Is Trump the most undemocratic president in US history?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
No president in American history served more than two terms prior to Roosevelt. No president since due to the 22nd amendment. Was it technically legal? Was it frowned upon? Yes and yes. Only four other two term U.S. presidents ever sought a third term and they were shunned by their parties due to the Washington precedent. Popularity and effectiveness are not directly correlated with democracy. The people loved Caesar and Augustus too.
My words were very brief and non descriptive. Yes the court packing never actually occurred.
Roosevelt had made the argument successfully that with the war raging, it hardly made sense to switch horses mid stream. That said, he had gotten less votes that won him a third term than he had previously, so had he lived it was possible that he would have been turned out of office as Churchill had been. Considering his health, I doubt FDR would have wanted to carry on to a fourth term, had he lived out his third.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Also very true. The second world war was a unique world event whose outcome would determine American sovereignty. I do doubt FDR would have sought a fifth term. I believe he was privately and eventually publicly? confined to a wheelchair by the 1940's.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Also very true. The second world war was a unique world event whose outcome would determine American sovereignty. I do doubt FDR would have sought a fifth term. I believe he was privately and eventually publicly? confined to a wheelchair by the 1940's.
He had actually been wheelchair bound for much of his adult life. When in public, he'd be accompanied on either side by two men (one often his son) whose hands would be gripping his fists as they literally carried him, stiff armed to the podium. At said podium, he'd literally hold himself up by gripping the sides. YES, REALLY! Few if any other Presidents had ever put themselves through such physical strain to present a public front of strength.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
He doesn't come close. He didn't start Vietnam which was well , it was started by the USA using false flag tactics.
The South American destruction that was completely off the reservation.
The new deal
Invading Iraq although I suppose that was a democratic choice.
I mean trump is so inert and impotent and completely dangerous at the helm but he is far from being near the top
But how was the New Deal possibly bad?
Again we need to seperate value judgements with wether something is democratic or not. Democracy does not guaranteed a positive outcome. The premise asks which person was the least democratic. It has nothing to do with the actual outcome.
Many critics felt Roosevelt was mirroring his German contemporary. He extended the reach of what one would consider democratic. The output is not pertinent as this isn't a discussion about whether it was good or not.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from a fearful people.
In a free country, we punish people for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have.
This is hard to unpack without citing actual things he had done that are particular left field. He is undeniably incompetent but he really has just been a inert Muppet doing the what conservatives were elected to do.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
He doesn't come close. He didn't start Vietnam which was well , it was started by the USA using false flag tactics.
The South American destruction that was completely off the reservation.
The new deal
Invading Iraq although I suppose that was a democratic choice.
I mean trump is so inert and impotent and completely dangerous at the helm but he is far from being near the top
But how was the New Deal possibly bad?
Again we need to seperate value judgements with wether something is democratic or not. Democracy does not guaranteed a positive outcome. The premise asks which person was the least democratic. It has nothing to do with the actual outcome.
Many critics felt Roosevelt was mirroring his German contemporary. He extended the reach of what one would consider democratic. The output is not pertinent as this isn't a discussion about whether it was good or not.
And those "many" were wrong. Roosevelt never used violent coercion to accomplish the New Deal as Hitler had with the use of the Brownshirts and the SS in order to achieve his goals.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,226
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria
^Organizations such as the CCC did a lot of good, accomplished a lot, and helped thousands of unemployed guys find dignity and work which while often tough, was far better than slaving away in some factory or mine.
_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?
my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/
From Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939. Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Metropolitan Books, 2006.
The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).
Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'" (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.
Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).
Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).
_________________
"We see the extent to which our pursuit of pleasure has been limited in large part by a vocabulary foisted upon us"
From Justus D. Doenecke, emeritus professor of history at New College of Florida:
Words were matched by deeds as (FDR) mobilized the resources of the federal government against critics. His leading instrument was the FBI and its director, J. Edgar Hoover, a holdover from the Republican administration of Calvin Coolidge. To ingratiate himself with the Democrat FDR, Hoover used the bureau to discredit political opposition. He hoped that he would discover subversive activity among those Roosevelt’s foes who opposed conscription, massive aid to the Allies, and the convoying of lend-lease munitions....Yet in no case did the bureau produce evidence of subversion. The same holds true for surveillance of such outspoken anti-interventionist leaders as Senators Burton K. Wheeler, Gerald P. Nye, and David Walsh; Congressman Hamilton Fish; and historian Harry Elmer Barnes, at the time best known for his revisionist history of the causes of World War II
Political use of enforcement mechanisms did not stop with the FBI but reached into the entire Department of Justice, which harassed groups and individuals on both the left and right.
_________________
"We see the extent to which our pursuit of pleasure has been limited in large part by a vocabulary foisted upon us"
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).
Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'" (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.
Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).
Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).
So Hitler and Mussolini tried to get on FDR's good side. That hardly makes the New Deal comparable to fascism.
So FDR praised Mussolini in private. So did Churchill. Back then, the Italian dictator got far more praise than he deserved.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Words were matched by deeds as (FDR) mobilized the resources of the federal government against critics. His leading instrument was the FBI and its director, J. Edgar Hoover, a holdover from the Republican administration of Calvin Coolidge. To ingratiate himself with the Democrat FDR, Hoover used the bureau to discredit political opposition. He hoped that he would discover subversive activity among those Roosevelt’s foes who opposed conscription, massive aid to the Allies, and the convoying of lend-lease munitions....Yet in no case did the bureau produce evidence of subversion. The same holds true for surveillance of such outspoken anti-interventionist leaders as Senators Burton K. Wheeler, Gerald P. Nye, and David Walsh; Congressman Hamilton Fish; and historian Harry Elmer Barnes, at the time best known for his revisionist history of the causes of World War II
Political use of enforcement mechanisms did not stop with the FBI but reached into the entire Department of Justice, which harassed groups and individuals on both the left and right.
You lost me at "revisionist history of the causes of World War II." I am very suspicious of anyone who claims that there were ulterior motives to the Allies entering WWII. And yes, I do have a history degree.
Just because Roosevelt had the FBI investigate political rivals for their motives in favor of isolationism, that hardly is comparable to Hitler's Brownshirts and SS, and Mussolini's Blackshirts using terror and murder to reign in the opposition.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,226
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria
^To be honest, the tactics of FBI and CIA are almost as bad as the organizations in dictatorships at times, and they don't always follow acceptable channels to achieve their ends.
_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?
my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
For certain... at times. Still, there are laws in this country that eventually reigns them in. Fascism's terror troops didn't need to worry about the law cracking down on them, as their methods were lawful in their societies.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
