Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Wednesday, July 11. 2007FDR: Our Most destructive PresidentFor those who are inclined towards a federalist, libertarian view of the American nation, the debate about the Most Destructive President probably ought to be about Lincoln and FDR. Lincoln - a superb and fascinating human being by any measure - squashed any pretense of voluntary confederation among the units of the young nation. FDR elevated the power of the Federal government over the individual to levels which never could have been imagined previously. However, the ultimate result of the sickening Civil War has been positive - freedom for many and preservation of the union (although one may and should question whether maintaining the union was worth the destruction of the South and 620,000 dead - the most in any war in America's history). FDR's accumulation of power in DC has been an enduring disaster which, because of the numbers of clients and beneficiaries, may be impossible to undo short of rebellion (see Vermont's recent threats to secede, but for different reasons). Did the New Deal have any impact on the Depression? No, none - and some argue that New Deal policies helped to perpetuate the Depression. But "he cared." I am sure that he did. Individual freedom from government power is always stolen with the excuse of "crisis." (Thus the Left has learned to have a "crisis du jour" to try to justify the expansion of the Federal government at the expense of the states and the citizen.) The Great Depression was the seemingly permanent crisis which was used to justify almost any power grab by Washington. How was this done? The notion of a permanent severe scarcity crisis was presented, which supposedly only Roosevelt's leftist (more acurately, Stalinist) government experts were smart enough to deal with. A piece on the subject by Captain Ed pointed me to George Will's review of Shlaes' The Forgotten Man, which we have discussed here earlier. A quote from Will:
The New Deal "brain trust" was wrong about theory, wrong about the American vision of freedom, and wrong about the direction of the future. You can read a couple of our previous pieces on this subject here and here. Addendum: The Jacksonian makes a different argument - for Pres. Wilson, here. He makes the case that the political changes from 1909-1919 set the stage for FDR. A good read. Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I agree - Except for the overriding issue of slavery, the South was in the right in the Civil War. Of course, without slavery, the war would never have happened. If the Civil War had somehow occurred without the slavery issue, the North would have lacked the moral motivation to fight hard, and the South would have won easily with European assistance.
I've always felt that FDR was a terrible president until WWII started. He created the monstrous federal government we have today - and it was a failure from the beginning. The older I get, the more I admire Calvin Coolidge and long for his brand of restrained leadership. I would argue that Wilson is number three. It can be argued that our involvement in WWI was unnecessary and Europe would have been better long-term off if we had let them fight it to the bitter end. His League of Nations was a disaster and the f@$#ing Sixteenth Amendment enabled Roosevelt’s excesses.
I view 40 million murdered unborn innocents as war casualties. The war is on life. Who did that one?
Nixon was president on January 22, 1973 but the decision was the court's. I have no idea who put those justices on the court but my guess is Johnson or Kennedy. Please advise. It seems to me that evil forces have been tearing at the country since it's inception. Each president did their part, and little or small it all adds up. They are all the worst presidents in history, except for George Washington and a few of the other early ones. Wilson actually, for me at least, rises higher as FDR could not have made those changes without the groundwork that had been laid from 1909-1919 (I looked at that here: http://thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2007/04/10-years-that-changed-path-of-america.html )
Fundamental changes in what Federal government could do came about both internally (via multiple amendments and laws) and externally (via foreign policy). Combined that decade re-structured the basis of Federal power that, if it had not been done, would not have allowed FDR to exploit and further change the power structure of the Nation. I don't like the grabs done then, but the altering of the structure had already been done to allow for it. Wilson's foreign policy as an isolationist, meant that he had no heart nor will to understand what warfare means to America. By being unwilling to actually fight all the enemies in WWI he was not treated as a full participant in the war. His outright excuses to avoid fighting the Austro-Hungarians and Ottomans meant that he would have no say in those treaties. Adults understand that you do not pick and choose enemies when you go to war, and allies of enemies are also enemies. Those excuses and the pipedream of international bodies to 'avoid war' could not work even if the US was a part of them. The UN has proven that in spades, so all the talking points of the League of Nations not working because of the lack of the US get undercut by the UN. The Progressive outlook to make democracy efficient and smoother in operation belies the fact that democracy cannot be that way: it is supposed to be messy, rancorous and have debates fought out, often with fisticuffs, until an understanding is reached. The changes made to restrict democracy during that 10 years and change the stance the Federal Government can take to its citizens is chilling. Rifts between the Federal Government and the population start then and continue onwards at a faster pace as representative democracy gets less representative over time and things work out so very smoothly... just what the Founding Generation wished to avoid by making it messy, inter-balancing between the Federal, States and the People, and by ensuring that government had very, very few things it could do. The expansion is bad, yes. The original changes are awful to let those expansions exist. Thanks for the comment. We once wrote a post on Democracy is Messy.
Agree on 16th Amendment, along with 17th, which made the senate into what's now 100 little populist presidents. Agree also on the long-term corrosion and WWII-enabling mistakes of Wilson, who would not have won without Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 election third-party Bullmoose run. The Wilson presidency in that way and many others (most esp the vulnerability to wars) reminds of the 1992 election, where Perot delivered us to Clinton.
Yep, Coolidge would be such a relief. Wilson's "progressive era" always makes me wonder, progress toward what?
BD - Very messy, including fisticuffs on the House floor back in the 19th century. I find it interesting that the States lacked some initiative to send Senators to the Senate as the reason the Progressives wanted direct election of them. That was the State's check on the Federal: if the Federal didn't work with the States and help them, then the States could withhold Senators and make it very hard to get a quorum.
buddy - The Progressives looked to get an 'active' government, and pushed through a number of amendments to make democracy faster, easier, smaller and more active. The thing is, this exact, same goal, was that of the later Communists and National Socialists. Our somewhat more distributed power structure has helped some, but the consolidation and accretion of power at the Federal level has gone on since that era. I'm getting pretty much to where Alexander Hamilton talks about in Federalist #26 (wrote about that here: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-is-bedrock-of-republic.html ). Add in the non-adult thinking by Wilson on warfare after clearly being warned by Teddy Roosevelt what would happen if we did not go to war against the entire Axis... and we get the icky goo that would turn into Transnationalism that we see today. ( Which I look at here: http://thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2007/06/wilsonianism-and-start-of.html ) I do not make that link with Hamilton easily or lightly as he was deadly serious in #26. We truly do not understand democracy as it was designed for the Union and the work to marginalize representative democracy is exactly what he talks about. Reading the warnings from the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists (who understood the dangers of Federalism) is very, very eye opening. And extremely chilling when you start to hear their remarks echo into the present day... "...their remarks echo into the present day...."
That they do. The Founders designed outward from fundamental human nature. Our young people, to understand the system, need to grasp that first. And thanks--I'll reread #26 with interest (it's been a long time). Axis => Central Powers
buddy - It is well worth a re-read... the Teaching American History site has that ( http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=788 ) plus all the rest of the Federalist papers (both the collected and many uncollected) and Anti-Federalist papers. Reading back and forth, even when a direct response from argument to argument isn't done, gets a very, very good feel for what the basis of the outlook was that was being talked about. This is something that is rarely taught today, and was difficult to do in the pre-net era: give folks the sets of documents so one could start to get a real impression of what was going on. I am a bit dismayed that the Anti-Federalists are so quickly summed up and dismissed by the modern liberals and conservatives... reading them gives an impression that a stronger government was understood as necessary, but the form of it was hotly contested and the worries about such concentration of power and the dilution of democracy were ones that were argued and closely. It is wholly dismaying to think that this vital conversation of America is not taught well or, frequently, at all. It is a defining outlook that did, indeed, need to become reconciled, and the process of that and how the outlooks still arise time and again show the depth of it and the vitality of discussion of democracy as a form of government. When this starts to go untaught, unexamined and unreviewed and casually summed up and dismissed, we are then losing out on the view of why democracy is necessary and what it designed to do and not to do. That echo is worrying because they looked into the past and the future, both, and tried their hardest to ensure that we would not make the same mistakes as many other Republics and previous democracies. That back and forth of ideas and ideals falls silent when it is unexamined... and those warnings go unreviewed so that they aren't heeded. Representative democracy in a Republic was meant to be kept under hard and fast control by the People so as to not get out of control. We no longer do that, and the result is eroded liberties, expanded powers of government, and a slow shift of views from a government granted few rights to do necessary things in common to the older one of government granting rights and the People being subjects. Incumbistan has one party. Its vassal state of Electistan has NONE. (I expanded on the Mark Steyn theme here: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/06/incumbistan-and-its-vassal-state.html ) ajacksonian, you are so right, up & down the line, and my compliments on how eloquently you express it. It has in fact become the Incumbents vs the People. I think Kelo finally crossed the line, altered the chemistry (tho I realize it is only one emblem among many).
Anyway, you do a good job of framing the issue and spreading the word--pray continue! buddy - My thanks!
Half of what I write is based on learning to ask the right question. The other half is shaking my head at the answer. |
The good reason to visit Hyde Park, NY, in the lovely Hudson Valley, is not to visit the home of the worst President of the US, but to visit the CIA. As Paul Bocuse says, it is "the best culinary school in the world." They have a choice of resta
Tracked: Sep 28, 11:38
Some further thoughts about The Barrister's post Freedom? No Thanks, and a word about Erich Fromm:Freedom is about the relationship of the individual to the State. I think of freedom as being a zero-sum game: either freedom, and the heavy responsibilities
Tracked: Oct 11, 11:06
The Eerie Denial of the Bush Administration I've been saying this for 20 years, at least. It's based on being, yes, a TRUE CONSERVATIVE, that is to say, applying principles to my thinking (and, to the best of my ability,
Tracked: Apr 08, 11:19
Tracked: Mar 30, 16:05
Tracked: Dec 16, 00:54
Tracked: Dec 31, 00:22
Tracked: Jul 16, 11:49