What A New Deal-Era Movie Could Teach President Obama
Could a film from 1935 provide President Obama with a pointer or two about mobilizing support for an ambitious agenda? And could the can-do spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt's epoch inspire the Obama administration to remember that the New Deal was qualitatively different--and a lot more popular--than what today's Democratic hierarchs seem to be advocating?
No doubt President Obama believes that his economic recovery plans are modeled after those of the 32nd President seven decades ago--and yet the differences are greater than the similarities. Today, the 44th president is on the defensive as he struggles to promote a costly agenda that even many Congressional Democrats are rejecting.
One explanation for Obama's difficulty is the lack of specificity--specifics as to what Americans might get in return for all the money they are being asked to spend and borrow. Spending lots of money makes sense if you get lots in return.
Specificity was one of the great strengths of the New Deal: The programs were tangible. The Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Rural Electrification Administration, and Tennessee Valley Authority were all controversial--critics labeled them costly boondoggles--but they were specific. And tangible. People could see them, and see their benefits. And so when President Franklin D. Roosevelt dedicated Boulder Dam (later renamed Hoover Dam) on the Arizona-Nevada border, that was real proof that the government was doing things with obvious economic and social value.
By contrast, Obama seems unable to climb down from abstractions such as "stimulus," "liquidity injections," and "toxic assets." Yes, today's Democrats have learned to refer to all spending as "investment," but the most positive specifics in the Obama agenda ("smart grid," "green energy") have been lost in the swirling soup of rising spending. Folks can see the the expenditures (including the government-funded bonuses granted to AIG executives), but they don't really see the benefits.
Back in the 1930s, the popular culture bubbled with tales of builders and developers, many of them straddling the line between the public and private sectors. A 1935 movie, The Tunnel, starring the now-forgotten actors Richard Dix and Madge Evans, featuring cameos by Walter Huston and George Arliss, is an illustrative case in point.
In the film, set in the not-too-distant future, Dix plays the visionary inventor-engineer Richard "Mack" McAllan, who has developed "Allanite Steel" and a "radium drill" that will enable him to dig a tunnel beneath the Atlantic Ocean, connecting America to Europe. McAllan's purpose in pursuing this undersea project, as the film makes clear, is one part technological bravura, one part promotion of trans-Atlantic harmony--and, as a distant third part, turning a profit for the tunnel-financiers.
In this YouTube excerpt from the film, Mrs. McAllan encourages her husband--who has already built tunnels under the English Channel and in the Caribbean--to press ahead with the mammoth project, despite skeptics and cynics.
Mrs. McAllan: The world needs the tunnel.
Mr. McAllan: You make it sound like something heroic.
Mrs. McAllan: Well, isn't it? You've always been like that--doing great things, making the world better and safer, and believing all the time that you're doing them just to please yourself.
But there's an irony here: McAllan is indeed trying to make the world better and safer. And that's the essence of the film--that there is something inherently heroic about building things, and such construction can serve great and noble purposes. And if the makers of the popular culture--and the leaders of the political culture--have forgotten that fact of human nature, well, they are the worse for it.
In The Tunnel, after many dramatic twists and turns--multiple deaths during the course of construction, family strife, perfidy from evil capitalists--the grand project is successful, and a better world beckons. Thus McAllan emerges as a model technocrat for his time: He is entrepreneurial, but not greedy; he is energetic, far-seeing, determined to seek change, but still modest and down-to-earth.
Now, fast-forwarding to today: Where is that can-do spirit? Where are the men and women who can inspire and create? Who can overcome the naysayers, the NIMBYs, the nihilists, and the neo-Hobbits? Who can complete projects of enduring value for America? If Obama can't find such forward-looking, forward-moving creators to serve in his administration, his would-be Second New Deal risks dissolving into debt, deficits, frustration, and inflation.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Think of the spending as paying a fine. If you pay it, what you get in return is the staving off of terrible consequences for not paying it.
Washington leaders all need to watch "It's A Wonderful Life" one more time for the right idea about the purpose of the mortgage industry.
George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart's character) believed in the Bailey Building and Loan not because it made him rich, which it didn't, but because it provided working people a way to eventually own their own homes, and in doing so, strengthened the entire community. As we see in Bailey's heavenly-inspired dream sequence, if the Bailey Building and Loan hadn't existed, the evil, self-serving, wealthy banker Mr. Potter would have cornered the local mortgage market, and the entire community would have had a much poorer quality of life.
Wall Street and its lapdog, Congress, seem to have the whole purpose of the mortgage finance industry confused. They think it's to make the rich richer. It's not. The primary purpose of mortgages is to help those who otherwise would have to scrimp and save for generations, own their own homes and establish a primary source of wealth. That some get rich of the industry is fine, but not to the detriment of the industry's primary purpose!
Watch "It's A Wonderful Life", Washington!!!!!
And this time, don't root for Mr. Potter!!!!!!!
Yup! Great movie, one of my favorites, too. Thanks for that, luziannagirl!
Everyone has an opinion. It's unfortunate that people aren't pulling together and helping this administration, like they helped Bush after 9/11. The media are like nats now, reporting on things that aren't newsworthy.
It's kind of hard to pull together when they're giving money away to millionaires. That's not what we voted for. Obama is looking a lot these days like one of the insiders.
Can't help but comment on this.
We should not necessarily be "pulling together and helping this administration, like (the public) helped Bush after 9/11." Many of us saw the danger in backing Bush and the media were doing it so much that they and the administration labeled us traitors and unpatriotic for opposing his unprovoked war.
What we really need is an honest, ethical president who listens to ALL sides, discusses issues, decides on non-political & non-partisan bases, communicates clearly what he will do and why and does what he says he will,
Mr. Pinkerton,
If the citizens of 1932 had the internet and perhaps a version of contemporary 'talk radio'... FDR would have been a one-term president who would only be known for his disastrous policies which turned a large recession into a great depression. He would have no doubt faced a backlash that Obama is experiencing today. Do not forget the New Deal propaganda campaign which 'explained' to the unwashed masses what the brilliant minds were doing in DC to 'help' them.
Well, unfortunately for the left... the internet is here along with new media. So it will be harder for the altruists to insert their flawed policies into government. Their fallback will be simply to expand the scope of government and increase the welfare state as a vote harvesting measure to preserve a power majority.
I think what Obama should glean from watching a 1935 New Deal propaganda film is that this method does not work in this era of mass communications and globalization... along with 80 years to reflect on the disastrous effects of New Deal policies here and around the world.
Bravo miltonist! I was beginning to think that I am the only one who is overwhelmed by the un- relating criticism of Obama, barely two months in Office. I am 64 years, and I don't remember any of the previous presidents being subjected to non-stop criticism, both from the right and from the left, as Obama has been. It is as if Obama is responsible for all the economic problems the country is facing: Some critics have already pronounced him utter failure for not solving these problems in 2 months . I have been dying to ask Progressive admirers of FDR: Did FDR solve all the problems facing the country in two months he became President? I doubt that FDR, with his alphabet New Deal programs, would have stood a chance in the current media of internet bloggers and 24-7 Cable News. FDR was elected in 1932, but most of his major programs, to deal with the Depression, were not instantly enacted into law. For example: New Deal Programs such as: the the Social Security Act (1935); the Wagner Labor Relations Act (1935); the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) and a whole host of others were enacted after Roosevelt had been in Office for more than 2 years. What is even more disheartening is the virulent criticism from the so called Progressives like Paul Krugman and David Sirota. While I respect both men, I am disappointed by their unrelenting attacks on Obama, only two months in office. .
FDR promptly steered a different direction in economic policy than his predecessor. Obama has continued Bush's bank bail-out and implemented a stimuluspacakge that Bush could have drafted--with the largest component being tax cuts. Obama promised a change in direction and instead we are getting more of the same, at least with regard to economic policy. Criitcism on this basis is merited.
How about a tunnel under the Bering Strait? With rail lines in both directions connecting the Americas to Eurasia!
I am counting on Obama to relate to those abused by the Depression, such as in "The Grapes of Wrath" with Henry Fonda. We are heading into another one and we need someone who understands our nearing plight.
But Obama needs to watch Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" to realize the scorpions in his government including Geithner, Bernake, and Summers. They are setting up the bailout money such that the Hedge Fund insiders get the assets and the government gets the bill. They are going to wreck the economy and create huge inflation unless he listens to Paul Krugman and stops being Wall Street's boy.
ok. We don't need tunnels under the Atlantic. But what we do need are high speed trains that link this country together in a 21st Century mass transit system. Not tunnels but tubes. Tubes will make the system safer. Stong, clear, fiberglass tubes with magnetized levitated bullet trains that move at jet speeds. A double system so trains only go one direction in each tube, so no concerns about two trains crashing head first. The tubes keep out wildlife. All crossings are above or below, so no concerns about train or non train collisions. Tubes also insure against derailments. The tubes would all be topped with solar cells to help supply the energy.
It would be a hub to hub system with each hub being linked to surrounding sub-hubs, which also would be linked to small sub-sub-hubs which all would be linked to local transit systems. For example: In the Pacific Northwest where I live Spokane, Portland and Seattle would be hubs. My city of Bellingham, 88 miles from Seattle, would be a sub-hub and then small communities around it would be sub-sub-hubs (Ferndale, Lummi, Nooksack, Deming, Sumas, Lynden. google map it to see what I mean.)
This would be a major stimulus to the economy, put lots of people to work, improve our infra-structure, work against global warming, help free us from carbon based fuel, and be a great, visible, tangible symbol of the new New Deal.
This article isnt very clearly argued and I dont really understand the point it is trying to make.
Who are the neo-hobbits, naysayers and nihilists in the democratic leadership? Wouldnt it be fairer and more accurate to point out that these traits are currently embodied more by the republican party as a whole?
Okay, the democrats have annoying blue dogs who like to hold things up, but it really is the repubs that are against using public funding to innovate, construct and create jobs. The corporate sector doesnt have the ability nor the will to create jobs at the moment - thats why the responsibility to create jobs through ambitious public works (unfortunately) falls on the government right now - we are trying to jump start the economy that these entrepeneurs (that this article applauds), destroyed.
The only conservative solutions from repubs/ron paulers and libertarian party types have been to 'do nothing' - so why are you preaching about democrats failures? Why not deal with the mess in your own house before you point fingers?
Ok, I think that is fair, let me tell you what the American Taxpayer gets. Staying out breadlines, the complete and total economic Apocalypse, the end of public education because we can't afford it, the end of free medical care, because we can't afford it. A contraction of economic sanity beyond what we can tolerate... in short, DOW 900 instead of DOW 7000, 10 million more people losing their homes, tent cities everywhere, a wild uptic in crime, anarchy, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.
J
10 million more people losing their homes to WHOM?
You start off pretty well. Staying out of breadlines is a good thing, right? Then, you get all mixed up.
An economic apocalypse is what we are trying to avoid by the enactment of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus spending). The TARP funds were intended to prop up falling capital values in banks so that banks could put more loans on their books, but we now know that the values have continued to fall and lending didn't happen. Ok, so we need to do something more and something else.
What good is affordable public education if it isn't teaching our children anything useful for the 21st century? We need education reform measures and improved schools. We even need some new schools. (See provisions in stimulus bill.)
Who gets free medical care now that they can't afford? That makes no sense. 'Nuf said.
Aren't there already dogs and cats living together? What are you trying to say here?
I think the mass hysteria you predict is self inflicted. Not anything that is being done to try to solve this economic mess.
I didn't get much either, especially from "contraction of economic sanity," but I think the dogs & cats etc thing was quoting Bill Murray in "Ghostbusters."
Alot of people could live on that bullet train from LA to Vegas.
You mean the one that doesn't exist?
This makes no sense comming from a Conservative blogger: Who can overcome the naysayers?
Aren't you one of the "naysayers"? One of the "government is useless" -folks, part of the "regulations are evil"-crowd, in tune with the "spending is bad"-people?
Wouldn't you rather have tax cuts and let people build their own tunnels?
What the far-right lunatic fringe needs as a lecture is that "regulation" is LAW, and that those who oppose "regulation" are in fact opposing LAW.
And that the Founders/Framers were about "ordered libertry" -- liberty WITHIN the law, not IN SPITE OF it.
Obama is facing an uphill battle, and needs all the help he can get, including an about face from the
nattering nabobs of negativity.
What Obama is facing is his own blurred vision and his own mixed bag of interests and loyaties.
How about giving us medical insurance. Everyone else has it. Even the AIG bonus babies.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
