FDR Nails it

[THE_DEVIL]

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.... Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

I believe we have hit this point with the exception that I believe we are living in a plutocratic state and not a fascist one.

 

[LuteHawk]

The Devil thinks we are living in Disneyworld with Pluto,
Goofy, Mickey, Minnie, Donald and Daisy.

 

[codflyer]

Only if by "nails it", you mean "gets it completely backwards". The danger is when the government grows and absorbs the freedoms intended for the people. Which it has been doing for the last hundred years. Rich people will use their money to increase their advantages. That is a reality. But, if they have to do so in a competitive market, it is virtually impossible for them to achieve and maintain the kinds of monopolistic power grabs guys like FDR posit. However, if they have a nice, convenient one-stop shop in our government offices, they can tilt the entire system, and relatively cheaply and risk-free. Then, folks like FDR give the government more power (always at the expense of the general citizenry) to regulate and enforce "fairness"...which is almost immediately captured and purchased by the plutocracy. Folks like FDR are the ones that create the situation they rail against in the first place. They are just too ignorant of economics, ideologically blind, or corrupt to acknowledge it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Only if by "nails it", you mean "gets it completely backwards". The danger is when the government grows and absorbs the freedoms intended for the people.

You're going off on a tangent here. ANY concentration of power that takes away freedom is a problem - not just excessive government power.

I will agree with you that it's a problem when it's the government doing it if you will agree with me that it's a problem when corporations, oligarchs, plutocrats, the military and/or theocrats do it.

Of those, I would argue that too much government power in a society like ours is less of a problem than too much power concentrated in the hands of the other loci mentioned. Why? Because none of those have a constitution with a Bill of Rights that the people can use to protect themselves. Those other groups don't even have to pretend to be answerable to the people or pretend that people have rights.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.... Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

I believe we have hit this point with the exception that I believe we are living in a plutocratic state and not a fascist one.

There are many different definitions of "fascism."

Mussolini described it in terms of a partnership between government and businesses. He liked it. Many many Italians liked it. It was good for the economy. It didn't merely get the trains to run on time.

We have had this same attitude in America for a long time. When I was young, it was common to hear the phrase "what's good for GM is good for America." It was a form of trickle-down. The idea being that if our government - the one that's supposed to work for the people - would work for big businesses, the results would be beneficial to the people. So good government should do what businesses want.

So we go from government and business being in partnership as definition #1 for "fascism" to government taking orders from business as definition #2 of "fascism."

Hitler turned that one it's head, evolving from a fascism where government benefited business to a fascism where government told businesses what to do. That's definition #3.

Stalin went still further. Government didn't merely tell business what to do, government took control of businesses and ran them. That's definition #4 - although many wouldn't call it "fascism," preferring the traditional label of "communism."

Which flavor of fascism do you want?

 

[Torg]

The Devil thinks we are living in Disneyworld with Pluto,
Goofy, Mickey, Minnie, Donald and Daisy.

Isn't that just 1/3 of the list of Republican hopefuls?

 

[86Hawkeye]

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.... Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

I believe we have hit this point with the exception that I believe we are living in a plutocratic state and not a fascist one.

Interest because now the state is much more powerful than "private power".

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Interest because now the state is much more powerful than "private power".

Only to those drinking a lot of the bright red Kool Aid they sell on Fox News.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

Only to those drinking a lot of the bright red Kool Aid they sell on Fox News.

Is that any different than the bright blue stuff sold daily on MSNBC?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Is that any different than the bright blue stuff sold daily on MSNBC?

How would I know?

 

[pablow]

You're going off on a tangent here. ANY concentration of power that takes away freedom is a problem - not just excessive government power.

I will agree with you that it's a problem when it's the government doing it if you will agree with me that it's a problem when corporations, oligarchs, plutocrats, the military and/or theocrats do it.

Of those, I would argue that too much government power in a society like ours is less of a problem than too much power concentrated in the hands of the other loci mentioned. Why? Because none of those have a constitution with a Bill of Rights that the people can use to protect themselves. Those other groups don't even have to pretend to be answerable to the people or pretend that people have rights.

I agree with most of this. However, governments, unlike private sector entities, are not constrained by security fraud or consumer protection laws. Politicians are essentially free to lie to us and we have no recourse. And, it seems to me that politicians are becoming more audacious in the dishonesty category.

One more problem is that constitutional checks and balances have been replaced by collusion between our two pathetic political parties. Our Founders would vomit.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I agree with most of this. However, governments, unlike private sector entities, are not constrained by security fraud or consumer protection laws. Politicians are essentially free to lie to us and we have no recourse. And, it seems to me that politicians are becoming more audacious in the dishonesty category.

One more problem is that constitutional checks and balances have been replaced by collusion between our two pathetic political parties. Our Founders would vomit.

Good points.

Your first point reinforces my general theme. If not for government imposing fraud and consumer protection (and environmental protection and other) laws on businesses, they would be unrestrained in their pursuit of power and profit.

The question is, how can we impose similar restraints on government? In theory, we do that through the ballot and by our elected reps imposing those restraints on themselves through ethics laws and auditing procedures and so on. But when corporations are writing the laws and Congress is just rubber-stamping them, it's hard to see how to assert control over either corporations or government. And recently we also have serious pseudo-religious efforts to free corporations from having to follow our laws.

Any suggestions?

 

[Lone Clone]

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.... Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

I believe we have hit this point with the exception that I believe we are living in a plutocratic state and not a fascist one.

Interesting. He precisely reverses the definition of fascism; instead of government controlling the means of production, he says it's the private sector controlling the government. Maybe FDR was right and the founding fathers and the rest of the civilized world were wrong about the nature of a democracy. Yeah, that must be it.

Meanwhile, let's pay attention to one thing FDR definitely DID have right: The danger of public unions.

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations."

"The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

FDR really nailed it when he allowed Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor also.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Interesting. He precisely reverses the definition of fascism; instead of government controlling the means of production, he says it's the private sector controlling the government. Maybe FDR was right and the founding fathers and the rest of the civilized world were wrong about the nature of a democracy. Yeah, that must be it.

Meanwhile, let's pay attention to one thing FDR definitely DID have right: The danger of public unions.

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.

"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations."

"The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

Wrong on both points. What you describe as "fascism" in your first paragraph is Stalinism. Not fascism as defined by Mussolini, nor fascism as defined by Hitler, nor even standard American fascism that is sort of in between the 2 but with more power held by corporations (and is currently in the final stages of putting nearly all power under corporate control).

As for FDR on public unions, while he isn't completely wrong, it's instructive that this is about the only thing cons and neoliberals quote FDR on.

 

[pablow]

Good points.

Your first point reinforces my general theme. If not for government imposing fraud and consumer protection (and environmental protection and other) laws on businesses, they would be unrestrained in their pursuit of power and profit.

The question is, how can we impose similar restraints on government? In theory, we do that through the ballot and by our elected reps imposing those restraints on themselves through ethics laws and auditing procedures and so on. But when corporations are writing the laws and Congress is just rubber-stamping them, it's hard to see how to assert control over either corporations or government. And recently we also have serious pseudo-religious efforts to free corporations from having to follow our laws.

Any suggestions?

The media used to constrain abuses but that too has been purchased. I'm stumped.

This may sound like a cop out, but we need a great leader. There is an historical case to be made that argues most of human progress has resulted from individuals rather than institutions, philosophies, religions, movements . . .

Hillary or Jeb? Not what we need.

 

[strummingram]

Only if by "nails it", you mean "gets it completely backwards". The danger is when the government grows and absorbs the freedoms intended for the people. Which it has been doing for the last hundred years. Rich people will use their money to increase their advantages. That is a reality. But, if they have to do so in a competitive market, it is virtually impossible for them to achieve and maintain the kinds of monopolistic power grabs guys like FDR posit. However, if they have a nice, convenient one-stop shop in our government offices, they can tilt the entire system, and relatively cheaply and risk-free. Then, folks like FDR give the government more power (always at the expense of the general citizenry) to regulate and enforce "fairness"...which is almost immediately captured and purchased by the plutocracy. Folks like FDR are the ones that create the situation they rail against in the first place. They are just too ignorant of economics, ideologically blind, or corrupt to acknowledge it.

Codflyer nails it!

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

FDR really nailed it when he allowed Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor also.

You do, of course, have definitive documentation to substantiate this claim?

 

[pablow]

You do, of course, have definitive documentation to substantiate this claim?

When I studied history in college the consensus was FDR wanted us in the war and that he personally flew one of the Jap Zeros that hit Pearl Habour.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

You do, of course, have definitive documentation to substantiate this claim?

We were at odds with Japan, we knew they were a threat, we lost track of a portion of their fleet, during war time mind you, Navy Admirals warned him, he didn't listen,.....if you want the information Tennessee then go look for it yourself. It's out there and easy to obtain.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

When I studied history in college the consensus was FDR wanted us in the war and that he personally flew one of the Jap Zeros that hit Pearl Habour.

I taught world history...funny I never saw that...oh those darn revisionists!

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

I taught world history...funny I never saw that...oh those darn revisionists!

You taught false history, taught to you by false historians.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

We were at odds with Japan, we knew they were a threat, we lost track of a portion of their fleet, during war time mind you, Navy Admirals warned him, he didn't listen,.....if you want the information Tennessee then go look for it yourself. It's out there and easy to obtain.

Only negative thing I ever read about FDR's wartime gaffes was he knew about the extermination of the Jews but turned a blind eye because he as well as pretty much the rest of America were virulent anti Semites.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

You taught false history, taught to you by false historians.

So I am now to believe the "newhistory" as well as the "newspeak"...gotcha!

 

[codflyer]

You're going off on a tangent here. ANY concentration of power that takes away freedom is a problem - not just excessive government power.

I will agree with you that it's a problem when it's the government doing it if you will agree with me that it's a problem when corporations, oligarchs, plutocrats, the military and/or theocrats do it.

Of those, I would argue that too much government power in a society like ours is less of a problem than too much power concentrated in the hands of the other loci mentioned. Why? Because none of those have a constitution with a Bill of Rights that the people can use to protect themselves. Those other groups don't even have to pretend to be answerable to the people or pretend that people have rights.

Plutocrats, by definition, only become so through using the government to further their interests. This is what there is too much of. And it is enabled by the continued fallacy being peddled that corporations are the ones running amok. Corporations and private interests, regardless of size, are at the mercy of the market, unless they are able to embed themselves with government interests, which then allows them to skirt laws or place themselves above it. John Rockefeller, with Standard Oil at it's zenith, attempted with some other businessmen to form a private cartel...it failed miserably. Even with all his wealth and market share, he could not separate price from value and force the market to do what he wanted it to. Today, he just would have had to fund a few strategic campaigns to get regulation, tax code, ordinances, etc passed to accomplish the same goal and more. Progressives fear the Koch brothers like conservatives go crazy about George Soros...but what are both afraid of? Of them making really savvy investments and business decisions? No, in both cases the fear is that they have unequal access to government and will use that access to the detriment of individuals and the country as a whole. But, the focus goes to their wealth, when it SHOULD be going to what it is that we are afraid of them buying, and why we continue to allow it to be for sale.

Bottom line, corporations and individuals are going to use their wealth and influence to the greatest extent possible to enhance their positions. If their only real outlet is to develop a better product or service, then even if they continue to enrich themselves immensely, we all win. When they can buy politicians, bureaucrats, and regulators and throw up roadblocks to innovation, barriers to entry to the market, and create huge economic windfalls for themselves by rigging the system...they will do that too. The solution remains: Reduce the power that the government has to sell, and the resources that they have to mismanage and abuse. The notion that we just need to get the "right people" in there to manage the whole thing has been around forever, and is as misguided today as it has always been.

So, while concentrations of power can be bad in both the private and public arenas, concentrated government power is a thousand times more dangerous than that of private players, because it is a self perpetuating machine that is itself the most potent tool for private interests to hijack to their own purposes. And it happens every...single...time.

 

[strummingram]

Codflyer has a bag of nails and a strong hammer today.

 

[Lone Clone]

Wrong on both points. What you describe as "fascism" in your first paragraph is Stalinism. Not fascism as defined by Mussolini, nor fascism as defined by Hitler, nor even standard American fascism that is sort of in between the 2 but with more power held by corporations (and is currently in the final stages of putting nearly all power under corporate control).

As for FDR on public unions, while he isn't completely wrong, it's instructive that this is about the only thing cons and neoliberals quote FDR on.

OK, so I'm wrong. I'm in good company, though. The people who put together Webster's New World College Dictionary are wrong, too. Better send them a correction ASAP.

 

[preshlock]

I taught world history...funny I never saw that...oh those darn revisionists!

Moving the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor was a militarily poor decision. At the time Pearl was considered a forward operating area and vulnerable. Still in no way was it a conspiracy.

 

[Derekd3408]

This FDR?

 

[SalAunese]

Only negative thing I ever read about FDR's wartime gaffes was he knew about the extermination of the Jews but turned a blind eye because he as well as pretty much the rest of America were virulent anti Semites.

That's going a bit far...
It had more to do with tough choices to make when it came to the war effort. You have to remember, people in the 1940's did not have access to fast, immediate information like we do nowadays.

 

[SalAunese]

Moving the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor was a militarily poor decision. At the time Pearl was considered a forward operating area and vulnerable. Still in no way was it a conspiracy.

They moved the fleet to Pearl Harbor because of the Japanese threat to the Pacific. What they weren't expecting was a Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor itself, but the Philippines or elsewhere in the Pacific. Hence, that is why that attack was so successful. A lot of revisionist history in this thread but that's not surprising since all these minor historians tend not to look at history with a 1940's perspective which is a common mistake.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

That's going a bit far...
It had more to do with tough choices to make when it came to the war effort. You have to remember, people in the 1940's did not have access to fast, immediate information like we do nowadays.

According to reports FDR knew about the ghettos and death camps as early as 1941. His response was, "I can't make this a Jew war because I will lose support in Congress and in the country if I do". Wouldn't surprise me...Owebama hasn't lifted a finger to help massacred Christians.

 

[SalAunese]

The first mass killing centers were not operational until 1942.
I'm sure FDR was aware of places such as Dachau etc. and the various ghettos along with the work of the Einsatzgruppen behind the German lines on the Eastern Front though.

 

[preshlock]

They moved the fleet to Pearl Harbor because of the Japanese threat to the Pacific. What they weren't expecting was a Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor itself, but the Philippines or elsewhere in the Pacific. Hence, that is why that attack was so successful. A lot of revisionist history in this thread but that's not surprising since all these minor historians tend not to look at history with a 1940's perspective which is a common mistake.

Unfortunately, the decision to move the HQ of the Pacific Fleet was made just days prior to the German invasion of the Low Countries and northern France. With Holland and France non-factors. The British tied down defending the home islands and fighting in the Mediterranean the main Japanese focus could be shifted against the Pacific Fleet at Pearl with much less risk.

Moreover our Asiatic Squadron in the Philippines was comparatively small as was the British Force Z out of Singapore. Even reduced IJN forces operating in that area still had significant naval and air-superiority.

Having the Pacific Fleet in an exposed position, rather weak forces with Force Z and the Asiatic Fleet, and severely underestimating the capabilities of the Imperial Navy went a long way towards the success of the Japanese carrier strike.

 

[Lone Clone]

According to reports FDR knew about the ghettos and death camps as early as 1941. His response was, "I can't make this a Jew war because I will lose support in Congress and in the country if I do". Wouldn't surprise me...Owebama hasn't lifted a finger to help massacred Christians.

That's one of the explanations, although when the concentration camps opened, they were equal opportunity hell holes, not confined to Jews. It's been a long time since I visited Dachau, but I think I recall reading there that Jews were a minority of prisoners well into the war. Lots of homosexuals and political dissidents.

Another factor is that the stories of German atrocities that circulated during and after WW1 turned out to be false, so people -- including FDR for a time -- were highly skeptical of what they were hearing.

There's a famous (infamous) story about the ship St. Louis, filled with German Jews, that was turned away from America and sent back to Germany. That was because of strict enforcement of immigration laws.

I just ran across a book that looks interesting, if perhaps not entirely objective. I haven't read it. I've never even heard of it before. But it looks like it's worth reading if you're interested in this.

http://savingthejews.com/

 

[TexMichFan]

The amount of government over-site and regulation of business and private lives today would even make FDR take pause of where our government is.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

The first mass killing centers were not operational until 1942.
I'm sure FDR was aware of places such as Dachau etc. and the various ghettos along with the work of the Einsatzgruppen behind the German lines on the Eastern Front though.

Operation Reinhardt opened in 1942...that was Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor etc. The gas vans were in operation at Chelmno in 1941 as were the Eisnsatzgruppen in eastern Poland and Soviet Russia. Actually Auschwitz was opened in 1941. The first gassings took place in the fall of 1941 and Russian POWs were gassed on Christmas Day 1941.

 

[strummingram]

Codflyer's last post deserves another bump:

"
Plutocrats, by definition, only become so through using the government to further their interests. This is what there is too much of. And it is enabled by the continued fallacy being peddled that corporations are the ones running amok. Corporations and private interests, regardless of size, are at the mercy of the market, unless they are able to embed themselves with government interests, which then allows them to skirt laws or place themselves above it. John Rockefeller, with Standard Oil at it's zenith, attempted with some other businessmen to form a private cartel...it failed miserably. Even with all his wealth and market share, he could not separate price from value and force the market to do what he wanted it to. Today, he just would have had to fund a few strategic campaigns to get regulation, tax code, ordinances, etc passed to accomplish the same goal and more. Progressives fear the Koch brothers like conservatives go crazy about George Soros...but what are both afraid of? Of them making really savvy investments and business decisions? No, in both cases the fear is that they have unequal access to government and will use that access to the detriment of individuals and the country as a whole. But, the focus goes to their wealth, when it SHOULD be going to what it is that we are afraid of them buying, and why we continue to allow it to be for sale.

Bottom line, corporations and individuals are going to use their wealth and influence to the greatest extent possible to enhance their positions. If their only real outlet is to develop a better product or service, then even if they continue to enrich themselves immensely, we all win. When they can buy politicians, bureaucrats, and regulators and throw up roadblocks to innovation, barriers to entry to the market, and create huge economic windfalls for themselves by rigging the system...they will do that too. The solution remains: Reduce the power that the government has to sell, and the resources that they have to mismanage and abuse. The notion that we just need to get the "right people" in there to manage the whole thing has been around forever, and is as misguided today as it has always been.

So, while concentrations of power can be bad in both the private and public arenas, concentrated government power is a thousand times more dangerous than that of private players, because it is a self perpetuating machine that is itself the most potent tool for private interests to hijack to their own purposes. And it happens every...single...time."

I'd love to hear the pro-Gov people refute his post above.

 

[TennesseeWaltz1]

"While Six Million Died"...excellent book detailing the West's knowledge of the Final Solution. These Jewish scholars were almost fanatical about detailing the extermination of their people.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Codflyer's last post deserves another bump:

"
Plutocrats, by definition, only become so through using the government to further their interests. ..."
I'd love to hear the pro-Gov people refute his post above.

While there are plenty of instances of plutocrats twisting government to their purposes - including in our country today - to say plutocrats ONLY become so through using government is so obviously false as to need no refutation. What constrains wealth and power in the absence of the rule of law?

You don't have to be pro-government to recognize this.