7 Days: FDR = Obama? Alter, Huffington, vanden Heuvel & Green Discuss and Compare Their Transitions, Nov. 15, 2008

Two Democrats succeed two conservative Republicans during economic crises. How parallel actually are Roosevelt's and now Obama's transitions?

7 Days Interview with Jonathan Alter, author of The Defining Moment, Nov. 16, 2008

GREEN: Do you think Obama is being held to an impossible standard or is there a valid comparison between the transitions of FDR and him?

ALTER: Well, if the standard is fifteen major pieces of legislation in FDR's first hundred days in 1933, then that is an impossible standard -- and actually the Obama people don't like the hundred days standard, nor did JFK's people or any of the other presidents after FDR. But if the standard is that we need fundamental change of direction, then the Roosevelt experience is very relevant. Obama has made clear that this is not just going to be about nibbling around the edges. In my mind, the danger for Obama is not that he moves to quickly next year, it's that he moves too slowly. He needs to seize the moment, use the crisis to push through major change. Now he has a couple of advantages over Roosevelt. He's more of a planner and more disciplined in his approach. One of the things that really struck me about the early New Deal was how "seat of the pants" it was. Government always is in some extent, and Obama's administration will be to some extent. But I think that they have a more orderly process. Indeed, Roosevelt was described to have a second class intellect, and a first class temperament. Obama has a first class intellect, he's smarter than Roosevelt, and a first class temperament.

GREEN: Sorry to put you in a bind, but your editor-in-chief Jon Meacham wrote a Newsweek cover about "The Conservative America" which I think completely misreads the last two elections and progressive trends. Are we really still a center-right country?

ALTER: Actually Meacham let me write a contrary piece to his. It's a bit of an oversimplification to think that we're going to move left in lock step across the board, but as a general proposition there's no question that the country is moving left, the last line of my piece was "leftward ho". This is clearly how we're moving, but it's important not to do it in a way that's counter productive and that slows the opportunity for some big pragmatic change.

GREEN: Ok, but the money question is this -- will Obama push for bold change early or be more incrementalist?

ALTER: I do think he wants to be more than a triangulating incrementalist. But it's also true that he's got an awful lot of Clinton people working for him now, and that's their experience and people are often products of their own experience. You know, I heard recently, for instance, that some of the Clinton people on the transition were analyzing the differences between 1993 and 2009. Well that seems to me to be a completely ridiculous exercise. I don't know why they're taking the time to do that, we're in a completely different situation than we were in 1993. At the same time, they campaigned against the Clintons' and so they have their own sense of direction. That doesn't mean they have a more liberal direction, necessarily. I think it'll depend on the issue, on how far they move.

GREEN: Like FDR, Obama now gets to define his "mandate for change", even if he may not have run exactly on it. What specifically do you think he'll push for early?

ALTER: Well, I think it's this idea of a green economy. He can move very quickly toward subsidizing hybrids, plug in cars, his $150 billion alternative energy plan is absolutely central, and then a huge Rooseveltian infrastructure program to rebuild America which both puts people to work, in many cases building mass transit, energy efficient mass transit, stimulating the economy, and building a solid foundation for a green economy. Also, I think you're going to see a much bigger than anticipated stimulus package.

GREEN: Closer to the $560 billion that the Chinese are spending on heir stimulus and the $600 billion Paul Krugman has suggested?

ALTER: There is going to be that struggle between that kind of bold thinking -- and I think that Obama himself thinks that he has to be bold -- and also the realities of practical politics.

Interview audio can be found at airamerica.com

Panel Discussion, with Huffington, vanden Heuval & Green

GREEN: Picking up from Jonathan Alter, how close are the parallels between Roosevelt and Obama?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL: I think there are lessons to be drawn, Mark. I think they're close. And yes, the Nation is one of the few publications which one lived through the first New Deal and did an issue on the 75th anniversary of the New Deal. But I think history shows us that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was compelled to abandon caution because of the great traumas of his day -- the Great Depression gave him little choice but to be bold. And it was the great popular social movement of his time, working outside his administration, the unions at that time, that put pressure on FDR to carry out bolder reforms. Similarly, it's the strategy, the focus, the discipline of that outside movement that will push Obama to become a more boldly reformist president that HE may have envisioned. Paul Krugman writes today in the Times that to be cautious is a dangerous thing right now. Risk is the new caution. Because to overtake this deep and cratering recession is going to require relief, reform, and reconstruction, which were the great three words of the New Deal. Obama needs to remind peoples that government has a role to play in their lives.

GREEN: What about the static view of left-right-center, as if Obama -- as our teacher-in-chief -- won't be able to talk about more children's health, more transparency and no torture in nn-ideological ways?

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: They were previously seen in sort of a knee-jerk way as left wing issues. But, I think what has happened is the center has shifted so these so-called left wing issues are now solidly mainstream. Whether it's torture, or healthcare, or bringing the troops home, or corporate responsibility. Any of these key issues of our time. So, all he really has to do is redefine the new center, and not be drawn into "is this left? Is this right? Is this progressive? Is this liberal?"

VANDEN HEUVEL: I think all of us have helped redefine the center over these last years, Arianna and Mark. Because what we have done is from below, from the outside, independently driven issues into the mainstream political debate that were majority issues that those inside the beltway wanted to avoid. Healthcare, trade, ending the war, as Arianna said. The "Teacher-In-Chief" phrase, I love, Mark. I think also Obama is "Organizer-In-Chief". When was the last time we had a community organizer as president?

GREEN: Nov. 4 didn't create a progressive realignment, only the opportunity for one. To achieve a real realignment, like 1890 or 1932, what would now have to happen?

HUFFINGTON: I think what it would take is precisely some really bold policies. And right now, as somebody said: "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." The existence of this crisis gives him the opportunity the way it did with FDR to actually institute bold policies. And how the bailout money is being spent right now is the opposite of bold, imaginative, considered policies. Therefore, he has a very clear reality to contrast what he wants to do with, and I think he made a very good decision not to be in Washington during these international meetings so that he might have a fresh start.

GREEN: Will congressional Republicans give Obama a honeymoon or a hazing -- will they start opposing him from the get-go like they did with Clinton?

HUFFINGTON: I think they're going to be oppositional in some topics and compliant in others. I don't think there will be a universal attitude on how to deal with an Obama era. There are certain issues that are going to be so important to their base that they're going to fight on, and others that I think they'll want to demonstrate there's some room for bipartisanship.

Comments

[joebhed]

I don't know why we fail to face up to the one reality of the essential sytem that is broken in this country.
It is not the economic system.
It is not the political system.
It is the MONEY system.

If the Dems fail to revive the Chicago Plan for Monetary Reform that surfaced at the request of FDR from the old pre-Friedman (Milton, not Tom) Chicago School economists, we are doomed to repeat the so-called capitalist business cycle of boom and bust.

What is needed is the dissolution of debt-money as the financial under-pinning of the American, and global economies.

I really think that Mark Green and Katrina are fully aware of this.
Mark posited to Jonatahn something he called the money question.

But Mark, the money question is, the MONEY question.
Ask Bill Greider.
Then, ask everyone else.

[noblefuse]

Hello, my name is Solomon Azar- I HAVE FOUND THE ROAD TO SAFE CLEAN NUCLEAR FUSION- When this is found and understood- the energy crisis will end- I have been looking at this system since 2002 and it is perfect in every way. I finished my experiments April-2007. I have since that time tried to the best of my abilities to inform many people upon the net- there is no question It would be nice if concerned citizens would offer suggestions or help provoke a university to simply repeat my experiment to end the energy crisis- 19 months and I still wait as the world crumbles from lack of abundant clean energy.

[Deus Angelus]

How do you contain the immense pressure, the temperatures and the gravitational forces required to facilitate and maintain a controlled fusion reaction?

Is this cold fusion? Plasma Arc? what are we looking a there?

[joebhed]

Yes, inquiring minds want to know, Solomon.
Please get back with us.

[Thevail]

Dear President Elect Obama..
I'll use a basketball metaphor..­Go Big or Go Home.

America is ready, let's DO this thing.

[Emmory]

The absolute WORST thing Obama could do is model himself after FDR, who is in my opinion the WORST President we have EVER had.

What about FDR was good?

Government "jobs" don't DO anything except hurt an already bad economic situation.

This sort of "the government will save us" thinking is not only dumb but dangerous.
The Government IS the problem.

[Deus Angelus]

Please tell me everything you just wrote as satire.

Name one thing George Bush has done for this country?

FDR and Lincoln were the two greatest presidents in history. Those two created jobs, those two saw the need to develop the interior of this country to expand the wealth of this nation. Those two realized that free-trade hurts your citizens if fair practices are not stipulated.

FDR envisioned that if we had developed the interior of Africa what we would gain is far more in wealth that has been gained from the plunder first world countries have been engaged in the past several centuries.

[Emmory]

Everything I just wrote is by no means satire.

First off, why bring up Bush?
Second, the Government doesn't create jobs, they just collect tax money and then dole it out as they see fit.
Real jobs are created by business.
This is simple economics.

[joebhed]

Actually, you almost have one part of it right.

"The Government IS the problem.", IS the problem.
With your thinking and with your view of reality.
It is quasi-undeserving of a reply.

In case you haven't noticed to so-called rest of the so-called free-world ALL have a high and rich relationship between the citizens and their government.
It is not misplaced trust.
It is a tested and tensioned respect for one another.
Something that you ought to think about.
The government.
What can it do to solve these problems.
And, what can I do to help.

Get out of the new road if you can't lend a hand.
Cause the times they are a-changing.

[wittgene]

If Obama does not move boldly and take advantage of: 1. “a crisis is a terrible thang to waste” 2. putting former Clintoneses in his administration 3. 5 million green jobs, 600 billion stimulus package, and health care reform, well now, this article is useless, huh?

[Woodguy]

Great thought-provoking article!
Katrina and Arianna both underscore the need for Obama to be BOLD from day one. I think most Americans, including me, would support that approach wholeheartedly. However, the far-right is not known for supporting bold moves. I think a bold approach will drive the far-right crazy, and they'll try to obstruct everything they can, while at the same time screaming from the rooftops, "Obama's destroying our country!" Some of them are already labeling the current financial meltdown as "The Obama Recession", which I fear is just a tiny preview of the negative rhetoric yet to come.
Maybe the American public's huge desire for bold change will help to silence the anti-progressive voices.

[scjk67]

forgot to mention dubya is the only sitting president that didn't do a d@mn thing on his first 8 months in the office till the twin towers fell on 9/11....th­e clinton administration left them a note to watch out for bin laden, but instead bush took 6 months vacation cuz he thought then house and senate of rethuglicans majority did good for him on whatever issues that would destroy this country!

[CowboyDenver]

"A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." - My sentiments exactly! A crisis is an extraordinary opportunity for change. In fact, it demands change - not in increments but boldly!

[Cogitoe]

The electorate's consensus positions on social, fiscal and foreign policy issues are not moving in lock step left or right. The all important middle of moderates and independents is moving left of center on some issues and right of center on others. Obama's genuis was to generally play the most popular side of "middle" depending on the issue and in cases where he could not so align himself to remain vague and hopeful about positive change in the right direction without specifying if that was to the right or the left.

[Emmory]

Is it "bold" to pompously spend tax money like crazy?

I'd call it insane.

[jacqmac]

I'd rather 'pompously' spend it on keeping MY neighborhood safe, the schools in decent repair, the roads up to date, the bridges and dams and levees in good repair than to have it be blown to bits in the streets of Baghdad or Kabul or somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan. I'd rather 'pomopously' spend MY tax money on HEALTHCARE FOR ALL, a chance at a FIRST CLASS EDUCATION, the right to RETIRE IN DIGNITY than to have it be pompously given to corporate fat cats to 'invest' in off-shore banks and botox treatments for their wives.