Early On, FDR Understood the Threat of Fascism
I just completed Amity Shlaes’s The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression and expect I’ll offer a more complete review as some later date, but for now will offer a more concise review: Read this book as it shows the many parallels between the actions of President Obama and his predecessor in the 1930s. Obama, like Franklin Roosevelt, seems to be temporizing in response to the economic meltdown of his day. Both men borrowed the rhetoric of class warfare and seemed indifferent, if not hostile, to private enterprise.
At the same time that the book points to FDR’s failure to revive the faltering economy of the 1930s, it shows the roots of his later success in leading the nation to victory against the Nazis. Even as Americans were isolationist, Roosevelt understood the imperative of international engagement.
While troubled by the “godlessness” of Communism, in 1933, “he ended a sixteen-year U.S. policy toward Russia, and recognized the Soviet Union:”
At a moment when people were still hungry, the deal seemed pragmatic–as president, Americans understood, Roosevelt had to choose the lesser evil. In Danzig, a port city, the Nazis that winter were tossing newspaper editors in jails; they were also taking over the courts of the Saar. Recognizing Russia was a way of counterbalancing the Germans.
Like Britain’s Churchill, he recognizing early on the threat Nazism posed to Western Civilization.
Much as we conservatives are eager to cite the failure of the New Deal, we must also recognize that Roosevelt was more than his economic policies. He ranks among the greatest of U.S. presidents for his leadership in helping the nations which would become our Allies before the American people were ready for war. And for his leadership once they were.
Even as he was flailing around in the 1930s, failing to find a solution to our economic woes, he was showing signs of understanding the geopolitical situation.
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I struggle with this issue. I suppose we have to tell each other something about Roosevelt, but I keep quiet about just this subject. Roosevelt’s economic ideas were so terrible that I fear talking too much about when Roosevelt was right tempts people to think his economic ideas weren’t bad after all.
Comment by aeshna23 — March 21, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - March 21, 2009
We shouldn’t fail to mention the Japanese menace and our response, begun with FDR.
Comment by Ignatius — March 21, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - March 21, 2009
It’s fun to imagine how today’s lefties would have dealt with Roosevelt’s foreign policy and conduct of the War on Fascism. “Germany never attacked us! Roosevelt lied, people died!” and other such rubbish.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 7:00 pm - March 21, 2009
The irony is that, while Roosevelt did a great job of fighting fascism abroad, most of his New Deal was modeled on fascist ideas, i.e., taken from American Left admirers of Mussolini and Hitler.
I don’t regard Roosevelt as unequivocally good or bad. I credit him with being a staunch pro-American leader . I discredit him with being a fool or worse, on everything to do with economic freedom. Incidentally, that is also my view of George W. Bush. If I were ranking the Presidents, Bush and Roosevelt would appear somewhere near each other, perhaps in the middle quintile.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2009 @ 8:57 pm - March 21, 2009
Testing posting a comment from my Kindle. Seems to be working. Live preview doesn’t seem to work.
Comment by Ignatius — March 21, 2009 @ 9:12 pm - March 21, 2009
Saw something tonight on the History Chanel that FDR wanted to work along with Stalin for a peaceful world. Guess he didn’t recognise that fascism.
I’ve also read where FDR had a tendency to do what he wanted and asked congress for permission later. Could a Republican do that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 22, 2009 @ 4:06 am - March 22, 2009
#6 Executive prerogative is a fascinating topic, and claims of executive prerogative have existed as far back as Jefferson, particularly in the field of foreign policy. Jefferson thought that congressional permission for certain executive action was politically helpful, but not necessary. I believe that this was concerning issues about merchant vessels, but dont quote me on that. Check out Imbalance of Power by Gordon Silverstein for an authoritative look.
As for the New Deal, there were certainly efforts within it that could be seen as ‘conservative’, that is to say, trying to keep the existing economic and business order viable, particularly with regards to Agribusiness. the reason why so many sharecroppers got screwed in the new deal was because the laws put in place by FDR favoured Big farmers, not little ones.
There was a demonstrable increase in the extent of governement control of the economy and society, but this was very much based on the powers outlined in the constitution:
‘Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes’
All Congress had to assert was that legislation that would affect individual behaviour had an aggregated effect on American society at large, crossing state boundaries. It was that kind of expanse of federal power that other laws such as the 1960s civil rights laws were based on.
Comment by Scottland — March 22, 2009 @ 7:13 am - March 22, 2009
#6 Executive prerogative is a fascinating topic, and claims of executive prerogative have existed as far back as Jefferson, particularly in the field of foreign policy. Jefferson thought that congressional permission for certain executive action was politically helpful, but not necessary. I believe that this was concerning issues about merchant vessels, but dont quote me on that. Check out Imbalance of Power by Gordon Silverstein for an authoritative look.
As for the New Deal, there were certainly efforts within it that could be seen as ‘conservative’, that is to say, trying to keep the existing economic and business order viable, particularly with regards to Agribusiness. the reason why so many sharecroppers got shafted in the new deal was because the laws put in place by FDR favoured Big farmers, not little ones.
There was a demonstrable increase in the extent of governement control of the economy and society, but this was very much based on the powers outlined in the constitution:
‘Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes’
All Congress had to asert was that legislation that would affect individual behaviour had an aggregated effect on American society at large, crossing state boundaries. It was that kind of expanse of federal power that other laws such as the 1960s civil rights laws were based on.
Comment by Scottland — March 22, 2009 @ 7:14 am - March 22, 2009
FILTERED
Comment by Scottland — March 22, 2009 @ 7:14 am - March 22, 2009
Roosevelt WAS a fascist. The SOB locked up thousands of innocent American citizens for the non-crime of being members of an unfashionable race, he imprisoned a man for pressing a suit for ten cents less than the government-fixed price, he STOLE OUR GOLD, he tried to turn the supreme court into a rubber stamp, and that’s just scratching the surface.
Yeah, he understood fascism all right: he was the man who inflicted it on America.
Comment by John C. Randolph — March 24, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - March 24, 2009