Reflecting on History
Seventy five years ago yesterday, on March 4, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt was sworn in to begin his first term. He delivered his famed inaugural address where he declared:
“Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
My grandfather, like many of his generation from rural Midwest, credits FDR and the New Deal from keeping our family from starving. This speech reminded me that our country has made it through far tougher times. More importantly, it ignited a fury that burns against the politics of winning by making people afraid. Candidates that drum up fears of economic devastation, of never ending war, or of terrorism, should be rejected. We should all hunger for a rebirth of FDR’s optimistic, uniquely American, spirit and resolve.
Update: The brilliant and lovely Dr. Rachel Maddow has a similar post up today. She says, in part:
In January 1941, at a time when the world was at war and the United States was more threatened than we had ever been in our history, FDR stood before the US Congress and hailed freedom from fear. That remains the paradigm of Democratic leadership in a threatening world.When a politician looks at risks to our country and sees an opportunity for political exploitation, rather than an opportunity to rally the nation around our unified strength and fearlessness, that politician spits in the face of Democratic leadership and patriotic values.
If there’s one thing we ought to have learned from the George W. Bush presidency, it’s that there’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans on whether the American people should be encouraged to cower in fear.
Comment by tet on 5 March 2008 at 1:21 pm:
Keep in mind, too, Augur, that there were people like my family that, quite frankly, hated his guts.
My grandmother used to do the best FDR impressions, evah:
“Ah hate wah, Elanaw hates wah, Fahlah hates wah.” Fala was FDR’s little Scottie.
My father said that while his ship was heading towards Omaha Beach at Normandy, one of his buddies got on the PA system and said, in a Roosevelt voice, “No Ahmericahn boh shall evah set foot on fah-rin shaws.” The boat’s crew ended up pulling the fuse to the system, since the soldier had locked himself in the room with the microphone.
The mists of history should not keep from us the knowledge that America has never been a nation unified around any particular notion or way of doing things. Even the most popular Presidents, like FDR, JFK, and Reagan had a large number of citizens who not only condemned them soundly, but spent a great deal of time trying to undermine their work.
Did you ever listen to those CDs of the speechs of FDR and Churchill I lent you? Note that as soon as Winnie won WW2 in Europe for the Brits, he was voted out of office. Can’t win sometimes.
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 5 March 2008 at 2:04 pm:
I have been struggling with how to say this without sounding like a total dick, or at the very least a curmudgeonly contrarian bastard. And I will try to expound on this later on.
However, I don’t hunger for optimism, spirit, and resolve. I hunger for a plan. For a purpose and a means to reach that goal. While I get that everyone likes to feel a part of something, at some part the question has to come up, a part of what?
Take FDR for example. FDR resolved his way into a bunch of plans that didn’t work for reviving the economy and some new coats of paint on public buildings. If it wasn’t for WWII, and the resulting increase of demand for production and decrease in the available work force, we might still be in the Depression.
Give me policy. And if it works, or at least there is a reason to believe it will, the hope, passion, and all that other stuff will follow. It shouldn’t be the other way around.
Comment by kofi the and that's why i'm voting for barack on 5 March 2008 at 2:24 pm:
Based on Prescott’s comment, I can only come to the conclusion that we need to vote for a President that will lead us to a war that will increase production demand and decrease available workforce.
Comment by kofi the and that's why i'm voting for barack on 5 March 2008 at 2:24 pm:
Based on Prescott’s comment, I can only come to the conclusion that we need to vote for a President that will lead us to a war that will increase production demand and decrease available workforce.
Comment by kofi the and that's why i'm voting for barack on 5 March 2008 at 2:24 pm:
Based on Prescott’s comment, I can only come to the conclusion that we need to vote for a President that will lead us to a war that will increase production demand and decrease available workforce.
Comment by augur on 5 March 2008 at 3:33 pm:
Speaking of hope vs fear, I just got this email from the obama campaign which does a great job contextualizing the vote gain last night:
Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday’s elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.
That’s a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.
For comparison, that’s less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It’s also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it’s considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.
The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.
They failed.
It’s clear, though, that Senator Clinton wants to continue an increasingly desperate, increasingly negative — and increasingly expensive — campaign to tear us down.
That’s her decision. But it’s not stopping John McCain, who clinched the Republican nomination last night, from going on the offensive. He’s already made news attacking Barack, and that will only become more frequent in the coming days.
Comment by tet on 5 March 2008 at 4:23 pm:
How many superdelegates did he pick up (and how many members of the Michigan and Florida delegations)?
Look, I don’t want the LQ to win. However, I want your idealism crushed, because unless it is, I will not be able to lead you away from the myth that governments help people.
As a first estimate, assume that anything the government does will cause harm. Instead of wasting your time with someone who would not be allowed to make a difference even if he really was going to act what he was saying, you could be on the street helping individuals become better.
Hell, Michelle Obama was making the point I’ve been trying to when she told the people in Ohio to go into service jobs, not corporate America or government.
You’re getting sucked in so badly that it’s going to take the equivalent of a political cattle-prod to shock you back to the harsh reality of evil surrounding you.
Tom
Comment by Augur on 5 March 2008 at 4:45 pm:
Tet, he has 50 he’s going to be announcing soon, in terms of supers.
stop w/ your all govt is evil nonsense, govt is a fact. When you come back to realityland let me know
Comment by tet on 5 March 2008 at 4:57 pm:
An unpleasant fact. I’ve been fighting the growth of Federal power since 1969, why should I stop now? I’m a happy man, no?
Let me live in my world. You may not realize yet that it is closer to reality than yours, but that you’ll find out in time. I imagine that your bio father agrees with me on this one 100%.
Tom