Franklin D. Roosevelt wasn't always "Franklin D. Roosevelt."
As President Barack Obama devises his reelection strategy, he should understand the implications of this statement and act on them. Whether this election will have major consequences for our future and what Obama's place in history will be could both depend on the willingness of the president and Democrats to do so.
Obama and his advisers are likely tempted to opt for a stand-pat re-election effort because of the improving unemployment numbers. That may be enough to get him re-elected. But it won't be the sort of transformative election that could secure his place in history as a great president -- which acting on that FDR statement could achieve.
To understand why, look to the seemingly schizophrenic results of two recent polls. A December Gallup Poll found that 64 percent of Americans see Big Government as the nation's largest threat, while only 26 percent see Big Business as the greatest threat.
A month earlier, however, 75 percent of Americans surveyed in a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll said that "the current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country," the "power of major banks and corporations" needs to be reduced and the rich should not receive tax breaks. Sixty percent strongly agreed with this. Only 12 percent disagreed, 6 percent strongly.
How can overwhelming majorities believe both that the power of Big Business needs to be reduced and Big Government is a greater threat than Big Business?
The answer is in another response in that November poll: 74 percent said Obama has "fallen short" of expectations in "improving oversight of Wall Street and the banks." Only 18 percent said he lived up to expectations. By 66 percent to 29 percent, respondents said Obama hasn't lived up to their expectations in "standing up to Big Business and special interests."
So the reason most Americans fear Big Government more than Big Business is that the former has failed to control the latter -- and instead assumed the role of enabler.
If Obama were to stand up to big business, the public's view of government -- and him -- could improve rapidly.
That brings us back to the statement above about Roosevelt and how it affects the 2012 elections -- since high, if declining, unemployment is probably the greatest obstacle to Obama's reelection. No president for more than 70 years has been reelected with unemployment above 7.5 percent -- as it is likely to be in November.
If we go a little further back, however, unemployment was at 16.9 percent in 1936. FDR was reelected that year with 60.8 percent of the popular vote, carrying all but two states and winning the Electoral College vote 523 to 8.
But the Roosevelt who won that landslide -- despite an unemployment rate nearly twice what it is now -- was not the FDR of 1932, or even 1933. He was the man we now think of as "Franklin D. Roosevelt" -- a role he took on in 1935 and 1936.
Prior to his 1932 election, Roosevelt was famously described by Walter Lippmann as "an excessively cautious politician" who was "no crusader," "no enemy of entrenched privilege." That characterization seems to fit President Obama so far -- even if it did not fit 2007-08 Candidate Obama.
At the start of his presidency, FDR also sought consensus -- and got a great deal of it. In his inaugural address, he denounced the "money changers," but he was simultaneously consulting with leading financiers about how to solve the banking crisis. Roosevelt didn't turn on the banks, even though there was overwhelming public opposition to them.
"The president drove the money changers out of the Capitol on March 4," Rep. William Lemke of North Dakota complained, "and they were all back on the 9th."
There were important accomplishments during the first two years of the Roosevelt administration -- as there were in the first two years of the Obama administration. But by 1935, many Americans began thinking that the New Deal was not doing enough to restore balance in the economy by curbing the power of the rich, the big banks and corporations.
It was progressive agitation, union activities and popular movements (collectively identified as "Thunder on the Left") in 1934 and 1935 -- combined with FDR's belated realization that Big Business wasn't going to play ball with him -- that ultimately led Roosevelt to shift to more progressive policies and proposals.
The American Liberty League, formed by business and conservative opponents of the New Deal, was established in 1934 "to combat radicalism, preserve property rights [and] uphold and preserve the Constitution." These backers were the Koch brothers of that era, trying to convince Americans that the president was a socialist.
Always a savvy pragmatist, FDR finally realized it was impossible to compromise with those who refuse to compromise. He also saw that he needed to move left to catch up with his "followers," who were demanding more vigorous action on behalf of the vast majority of Americans struggling in the Great Depression.
Roosevelt was "leading from behind." He abandoned consensus and compromise, and instead cast his lot with the poor, unions and minorities, and against the corporate and financial interests -- becoming the "Franklin D. Roosevelt" we know today.
FDR launched his 1936 reelection campaign by warning against a dictatorship by the over-privileged and declaring that private enterprise had become "too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise."
"These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America," he said, expressing sentiments that could resonate now. "What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power."
Running against economic royalists, Roosevelt won reelection in one of the largest landslides in U.S. history. The Democrats, moreover, won 77 percent of the House seats and increased their hold on the Senate to 79 percent.
As 2012 begins, such a resounding victory for Obama and the Democrats looks impossible. Whether it is depends on which past re-election campaign recipe Obama decides to follow.
Emulating Harry S. Truman's 1948 run against the "Do Nothing" Republican Congress is a formula that is likely to succeed. But, by itself, it is unlikely to produce a major, realigning victory.
But if Obama instead picks up FDR's 1936 cookbook, he could find that the ingredients are available for a Democratic landslide. The November poll shows that, by 76 percent to 12 percent, Americans oppose the economic policies championed by the Republicans and want the economic policies that progressives advocate: "We are the 76 percent who realize that we are part of the 99 percent."
For their part, Republicans seem to be declaring something like: "We are the 12 percent that sides with the 1 percent."
Republicans are falling all over one another in a mad -- literally mad -- rush to align themselves with the 12 percent who stand with the rich, banks and corporations. Yet two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans are disappointed that Obama hasn't done enough to oppose those same interests.
Can Obama catch up to his "followers" -- as FDR did in 1936?
To assure that Obama reprises FDR's successful 1936 strategy, progressives must pressure the president and his party to run a campaign pledging to implement policies in line with what an overwhelming majority of Americans say they want.
There is a famous story of a union leader who met with FDR to outline the arguments for a progressive program. "I agree with everything you said," Roosevelt responded. "Now go out and make me do it."
Conservatives used to say: "Let Reagan be Reagan." The progressive slogan today should be: "MAKE Obama Be 'Obama'" -- the man we imagined him to be when we elected him.
That's what three-quarters of the American people want. If Obama and Democrats listen, they might win a historic victory this year.
{Robert S. McElvaine is a history professor at Millsaps College. His most recent book is a 25th-anniversary edition of "The Great Depression." He is now writing, "Oh, Freedom! -- The Young '60s."}
A version of this piece appeared originally in Politico on January 24.
Follow Robert S. McElvaine on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@BobMcElvaine
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
'All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. 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."
FDR-1937
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445#axzz1kX3bUlLM
Truth is FDR was a socialist as evidenced by the "New Deal" that was full of unconstitutional programs. The only reason we are stuck with most of these unviable programs now is the the autocrat FDR threaten to pack the SCOTUS. The Social Security Act. for instance, was upheld by a 7-2 vote, sustaining the government's position that it represented a legitimate exercise by Congress of the taxing power to provide for "the general welfare." (General welfare taxation is clearly not a plenary power of Congress.) We can't be certain whether the justices were deterred by the court-packing plan, but its ramifications were certainly well understood by them.
I feel pity for you since it’s obvious you can’t accept the facts. You feel SO STRONGLY in your belief that FDR was a socialist and he somehow scared Congress/SCOTUS to do his bidding, that no amount of facts will change your closed mind!
Hopefully, President Obama will follow FDR’s example and he will be just as much of a so-called socialist you claim FDR was. If so, it’s my hope that history will repeat itself!
OBAMA 2012
Hopefully, Mr. Obama will do what he said, encourage peace and stopping killing people at his whim and signing unconstitutional laws like the NDAA. We certainly do not anyone to emulate FDR in those respects.
PAUL 2012
FDR was more than a formula, He was real. So far Obama is not. He cannot imitate FDR he must be himself as a leader. So far nothing!
I am not a Republican they are worse. But that does not make Obama FDR. He is not a Republican (barely). And that is about as far as I think he will go.
I have never been so disappointed in someone I voted for, in my life as I am with Obama.
This election is the low point in our politics so far. Even Nixon (curse his name) had more quality than any of the Republicanism crowd or most Democrats now.
Obama is scary how not like FDR he is. He is not even a Nixon nor anything but a stooge for Wall Street.
Here is hoping the President and all those seeking Office in Congress try it out.
Just watch their Poll numbers rise from the ashes.