2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAnyone here who directly benefited from or was the child of a middle class person during the 50s-70s
and is bashing Bernie and his economic progressive platform is basically spitting on the grave of FDR, who made your middle class lifestyle possible.
FDR had the GI bill passed, which made homeownership and college available to so many Americans. Combined with the legal rights FDR gave that allowed labor unions to flourish, as well as FDR's exceptional leadership that helped America win WWII, FDR's policies and actions directly led to the great postwar boom and creation of the great American middle class because the resulting higher wages heavily stimulated the economy during that time period, leading to the creation of more and more and better paying jobs.
And FDR was an economic progressive:
Next time you bash Bernie and his economic progressivism, know that you are spitting on FDR's grave.
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)brush
(53,978 posts)Black people.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)and both were economic progressives.
brush
(53,978 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)brush
(53,978 posts)LBJ didn't. That's quite a difference.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)brush
(53,978 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)keep the argument on topic. Blacks and Native Americans and even Catholics(religions) were looked upon in different ways. Yes, the fifties were a much better time all things being equal. Frankly, there are some black authors who will argue it was better time even for blacks in that their communities were tighter. I wouldn't be the one to argue that but others do.
You can't make a serious argument if you don't stay on topic. And FDR wasn't correct his first term either. He evolved and finally did create an economic policy that gave us a great middle class.
Truman? He was the first President the business class gave us and his policies started minimally a turn around. Read up on Henry Wallace.
brush
(53,978 posts)AAs rarely do because we are most often hit with both barrels firing.
onenote
(42,885 posts)in the 60s.
Are you saying Medicare, Medicaid, the War on Poverty, Head Start didn't make things better?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)But you are right. All things economic, fifties were a better time. Justice Lewis Powell worked to change that: (from wiki)
On August 23, 1971, prior to accepting President Nixon's nomination to the Supreme Court, Powell sent the "Confidential Memorandum" titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System" to a friend at the US Chamber of Commerce.[13] It was based in part on his experiences as a corporate lawyer and as a representative for the tobacco industry with the Virginia legislature. The memo called for corporate America to become more aggressive in molding politics and law in the US and may have sparked the formation of several influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), as well as inspiring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active.[14][15] Marxist academic David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the US to this memo.[16][17]
Powell argued, "The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians." In the memorandum, Powell advocated "constant surveillance" of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements. He named consumer advocate Ralph Nader as the chief antagonist of American business.[18]
Response to brush (Reply #2)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)when it comes to those New Deal programs you speak of.
brush
(53,978 posts)We've seen it here on DU with the "Slave mentality" and "Stockholm Syndrome" posts, and going back even further, the "Used car salesman piece of shit" post, among others.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Because there was worse racial discrimination in the past, we should not do anything that will benefit people today....and we should reject all good things that were accomplished in the past.
So let's toss out restrictions on expoloitation of child labor laws, because the country was even more racist back when they were passed.
brush
(53,978 posts)expressed very recently right here on DU?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I certainly don't disagree it was wrong to make those exclusions at the time, but why use that to tar the basic progressive achievements of things like SS, which were subsequently expanded.
brush
(53,978 posts)Maybe they will included later.
Why not just acknowledge the fact that that was fucked up?
And btw LBJ didn't feel he had to do that, why not FDR?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I seriously doubt that if there were actuslly a similar progressive breakthrough today, like universal expansion of Medicare that AAs would be written out. so why bring up old dirt to marginalize current efforts at pushing for similar progress today?
brush
(53,978 posts)How do you get that out of just noting for the record, that the New Deal was not the great, flawless ideal to put on a pedestal of perfect progressivism for us to try to emulate.
This mindset that excludes blacks also happens on the right when the 50s are spoken of as the ideal of American prosperity that they want to return to a white male could work a blue collar job and support a stay-at-home wife with kids, and afford a middle class lifestyle.
The fact that blacks were still riding in the back of buses and being lynched then seems to be a blind spot when they talk of wanting their country back.
To us, that kind of talk means they not only want their country back, they want us back in the back of the bus.
Sorry for the rant but that kind of exclusionary mindset will always be a sore point with me.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Progressives of the Sanders variety care a lot about racial justice.
I get really upset that it has been inserted into the prinary as a divisive wedge.
I will acknowledge that all whites have our racisl obtusness -- but that is not likited to supporters ofvSanders. There is just as much if that among white Clinton supporters.
It's a necessary conversation -- but not in the context if a Democratic primary where bith candidates have the same basic values in that sense. It's impossible to unpack the marketing from the actual problem.
brush
(53,978 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)around 10% of the people could participate because, you know, women and slaves.
Times change, but the spirit of the ideal remains.
Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #22)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(53,978 posts)And as far as progressive bona fides, I'll paraphrase Larry Holmes "you can't carry my jock strap".
IMO Sanders is just not the one too much damaging Marxist/Trotkyite baggage. A socialist is never going to win the presidency of the United States. If you knew as much as you pretend to, you'd know that.
Just face it. He's not Warren. He can't even win the Dem nomination.
Response to brush (Reply #33)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(53,978 posts)I told you the other night that I'm not trying to be a "black intellectual" so stop trying to compete with me.
I do know though that people over 45 are the heaviest voters and socialism is an anathema to most of them, whether it's the 50s, 60s or the 2010s.
Response to brush (Reply #51)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(53,978 posts)Response to brush (Reply #57)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(53,978 posts)Response to brush (Reply #63)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
brush
(53,978 posts)Response to brush (Reply #69)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Well Said TM99.
These nine words sums up exactly what the Neoliberals objective are, has been for decades and aims to complete with the HRC at the helm.
vintx
(1,748 posts)What the fuck happened to this place
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't mean go back to when he was 25 years old.
But what part of his present agenda would you describe as Marxist and Trotskyite?
Universal health care lije most of the rest if the world has -- inckuding uber capitalist ones? Expanding public education to meet modern requirements? You object to rolling back the regressive tax structure?
brush
(53,978 posts)in their ads, if he gets the nomination?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The people who will be put off by that already think Obama is an Islamic Militant and Clinton is a commie lesbian.
brush
(53,978 posts)Not accurate though. Still funny.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Not even Hannity would go there....but it is floating around in the wingnutosphere
brush
(53,978 posts)Is anything other than straight, missionary position sex even allowed to be thought of, much less practiced?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)brush
(53,978 posts)in public mens' room stalls and all.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Using the term "Commie" is repeating 1950's era Red Baiting vernacular, and representative of a certain element of paranoia and ignorance (among other things) of the times, just as an fyi.
I never read the Communist Manifesto, but I'd be rather surprised to learn if there were edicts banning Lesbians. At least it's not something I would assume off the cuff.
If there is any such edict contained in the Manifesto, I think it would be safe to say, that it was ignored.
But then, you were just kidding right?
brush
(53,978 posts)Last edited Sat May 28, 2016, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)
My post was in response to another post that first used the term "commie lesbian" and yes, it was tongue-in-cheek and the sarcasm gif could have been used.
But if you read the posts again you should clearly see that they were in jest and not doing any red-baiting.
2banon
(7,321 posts)sometimes it's tricky for me to view connecting threads accurately..
my apologies.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Americans will never elect one of "them"
Look how far we have come!! And how much further we will go!!!
I grew up poor and hungry in the middle of a upper middle class neighborhood. Both my parents worked when few mothers worked outside the house. Our daycare provider was my sister who was one year older than me. We watched ourselves from the time we were 5! Now there are after care programs! I know I am an old enough to have ridden a dinosaur to school and from my perspective the country is getting better slowly surely - better none the less!
We will survive this election! Even if the worst happens. We are tough and love will win!
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)from FDRs years as president, unfortunately not everyone at the same time. Just imagine what life would be like now if there had been no FDR.
brush
(53,978 posts)progressivism because they excluded AAs. Eventually getting the benefits years later . . . not ideal.
I'm speaking from an African American perspective so I hope you get where I'm coming from.
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)but without those programs of FDR? Then Johnson? Without the two of them where would we be today? This backward country would be far more backward than it is.
brush
(53,978 posts)What still disturbs me is that LBJ was willing to defy the dixiecrats to get the civil rights legislation and Great Society programs passed but FDR, who I admire nonetheless, would not stand up against the dixiecrats.
I know the times were different but stiil, yet FDR stood up against the rich industrialists who tried to stage a coup against him with their American Liberty League. He threaten to expose their sedition and/or treason if they opposed his New Deal legislation.
The dichotomy of his handling of these situations is puzzling.
FlaGranny
(8,361 posts)to both of them but I believe their social accomplishments stand on their own. It is always the case that imperfect people can accomplish great things.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)if you have the dough.
Response to Baobab (Reply #160)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
PufPuf23
(8,859 posts)New Deal.
Why would you think that bit of history has any bearing to now?
The USA is a more egalitarian society regards to civil rights comparing 2016 to the 1930s-40s but there are obviously still favored social demographics. and much room for progress.
The USA is less egalitarian in 2016 than the 1930s-40s regards economic justice in general because of wealth and income being sucked into the top quartile with even greater concentration at the very top. The former predominantly American white working and middle classes of the 1950s and 60s has not shared relative gains but rather dropped in proportion and relative affluence while minorities and women have moved towards parity to the American white working and middle classes in education, opportunity, and pay.
Any legislation and program championed by Sanders or a social democrat in general will be inclusive and egalitarian.
Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #38)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--in the first place. Even back then they couldn't have gotten by with naming black people as ineligible directly, so the used the indirect method of excluding farm and domestic labor.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Unless you would like to back up your insinuation that his plans exclude black people? Or anyone else for that matter?
We're all ears. Well. Eyes I suppose.
brush
(53,978 posts)and/or the other responses.
It clearly says that noting many New Deal programs excluded AAs was for the record. There was no insinuation of anything relating to today to back up, so stop trying to stir up sh_t.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm completely aware of the game you're playing, 'cause you've been playing it since you joined DU. Don't try to back out just 'cause you get called on your garbage.
brush
(53,978 posts)Now what garbage are you supposedly calling me on.
peggysue2
(10,854 posts)Is no FDR. Who btw, was not a socialist but a capitalist who saved capitalism from itself. FDR was considered a traitor to his class (as in upper class) for his efforts.
Pul-e-e-se, stop making stupid comparisons. Bernie Sanders may be many things. But he is no FDR. Read your damn history.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)I don't think any expert believes that Bernie is truly a socialist. Bernie doesn't go around emphasizing "socialism", that's something that the media wanted to label him early on and he just refused to deny.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)He has personally identified as a socialist for a long, long time. If you want to blame someone for the label, you should probably start with the guy who first applied it.
The funny thing is that you're right - he's not a socialist, certainly not in the European sense. On the European scale, he's a centrist and a militarist.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)Here, let him tell you:
"Do they think Im afraid of the word? Im not afraid of the word," he said in an interview with The Nation published in July. "When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertising very ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didnt use the word socialist at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/aug/26/bernie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/
He's been identifying as a socialist for decades. I'm honestly amazed at how few of you seem to have a clue that's the case. Are you certain that you're really a Sanders supporter?
Everybody in Vermont knew. Everybody who knew anything about him prior to his announcement for president knew. I've been following Bernie Sanders - and supporting him, frankly - for decades. It's literally the first thing anyone ever learned about the guy.
After supporting him for months or, perhaps, a year or more, you still had no idea?
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)And they will claim that Bernie is no socialist. Maybe Bernie was trying to be edgy, maybe Bernie has changed a bit. But his core economic message hasn't, which is pretty similar to social democracy and FDR and Theodore Roosevelt's messages during the time.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)He's been calling himself one for decades.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)He just doesn't really practice it.
A Christian/Jesus reference was an interesting choice in a thread about Sanders, btw.
Irony, perhaps, isn't dead after all.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)would be in line with Moderate Republicans of the 80s.
TwilightZone
(25,525 posts)And there are plenty of "Democrats" and "Progressives" here that think Fox News, Breitbart, the Blaze, etc., are legitimate sources.
I'd take the moderate Republicans of the 80s over that, frankly.
Besides, anyone can be a Democrat. Even a democratic socialist who says he's a socialist. Or something.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)as this MTV documentary made in 1989 shows...
ms liberty
(8,633 posts)Are you really trying to tell us the 80's were awesome, and using an MTV documentary as a reference? Some of us were not just alive, but adults through the 80's, so you might want to rethink that. The 80's began with a horror - the murder of John Lennon - and it was kinda downhill from there. Not a steep down grade, but a slow, inexorable decline.
Please tell me you just forgot the sarcasm smilie!
Hydra
(14,459 posts)By being the guy out there not afraid of the label. He's making it possible for actual Socialists to move in again where we belong.
He rocks on so many levels- a Civil Rights advocate, an advocate for the poor and against war, freedom of speech, freedom of ideas...he's tearing down the wall that has been built for decades which claims: "We cannot move forward- we can't afford it!"
brush
(53,978 posts)Before that he was a self-avowed scocialist
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)brush
(53,978 posts)Before he joined the race Sanders was featured on there regularly and I've heard him call himself a socialist many times.
You thing people are making that up?
No.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I'd say he kept it simple because he knows we truly are a nation of dumbasses regarding politics and world events.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)he created a mixed economy which is exactly what Democratic Socialism is. What you see in EU today came directly from the Marshall Plan and is now called Democratic Socialism. I not only read this history I lived it.
The issues Bernie speaks about are exactly the issues that FDR was working on. With the exception of Climate Change.
My first historical memory was setting with my mother listening to the radio telling us about FDR's funeral.
For many of us older citizens Bernie is a FDR Democrat something the Hillary cannot even begin to pretend to be.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Norman Thomas was the Socialist Party candidate for President several times.
I was told by my dad that Roosevelt and Hoover had basically identical platforms. After FDR got elected, he took Norman Thomas' platform and used it for the New Deal. Even Thom Hartmann and Jim Hightower had a discussion the other night about Bernie being a New Deal Democrat who would have been mainstream in the 1900s and 1920s, and they never mentioned Norman Thomas.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)It did not take him long to find some very practical ideas that would actually help the people.
I think it is very hard to keyhole FDR or even HST. They were two practical men who were not worried about ideology or what people called them. It is why so many of us love them to this day. And I am not saying that they were perfect I am saying they cared.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)At least you're putting it right out there; I applaud that.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)And no, I'm not white and I didn't benefit directly from FDR. Please, what has Hillary done for black people that outweighs things like the race baiting that the Clintons did during the 90s?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I will say she isn't dog-whistling about the 1950s economy, at least.
uponit7771
(90,378 posts)... give a dam
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)FDR's programs weren't perfect. Does AZ have to put in that qualifier every time FDR'S programs are praised? Especially in light of AZ being a POC?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)of, again, why this campaign is doing much better with white voters than with nonwhite voters, in general.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I just mean, if I were trying to pitch a campaign to black voters in general, "We want to restore the economy of the 1950s" is not the line I would want to use.
uponit7771
(90,378 posts)... I mean, some folk need a black friend... one they can REALLY talk to about these issues not just someone on a message forum
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Which banned racial discrimination in any defense contractor receiving federal contracts, which was a big deal during WWII...
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)Yeah, I remember my first beer too, kid.
But before you Saint him remember that he put thousands of AMERICANS into cages all because of the way their eyes were shaped.
The New Deal doesn't earn him a pass on internment camps.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)of the racist Dixiecrats so he could pass his New Deal. And he nominated an ex-KKK member to the Supreme Court.
But yeah, let's get all morose and nostalgic over the greatness of the man and moan about how REAL Democrats should ALL want to travel back to that time
He was a great man, but no way in HELL I would go back to that.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)I had forgotten about the lynching stuff myself.
brush
(53,978 posts)he was willing to defy the dixiecrats to get the civil rights and Great Society legislation passed.
Greater than FDR?
It's something to ponder as LBJ didn't throw AAs under the bus, or Japanese Americans into internment camps.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)but he was on the wrong side of history with the Vietnam War. FDR was also a hawk, but nobody questions the rightness of WW2, so he gets a pass on that. I believe that the conflict with Germany was unavoidable, and we should have gone there earlier, like FDR wanted. But the Japanese conflict might have been avoided with better oversight the diplomatic program. Can you IMAGINE how many people would be alive today if we had managed to stay out of the fight with Japan? And how much shorter the war would have been?
Some of LBJs phone calls with MLK were recorded and are in the public domain. Those are FASCINATING to listen to. LBJ was so driven by his ego, you can hear it in his tone. Voting Rights was, to him, a monument to his magnificent political skills as much as a moral choice. He saw the writing on the wall, did the political math and decided that he was going to get it passed. And he did. Amazing man.
brush
(53,978 posts)but the civil rights bills and social programs were so significant he is still up there in the upper echelon of presidents, IMO.
Have you read any volume of Robert Caro's biographies on him?
Fascinating page turners all.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)I learned much about that time from the three volume set bt Taylor Branch called America in the King Years. It focused on King, but was wide-ranging. Much about LBJ, Malcolm X, the Kennedys, lesser known civil rights heroes, and political operatives.
But LBJ is so fascinating that I should invest some time in reading something that just focuses on him. Off topic, but I have also decided that I need to bite the bullet and read a Reagan biography, just to fight the confirmation bias. I read and read about King, FDR and other liberal icons, and ignore the conservatives. Probably leads to a warped understanding of what really went on.
Also need to get up on the Revolution. And the Gullah War. So much to read, so little time......
brush
(53,978 posts)And the Gullah wars, I definitely will be researching more of that material.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)You really think that blacks and hispanics are not suffering economically these days? Or is it that you want white people to suffer economically as well?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Populist politicians have always preached universal progressivism and then gotten burned by their white supporters when they start extending those benefits to people of color. Hell, the 1990s were a better decade for black workers than the 1970s, by far, and white people can't shut up about how "bad" the 1990s were now.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)I don't want to worry about eating the roundup carcinogen in my food because Monsanto has a monopoly on corn (which is used to feed cows, pigs, and chicken that ends up on my plate.)
I don't want to worry about being able to pay for a drug because a big pharma corporation decided to price a drug at several hundred dollars a bottle, especially a generic that used to cost a dollar or less a pill (and they bought out the only other companies that were making that generic drug.)
I don't want to worry about the air I breathe because the oil industry helped a trade deal to be passed that gave it the power to sue my state government and remove its environmental laws because they were threatening the profits of the oil industry.
and on, and on, and on...
eridani
(51,907 posts)uponit7771
(90,378 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Or was the problem attachment of the Violence Against Women Act to an omnibus crime bill?
uponit7771
(90,378 posts)... blacks
eridani
(51,907 posts)Had Sanders voted against VAWA because it was attached to the crime omnibus, then you's just call him a sexist.
uponit7771
(90,378 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--crimes, but "crime in the streets" has been code for "black" ever since Nixon. Clinton knows it very well, and she has apologized to Black Lives Matter about it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/25/clinton-heckled-by-black-lives-matter-activist/
Ashley Williams, a 23-year-old activist from Charlotte, interrupted Clinton during a private fundraiser in Charleston on Wednesday night. Williams stood and demanded an apology from Clinton for the high incarceration rate for black Americans, and confronted her with the words of a speech Clinton delivered 20 years ago voicing support for the now-debunked theory of "super-predators."
"They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators,' " Clinton said in 1996, at the height of anxiety during her husband's administration about high rates of crime and violence. "No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)New Deal. Black people at the time supported him DESPITE these awful compromises.
The problem is when historically illiterate Berniestans bash Hillary for making much milder compromises.
In fact, Hillary is much, much closer to FDR than Bernie is - chew on that.
DookDook
(166 posts)behind me.
I always thought we were supposed to be trying to make the world better for the generation that comes after us.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)the beneficiaries of FDR Democrats are 70-something "New Democrat" retirees making nice with fiscally conservative pols.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)tirebiter
(2,539 posts)That's part of his legacy ending the Depression.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)When we talk about free trade, we are talking about attacking the working class by removing their jobs and ability to bargain for livable wages. Someone should be able to make money and have a decent lifestyle even if they aren't able to get a bachelors or masters degree.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Basically everything gained in the 20th century was the initiative of the will power of democratic presidents.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The TRUE Democrats, IMO.
brush
(53,978 posts)their 1% clients and the economy goes all to hell. It's almost like clock work W Bush (great recession), Papa Bush (it's the economy, stupid), Reagan (Michael Milken and the disastrous stock market crash in the 80s, catchup listed as a vegetable), Ford (not in long enough to fuck up too much), Nixon (early 70s recession), Eisenhower (Ike even presided over a recession in the late 50s following the halcyon days earlier in the decade that all the repugs keep wanting to take the country back to), Hoover (do I even need to say anything).
It's a historic pattern, the repugs get in and screw everything up except for the rich, then the Dems get in and clean up their mess.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,798 posts)Not interested in Bernie's class war. Thanks anyway.
By the way, I've been to FDR's gravesite and not once did I spit.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)We lived in a mobile home, often didn't have enough money to pay the electric bill, and slept in the living room because the only heat we had was a natural gas heater in the living room. Don't give me we worked hard to get where we are crap. My father worked harder than any other person I have ever met in my life. The Democratic party used to be the party that had compassion for poor people, and who stood up for working class people. Nice to know the Democratic party no longer gives a shit about poor people or working class people.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,798 posts)On the other hand, my maternal grandfather had anger management issues, a gambling issue, and didn't hold down the same job for more than 5 years at a time. It's a miracle my mom got out of that without being completely screwed up.
My point is my dad doesn't owe FDR a living. Your mileage may vary.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)for it. Sounds like Republican talking points to me.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Algernon Moncrieff
(5,798 posts)OP said middle class kids in the 70s are spitting on FDRs grave if they don't support Sanders. FDR was a great President, but not responsible for me being a middle class kid.
kcr
(15,331 posts)Please, forgive us.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,798 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Because during the time frame which is referenced here and during the era of Ike, you had a 1 worker household.
And before you even go there with "women were expected to stay home" crap, it's more of the fact that it could actually BE DONE because people were paid living wages. You could work at the local ACE hardware store and support a damn family. Try doing that today. Try working at Walmart and doing it. You can't.
This is what Bernie is fighting for. US.
Wages in this country have been stagnant for decades & because of that, people have been pushed to the brink. It's sad.....
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)He expanded Social Security and created Medicare plus a host of other programs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)never fast food, watched cost of groceries. Minimal amount of things. Lucky to get out of town on vacation 3 or 4 times during the 18 yrs.
We have it better now, factually and anecdotal.
doc03
(35,459 posts)in those days would be poverty today. Until I was in the 6th grade we lived in an old shack with coal heat. I remember when I was very young we didn't even have a water heater my mom would add hot water from the stove to our bath to warm the water. There was no air conditioning. Our car was loaded meaning we had an AM radio and a heater. I remember listening to Gunsmoke, Jack Benny and other shows on the radio. In the middle 50s we got a black and white TV, one local station came in fairly good and we could get a couple more from Pittsburgh that looked like there was a snow storm. In 1960 we moved into a new house, there was five in the family and
the house had 3 bedrooms one bath with a total of 1200 square feet. Now 2016 families are smaller on average but homes are well over 2000 square on average. They have whole house heating and cooling systems, every bedroom has its own bath. To be middle class today you can't drive a car with an AM radio and a heater. Now you have an SUV with, power steering, cruise, air, heated seats, heated steering wheel, rear camera, and bumper hitch to pull your boat and your RV. Then of course if you are middle class the man of the family much of the time has to have a $30000 Harley in the garage. So comparing the middle class of today to the 50s and 60s is like apples and oranges.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)postatomic
(1,771 posts)So we can bring him back and have him look Bernie in the eyes; "Dude (yea, FDR said 'dude' quite often), stop throwing around my good name to promote your silly agenda." We'll then take him for Ice Cream and put him back in the grave. Said grave that YOU are spitting on every time you draw this bizarre comparison.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)You don't know anything about FDR then. Or are you going to argue that FDR was just pretending to be an economic progressive?
postatomic
(1,771 posts)And yes, I truly believe that if we could construct a Time/Space Machine FDR would tell Bernie he should shut the fuck up.
FDR was a Democrat. He was concerned about holding this country together. Nothing more. Nothing less.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)First, FDR and Clinton both won their big elections. But also the ego, creativity, endless policy tinkering and the willingness to compromise on some values when he felt it served the greater good.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)Kudos!!!
eridani
(51,907 posts)TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)Huh, who knew.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)His long term affairs are well documented. Press didn't cover that stuff back then, so who knows what he did.
Since when are liberals so uptight about grown-up, consensual sexual acts?
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Well then Bernie is even better than FDR...
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)History doesn't judge the purity of your ideas. It judges what you actually accomplish.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)but perhaps you're hoping the latter will yet deliver a similar list of accomplishments... any day now.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Why do some Bernie supporters feel the need to build bullshit strawmen, light them on fire ... and then dance round in circles?
Here's a thought ... If Bernie was actually FDR ... he'd be winning.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Read it right here on DU.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Like Jamaica!
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)The misunderstanding of socialism is off the charts.
On a different site I saw someone blaming the problems of Brazil and Venezuala on socialism. Actually it is corruption and totalitarianism.
Democratic socialism is the answer but enough people here are either dumb or easily swayed by lies and distortion.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)should spit on FDR's grave either since he created and enriched them.
Japanese-Americans who were illegally thrown into concentration camps by FDR's order may fell differently.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)It is a huge black mark against FDR, his rounding them up to put in a camp. It didn't happen to German Americans or Italian Americans.....wonder what the difference was?
It just seems unbelievable now, that FDR did it and that the citizens seemed mostly fine with it.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)And why are you still supporting the Clintons? Because they were Iraqi, not Americans?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)I voted for Bernie in the NY primary.
Time for change
(13,718 posts)If FDR was running today, Hillary would be complaining about how "unrealistic" his ideas are.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)FDR's programs led to the elevation of unions in this country. All the public works programs as well as TVA were all maned by union labor. Unions were the first to hold all races and gender, equally.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)FDR went far past amendments to actually make progress.
Talking and doing are two very different things.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have/would have the same grievance with FDR's Work.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)He was in many, many ways an incrementalist. The reason he got so much done was because the Republic was at stake and he had a blank check to try things. But he didn't have a blank (i actually said "black" check before editing) check to fight entrenched racism head on for most of his term. When you look at what he managed to do (especially after WWII broke out) it's groundbreaking for the time.
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/african-americans-and-new-deal-look-back-history/
Here's a good overview of it.
POC want to be listened to and taken seriously; Bernie didn't do that, and didn't listen when POC told him he wasn't doing that.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)I almost feel bad for camp weathervane. Every news cycle from now till the convention will be the cause for much anxiety.
KPN
(15,684 posts)Unfortunately, most Bernie detractors here have been rationalizing their own past and good fortune away, assigning them to a myriad of other factors, and will continue to do so. But great and ballsy post.
Triana
(22,666 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)I feel sorry for what young people are going through today. It's not fair. It's not the America I grew up in. We need to get it back.
Vote for Bernie.
ms liberty
(8,633 posts)I've seen from reading this thread a lot of alleged democrats criticizing him, with some justification, but my stars, even with those failings he was still the greatest President of the 20th century. Without his programs and policies, there would have been no expansion of rights after him, and there might have been no US of A.
FDR'S policies brought power and telephone service to homes like those in my rural corner of the south, and gave jobs to people like my uncle, who cleared right of way for the REA to run those power lines, and my cousins who worked for the REA and raised their children on their earnings, and who then grew up and went to work for the REA and raised their children. The same policies allowed my father to help bring telephone service all over the southeast. The for profit companies didn't care to expand to us back then, because they didn't see a profit in it outside the wealth of the cities and urban areas. That's just one tiny personal story - I could talk about the CCC, and my great uncles and the countless men who were in it, and gave us treasures like the Blue Ridge Parkway, an hour NW of where I live. Men who were then strong and healthy when it came time to fight WW2.
Thanks for the thread, AZ Progressive. As I said above, he was far from perfect, but he was a great man. We need a 21st century FDR.