Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- Are JPMorgan's Losses a Canary in a Coal Mine?
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Great Task
For his Labor Day speech in Wisconsin, John Nichols suggests President Obama take a page from Franklin Roosevelt, who 76 years ago declared unequivocably - something Obama has difficulty with - what side he was on. To a people struggling with the Great Depression, FDR blasted "the old law of the tooth and the claw" - that is, "private means of exploitation" gained at the expense of the many who have "waged a long and bitter fight for (their) rights."
Roosevelt did this with a history lesson, of a sort, in which he traced back to the founding of the republic in to recount the long fight "against those forces which disregard human cooperation and human rights in seeking that kind of individual profit which is gained at the expense of his fellows."
The primary barrier to action, the president explained, was erected by those who still entertained the fantasy who argued that FDR could restore confidence only by "(telling) tell the people of the United States that all supervision by all forms of Government, Federal and State, over all forms of human activity called business should be forthwith abolished."
Unlike Obama, however, Roosevelt refused to even entertain - let alone embrace - the absurd constructs of the private-sector fabulists who "would repeal all laws, State or national, which regulate business-that a utility could henceforth charge any rate, unreasonable or otherwise; that the railroads could go back to rebates and other secret agreements; that the processors of food stuffs could disregard all rules of health and of good faith; that the unregulated wild-cat banking of a century ago could be restored; that fraudulent securities and watered stock could be palmed off on the public; that stock manipulation which caused panics and enriched insiders could go unchecked."
"In fact," the president continued, "if we were to listen to (the anti-government crowd), the old law of the tooth and the claw would reign in our Nation once more."
"The people of the United States will not restore that ancient order," thundered Roosevelt. "There is no lack of confidence on the part of those business men, farmers and workers who clearly read the signs of the times. Sound economic improvement comes from the improved conditions of the whole population and not a small fraction thereof."
45 Comments so far
Show AllIt's an insult to FDR to even mention his name in the same article with someone as worthless as Obama.
I agree that Obama should not even be in the same sentence with FDR. I was young when FDR passed but I remember my mother saying how the people where walking down the street crying because of his loss. If Oboma wants to do the right thing he should tell the right to go to hell and fight for the people, but he won't, so sad.
Excellent!! Please take a moment to email that sentence to Nichols.
" What something Obama has difficulty with... what side he is on". Please Mr. Nichols, I know you are a smart guy, but it sounds to me like you are still buying the Obama con. Obama has absolutely no difficulty knowing which side he is on! Like I have said before, this Obama guy is good...I mean real good and that is why I have called him the consummate con man and did not vote for him as I saw his game but unfortunately, people as smart as Nichols still seem to be buying into it.
If you think Obama can't change then who do you think is going to take his place?
Well, since the democratic party is certain to renominate him, a republican will take his place in 2012. Who that is doesn't matter. The trajectory the nation is on will not change.
That maybe so about the trajectory but everyone seems to think there is someone that could or would do better and I wanted to know who they thought that would be. I could not think of anyone.
Nader
Ok thanks and also that posted below. I don't have a lot of ocnfidence in the election process, I didn't believe Obama and didn't vote for him. I see there is a lot of disappointment and resentment surrounding Obama but I also think he has insurmountable issues for a first term president, even the most gifted person would have trouble because Bush dismantled so much and left a hugh mess.
'...he has insurmountable issues for a first term president....'
Understood. I am not one of those who expected Obama to magically solve all of our profound problems...but I did expect him to head in the right direction. The things he DID have control over, like his appointments, have proven to be neo-liberal wet dreams. When, right out of the box, he appointed Geitner & Friends to run the economy, you simply had to wonder who side he was on.
The health care 'debate' is another example that gets Obama a pass by many liberals because of fierce republican opposition. Even though polls showed a clear majority of Americans wanted single-payer/expanded Medicare, Obama never even allowed these alternatives to be part of the discussion! He 'compromised' by turning proposals that mandated affordable and universal health care into a mandate for Americans to pay untold, unchecked sums to insurers and pharmaceuticals. Since most Americans were demanding the former (not to mention it was by far cheaper), Obama could've EASILY passed single-payer/Medicare for all. His inability to do so had nothing to do with republican opposition (though the democrats and the MSM sure wanted us to believe this) and everything to do with his loyalty to industry.
Nader, Kucinich, Feingold, Dean, Edwards--hell, even Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Wesley Clark!
You're limited, seemingly, by your tendency to buy into corporate-leftist propaganda.
Agreed. Obama thinks he is the Democrats' Ronald Reagan, but he's really the Democrats' George W. Bush. Almost anyone would be better, and by far.
I like your list, but Edwards may have disqualified himself due to his shameful treatment of his wife as she battled cancer. I usually say that private lives don't matter, but he crossed a line.
I too was repulsed by Edwards' behavior, but he made my list because of his persistent theme of the 'two Americas,' more true today than ever.
Also, Edwards was self-made (fighting class-action cases, I believe) and didn't seem to be interested in making the Faustian deal Obama clearly did.
Ben Nelson. For after Obama is burned down in 2012, the Democrat/DLC Mafia will move even further right. You'll need an automobile odometer to measure the distance.
Oh yes Nebraska, the state that gave us Dick Cheney and kool aid. I think that automobile will run of gas before Nelson sees the White House doors.
There is greater discontent with Obama from the Left than the Right. (And, some issues cross ideological lines. Both the Left and Right hate government-mandated private health insurance, both the Left and Right like Social Security, etc.)
After the Obama debacle the Dems will either move towards FDR or cease being a major party.
That's a fine suggestion, but I rather imagine Nichols knows better than to dream such a scenario.
The difference between Bush and Obama is Obama succeeds by NOT telling the people what side he's on.
Obama is clearly on Obama's side.
Best analysis yet.
What we will hear from Obama will not echo FDR's New Deal rhetoric. It will be as it has always been, a reaffirmation of Hoover's political acumen:
"Prosperity is just around the corner. I promise."
And we'll get the same results. Continued tragedy, injustice and despair. Only this time, there will be no war to drag us out of the hole capitalism digs for the working class. Indeed, it is the war, the WARS, that exacerbate our pathetic condition.
The writing was on the wall in the first days of this SOB's presidency when he ran an ad where he said that "America wasn't built in it's boardrooms alone" or something to that effect. This was sickening corporatist drivel as nothing was ever built, invented or dreamed in a G#@damned boardroom. I hate to be one of those people who "looks for a leader", but I would that we had an FDR now...
Sadly, I think it's far too late, and none of that "we need to do more" crap holds water at a time when any group who organizes more than 30 people seems to contain at least one agent provocateur and the largest and most organized group seems to be the anarchists who consist of a bunch of uniformed (get the irony) military age males who only ever come out long enough to disrupt (lefty) protests and give the police an excuse to crack down. Freakin' Mondays...
the writing was one the wall days after the election when he started naming people like rahm and rubin and summers to his staff and then kicked howard dean to the curb.....
The writing was on the wall when he became a U.S. Senator (2005) and started voting with the Republicans on all the major issues.
Why in the world is John Nichols receiving so much space on CD today?
I quit reading The Nation magazine more than 3 years ago.
To fulfill any of the policies put in place by FDR, Michelle Obama would also have to completely transform herself. She is NO Eleanor.
Good question, Kay.
It's like the CD restaurant freezer broke down, and they're desperately putting out a bunch of John Nichols dishes as today's "specials" to use up their defrosting stock before it goes bad(der).
I hope the health inspectors don't spot-check, because the irony is that it's all well past the sell-by date anyway. ;)
Those are not capers Nichols is serving with his Labor Day Lunch. Those are rat turds.
One of those rare movies where the remake was better than the original !
I also agree.
Why does CD give more space to the secular clergy, careful to fashion its criticisms to conform to the boundaries set by the ruling elite, and force readers to go searching for true progressive commentary from those unafraid to speak the truth.
Like Noam Chomsky, who used to be a regular on this site.
China and The New World Order. Part1 of 2. By Noam Chomsky
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6390/china_and_the_new_world_order/
Absolutely correct Kay! The Nation is just a shill for the Democrats who are for the most part just a fake opposition party. Too bad the true progressives could not usurp and revolutionize the democratic party and make it live up to its name.
This is like asking a fish to fly.
"the old law of the tooth and the claw" – "private means of exploitation" by a few at the expense of the many who wage "a long and bitter fight for (their) rights.”
Obama would not speak these words even if it kept him from going to hell.
If the size of government gets just a little bit bigger, c'mon now, just a little bit bigger, all of our problems will be solved and FDR's quote of "For the first time in the history of man's march will the outcome be guaranteed equivellent for all."
Actually, to save the nation, the government must shrink--the whole of the National Security State MUST vanish, be flushed down the toilet. That is The Great Task. Immediate savings, or monies that could be used to prepare the nation for the very challenging future that's on its shores, would be about $1.3 Trillion; and over a decade would total over $15 Trillion since there will be no escalation of the current War OF Terror. AND the "alternative"/hidden government existing in corporate board rooms would also be shrunk, which would also generate a boon for commonfolks.
If the size of the government that takes care of it's people grows larger and the part that takes care of big business and the wealthy is "shrunk down to a size where it could be drowned in a bathtub", this could possibly work!
FDR was a principled and courageous man, Obama's a bacteria. These two names should never be placed in the same sentence.
Will you be happy with an Obama successor: Palin or Gingrich or Beck?? Obama is not a free agent who can do as he pleases. Corporate money controls the political system with the help of the Supreme Court. Maybe he is the best we can get who is ELECTABLE.
You are using way to much common sense for common dreams.
But just so you know, I agree with you 100%. But still it seems, we only deal in extremes here.
I try to remind people here on CD. That even if we were able to get someone "Progressive" elected. What exactly do you think that person, man or woman, is going to get accomplished? Do you all really think, that some how, by electing a person who is "Good". That magically 535 people are going to suddenly wake up and have an enlightened moment? They are going to suddenly start passing laws that are good for the people? No!
Nothing and I mean nothing, that is good for the people would make it through congress.
It is just silly. To think that Obama, or Bush, or Regan, or anyone else that is President. Has some magic wand. The Government is huge! This is why we have no progress. Way to many small short term thinkers on both sides of the debate
"...even if we were able to get someone "Progressive" elected. What exactly do you think that person, man or woman, is going to get accomplished?"
Bill Clinton transformed the Reagan/Bush deficits into surpluses. He decreased the unemployment rate each year, reaching a low of 3.8% the year before he left office. He closed military bases and slashed military spending. He raised income taxes on the richest Americans. And all of this in the face of the most virulent opposition, including from some in his own party. And, all while fighting off numerous smear campaigns, witch hunts and an impeachment proceeding.
What can be accomplished? How about eight years of peace and prosperity—and, Clinton wasn't even a "progressive."
The President is the most powerful of all politicians. He nominates Supreme Court justices, and when his party controls Congress those nominations are confirmed.
And, he sets the agenda in all things. For example, Obama took single-payer health insurance off the table when he first addressed Congress on the issue at the beginning of the entire process. Single-payer works well in dozens of countries around the world, but Obama told Congress he has "friends and neighbors" in the insurance business, and he didn't want to hurt their business.
Not only is Obama not the "best we can get who is electable," he was the worst of all Dems running in 2007. He's the Democrats' George W. Bush.
Give s a name who is electable whom you prefer.
Hillary won more popular votes than Obama in 2008. She's extremely electable. In fact, she would have been elected if not for Obama's lies and other shameless manipulations on the campaign trail. Her record in the U.S. Senate was far, far better than Obama's.
As I said, all the Democratic primary candidates in 2007 were preferable to Obama. Add Russ Feingold, Howard Dean and some up-and-coming congress members. Anyone who wins the Democratic nomination is electable by definition.
If I could choose the president I would choose Nader, and frankly the only thing keeping him out is non-voters and least-worst voters.
As to "corporate money controlling the political system," candidate Obama broke the back of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform by declining to abide by it.
I can't help but laugh at all of the FDR worship that remains in the progressive camp. What's especially ridiculous is how Abby in this post tries to paint him as some sort of anti-corporate hero.
For starters, rather than swallow rhetoric whole you may want to critically assess his actual policies by reading some of the particulars surrounding the NRA. Although, to warn you, it may taint your pretty 6th grade civics class picture of FDR as a man of the people.
By the way, exactly how many people have to be conscripted into the army and how many Japanese Americans have to be rounded up into internment camps before establishment-apologizing lefties like Abby will end the hero worship of FDR? Apparently millions of conscripts and tens of thousands of racially-motivated political imprisonments isn't enough!
Thanks Mr. Free Market, for reminding us how bad the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration was. Minimum wage, 40-hour work weeks and the abolition of child labor? Horrible! Lifting the country out of the Great Depression? Terrible!
"The NRA, symbolized by the Blue Eagle (a blue-colored representation of the American thunderbird) was popular with workers. Businesses that supported the NRA put the symbol in their shop windows and on their packages. Though membership to the NRA was voluntary, businesses that did not display the eagle were very often boycotted, making it seem to many mandatory for survival."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration
How can anyone think FDR was a hero? Dog eat dog—that's the way to go.
The attack on Pearl Harbor came more than eight years after the NRA was formed, but it's nice to know that FDR was also responsible for WWII.
FDR was no saint but compared to a bacteria like Obama, he deserves indeed to be worshiped.