On 2013-01-05, at 7:30 PM, Michael Nuwer wrote: > On 1/5/2013 3:46 PM, Carrol Cox wrote: >> Obama is now and has always been a principled and determined advocate of >> the Austerity Age. Why can't liberals believe that he is what he claims to >> be. > > "As Governor of New York [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt had been a > conservative Democrat and a good pal of Wall Street. By 1935 he > understood — it had been made clear to him that if he wanted to be > re-elected — he had to begin to meet the needs of the people, instead of > the wishes of Wall Street. He was re-elected three times. When he died > in 1944, he had become a moderate lefty. > > "... If a conservative Democrat (as FDR was when first elected) could > become an increasingly strong liberal in his second, third, and fourth > terms in the White House, it is entirely possible that Obama could. That > means we must become politically involved seriously. We have a lot to > do, both to help Obama to change his ways and to get people like > ourselves to work for him." > > http://www.dougdowd.org/articlesAndCommentary/pdf/ThreeCheersForTheOccupiersAndTheirSupporters_NowWhat.pdf
1. Different times. There was pressure then from an expanding trade union movement, a large part of which unfavourably contrasted the unemployment rate in the US - significantly higher then than it is today - with full employment in the USSR, which still had the capacity to inspire workers worldwide. There is no such organized mass pressure today, nor is there the example of an increasingly prestigious anticapitalist state to further prod the liberal bourgeoisie into undertaking structural reform. 2. FDR's liberal credentials are much overstated, though, unlike Obama, he was prepared to publicly pillory the "malefactors of great wealth" - again, an expression of a deeper economic and political crisis - as well as to experiment with untested and controversial schemes to pull the US out of its deep social and economic crisis. But his conservative side was reflected in his appointment of Hans Morgenthau to the key post of Treasury Secretary - very much in line with Obama's appointment of, and deference to, Tim Geithner a couple of generations later. "Morgenthau believed in balanced budgets, stable currency, reduction of the national debt, and the need for more private investment. The Wagner Act regarding labor unions met Morgenthau's requirement because it strengthened the party's political base and involved no new spending. Morgenthau accepted Roosevelt's double budget as legitimate — that is, a balanced regular budget, and an "emergency" budget for agencies, like the Works Progress Administration (WPA), Public Works Administration (PWA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), that would be temporary until full recovery was at hand. He fought against the veterans’ bonus until Congress finally overrode Roosevelt's veto and gave out $2.2 billion in 1936. In the 1937 "Depression within the Depression", Morgenthau was unable to persuade Roosevelt to desist from continued deficit spending. Roosevelt continued to push for more spending, and Morgenthau promoted a balanced budget. In 1937, however, Morgenthau successfully convinced Roosevelt to finally focus on balancing the budget through major spending cuts and tax increases; Keynesian economists have argued that this new attempt by Roosevelt to balance the budget created theRecession of 1937.[9] On November 10, 1937, Morgenthau gave a speech to the Academy of Political Science at New York's Hotel Astor, in which he noted that the Depression had required deficit spending, but that the government needed to cut spending to revive the economy. In his speech, he said:[10] "We want to see private business expand. … We believe that one of the most important ways of achieving these ends at this time is to continue progress toward a balance of the federal budget." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.#New_Deal There is more ideological continuity between New Deal Democrats and the current party than one might think; the difference in the two administrations lies is the depth of the economic crisis and the relative strength the contending social forces. In this context, Dowd's statement that "we have a lot to do, both to help Obama to change his ways and to get people like ourselves to work for him", while well-intentioned, is profoundly illusory. Just like Weisbrot's fanciful proposal that Obama be pressured to pick Krugman to succeed Geithner. On 2013-01-06, at 8:25 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > Liberals fight over what Democrats are doing because it's the only game in > town. How many Greens are there is Congress? Zero. Maoists? Zero. > Trotskyists? Zero. Anarchists? Zero. Democrats are on the playing field; > that's why people care what they say and do. The "anti-Democratic Left" is > not on the playing field, so no-one cares what they say and do. Political influence index, scale 0-10: Greens: 0 Maoists: 0 Trotskyists: 0 Anarchists: 0 Liberal Democrats: 1 _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
