are. my personal problem with tax cuts is that we have a very large nation to support. if "the people" do not pay taxes, where will th money come from? the government has determined that the best thing to do is borrow, borrow, borrow. in my humble opinion, the current mind set on taxes has more to do with personal greed than fiscal conservatism. one example being, no taxes on dividends, which is a capitol gain. but most states now tax fed tax refunds and soon the same will be true of non-deduction of state taxes paid. in addition, and i think this one is really a stinker, for those that have had financial problems over the last few years, debt forgiveness by a lender, such as a credit card, is counted as income on the creditee's return. meanwhile, the creditor is allowed to take a loss.

7) anti- ss reform. wrong. the system does need reform. the way to do it without screwing the people that have paid into it long term and how to do it without, again, borrowing trillions of dollars from foreign countries like communist china is what is being debated. a whole bunch of republicans are not in favor of the bush plan. there is also the thing that people already have access to ira, 401k etc. the whole point of social security is that not everyone will end up at the tail end of life having done well. and not always in that position due to neglect of virtue or fiscal responsibility.

8) anti- letting parents move kids to better schools via vouchers. another red herring. this does nothing to fix the "common good" problem with education. this is the debate i've heard from non-republicans.

having lived in the south when busing was insituted, i can tell you that it served noone anygood. the problems did not go away.

to agree with foxy, the "impressions" that bush voters have taken as fact are not exactly what has been said. and a lot of half truths and spin have been used to create those impressions.

either way, the fact remains that about half of the nation voted against the bush/republican agenda. those people have a right to be represented in our government.

DTOM I don't disagree with anything you said even though, given the opportunity, I might vote differently than you on some issues. But the point was never what I thought, or what you think, or what your parents think, or that all Democrats and all Republicans do not think alike. (The last is the most important fact of this part of the discussion I think.)

The point is made that the public PERCEPTION, by most Republicans and at least many Democrats is that the Democrat party leadership--those who will have the power if given a majority--is promoting/supporting/insisting on that laundry list up there.

I think there are still a majority of people in this country who want to keep as much of what they earn as possible, who do not want to see the traditional American family further weakened and assigned to less relevance, who do believe in some form of higher power and like having that expressed in the Pledge, who believe the life of a child is as important as the rights of the mother, who do believe the young men and women fighting in Iraq are there for a noble cause and are worthy of all our respect, encouragement, support, and praise, who do believe Americans are smart enough to manage their own money and are smart enough to pick the best schools for their kids, etc.

You simply cannot compartmentalize national sentiment no matter what your personal convictions may be. We can do our best to make changes for what we believe is better as we can, but when you have a party that is determined to be against so many things that the majority of Americans are for, that party isn't going to win a lot of elections.

yes. i agree. but , as we said, it is the perception of being against those things that are the problem.

now the problem i have with some, not you on this btw, is the attitude of "we won, you didn't. now shut up and get in line"

why in the world would any person of good will stop fighting for what they believe in ?

it wasn't a landslide. it was a very close race and bush won by only a few percentage points. so you can understand why that attitude is not only unwarranted, but also pretty obnoxious. i can understand a couple of weeks of celebration, but it seems to go way beyond that, doesn't it.

either way, there might be something to be learned on both sides about politics... "here today, gone tomorrow".

DTOM write


Remember that in 1992, Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote and it was the Democrat mantra that "you lost, shut up and get in line". Then there was no call to reach across the aisle or give any concessions of any kind to the Republican minority. So two years later the GOP took both houses of Congress and a majority of governorships and have pretty much run most of the show from that time on. Clinton can thank them for many of his policy successes too--many if not most simply would not have happened with a Democrat controlled Congress.

And now we have a President and a GOP controlled Congress who are on the same side with a majority of Americans on most (not all) issues. The Democrat minority can wail and gnash its teeth and complain and accuse and whine and attempt to undercut GOP initiatives, nominations, and proposals, and in so doing it pleases its ever-shrinking base but only reinforces the GOP as the party that is most on the side of the people.

The Democrats have three choices and one other chance as I see it. The choices are 1) to continue to be more and more irrelevant in politics by holding onto the policy initiatives they have adopted or 2) actually again adopt progressive rather than obstructionist policies and sell the people on the wisdom of them, or 3) become statesmen that help and are actually part of the solution. The one chance they have to succeed without serious internal reform is for the GOP to so totally screw up that the Dems look like the lesser of two evils.

When you believe with all your heart that you are right and a policy seems to be proving itself right as events unfold, it would not be smart to adopt a different policy because the minority is bitter and disgruntled or feels left out. If the minority doesn't want to be left off a successfully moving train, it seems to be the best choice would be to get on.

Looking at the traditional grounding of the Democrat and Republican parties, there is room for honest differences of opinion in policy, structure, and ideology. The Republicans are hanging in there with most of their basic principles. If the Democrats will get back to theirs, it will be much tougher choosing which candidate to vote for in the next election I think.

to some extent i think we are saying the same or similar things. i was going to mention the clinton part, but figured it would come up.

wouldn't you agree that to at least some degree, if you don't believe same degree, that the republicans immediately began obstructing the clinton agenda ?

i honestly believe that both parties have veered way off from their basic platforms.

but something you said caught my eye. about the train, " get on or get left behind". that says "abandon your values". would you do that ? how many conservatives consider doing that ?

but also foxy, that implies that the current swing to the right is permanent. it's not. it never is ...

and let's say that the democrats assume of the positions that people are saying they should to be more accessible. at what point do we then have a by defacto one party system ?

is that really what is good for america ?

Most certainly not your fault, Don't Tread.