iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Stephen Schlesinger

GET UPDATES FROM Stephen Schlesinger
 

FDR's 1936 Lessons for Obama

Posted: 07/13/2012 8:47 am

A Democratic president is in trouble. He is seeking a second term in the midst of a grim economic crisis -- one of the worst ever to hit the United States. The average unemployment rate is an astonishing 16.9% -- although it has dropped from an equally astounding 24.9%. The jobless number amounts to six to eight million people. A prestigious polling organization has found that, because of broad disapproval of his actions in his first term, his opponent will grab 57% of the vote and he can win at best only 16 states. In addition, a conservative Supreme Court has invalidated some of his most important measures to deal with the economic collapse. In face of this dire situation, few observers give him much of a chance. Yet he goes on to win in a landslide. That president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt; the year was 1936.

How much of his experience reflects what is happening today to Barack Obama? There are some eerie parallels and some obvious differences -- but the parallels are significant. Obama, of course, is in the throes of the most grievous downturn since the Great Depression. Unemployment has stayed stubbornly around 8% (though it is an improvement over the 10% or so he faced in the depths of the crisis). Some 12.7 million people are out of work. Polling data shows the presidential race remains too close to call. Moreover, a conservative Supreme Court has opened the floodgates to millions of dollars of corporate money and extravagant donations from right-wing magnates to defeat Obama (even with that same court saving his health care plan).

The ideological fight today also revolves around the same issues, as in 1936. The Republicans are espousing, as they did 76 years ago, smaller government, deregulation, trickle-down economics, deference to the wealthy, pro-business legislation, hostility to more federal spending, and accusations that Democrats are pushing for "Socialistic" planning. The Democrats, meantime, are running on 1936-like financial regulations, preservation of social reforms (for Obama, health care; for FDR in 1936, Social Security), assistance to small business, help for the unemployed, housing recovery, and berating the rich who are trying to block change.

Another similarity: FDR's opponent in the 1936 election was a decent, moderate Republican governor, Alf Landon of Kansas, who was driven to the right by the exigencies of his political situation and the demands of his base. Landon had at one time accepted many of Roosevelt's programs -- regulation of stocks and securities, payments to the aged, conservation, federal subsidies to farmers. However, by the end of his campaign, he turned harshly conservative, demanding that all relief efforts be handled by the states, denouncing Social Security, and raising the bugaboo of Big Government. Landon, in addition, had an abysmal speaking style and uninspiring personality; he was capable of uttering observations like "Wherever I have gone in this country, I have found Americans."

Obama's opponent, of course, has many similar infirmities. Mitt Romney, a liberal Republican as governor of Massachusetts who tolerated abortion, accepted gays, and formulated a health care plan like Obama's -- has subsequently turned sharply to the right as he began his run for the presidency and adopted every plank of his party's Tea Party wing. He now champions a reduction of taxes on the rich, cut-backs on social spending, an end to many financial regulations, and a retro immigration policy. He has also turned out to be Landon-like in his personal style -- a colorless candidate with a flat speaking manner who makes public utterances, like "I like to fire people"; "I'll bet you $10,000"; "I am not concerned about the poor"; "corporations are people."

A few last similarities: Obama has earned the shrill enmity of the business community, like FDR, losing fundraising support from corporate givers, many who defected to the Republican candidate. At the same time, he has benefited from an improving economic situation, albeit of modest proportions, as did FDR -- which has kept him competitive. And Obama, again like FDR, has a rousing enough personality to be able to assemble an apparently devoted coalition of voters which has kept him marginally ahead of his opponent in the face of the widespread layoffs.

2012, of course, is not 1936; FDR is a different figure than Obama. Today's electorate is much larger, more middle-class, and far more diverse. There are economic stabilizers now that didn't exist in 1936. There are palpable differences in media, technology, race relations, global power, health, and in the tone and texture of society. Nonetheless, in spite of the advances over the past seven or so decades, joblessness still seems to have the same impact, regardless of era. But Obama can look back on at least one Democrat plagued by a problem of large-scale unemployment far worse than his own who nonetheless won a second term .

 
 
 
FOLLOW POLITICS
A Democratic president is in trouble. He is seeking a second term in the midst of a grim economic crisis -- one of the worst ever to hit the United States. The average unemployment rate is an astonis...
A Democratic president is in trouble. He is seeking a second term in the midst of a grim economic crisis -- one of the worst ever to hit the United States. The average unemployment rate is an astonis...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 838
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:55 PM on 07/15/2012
Interesting parallels in our political history, thanks for reminding the American public of its own recent past. And it is true that Repubs resisted regulations on stocks and securities, Big Finance and the Banks, etc. And it's true that they do this to this day, even after the fiasco that caused the Great Recession.

We must all keep a broad historical perspective, and know our history, lest we repeat the mistakes of the past. Having said that, my prediction for the upcoming presidential election:
The popular vote will be very close. Obama 53%. Romney 47%. But Obama will win a landslide in electoral votes by at least a 2 to 1, if not 3 to 1, margin.

IOWs, it will be like the Carter/Reagan race of 1980. Or, as the Op/ed suggests, like the FDR/Landon race.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:19 PM on 07/15/2012
No offense, to compare Obama to FDR is an embarrassment, the situation may seem analogous but Obama is such a deficient leader when compared to FDR that the validity of any point is lost in the glare of FDR's comparative greatness.
photo
ArChiMi
Skeptic
08:05 PM on 07/15/2012
I think one of the key reasons FDR was able to make good changes, was because he was president for 3 terms. He got a chance to see through what he started in 12 years. I hope after Obama's second term Hilary would step in and try to save us from doom.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Clifton Middleton
Plant It Everywhere
07:26 PM on 07/15/2012
The real boost for FDR's reelection came from the end of prohibition and the energy released by the people. Ending the marijuana prohibition would ignite an entire industry, long oppressed by government policy. Plant It Everywhere and Prosper.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:18 PM on 07/15/2012
BO ain't no FDR! But he is beginning to show some of the latter's feistiness and willingness to take it to the opposition. Alas, he still lacks FDRs political moxie.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:18 PM on 07/15/2012
Many similarities - but FDR ran against an Alfred Landon, by all accounts an honest man who just happened to dislike speaking in public.
Not a lying, deceiving, pandering wingnut - who incidentally also dislikes speaking publicly, probably due to 'foot-in-mouth' disease.

FDR carried 46 states, Landon 2. If there is any justice in this world, a similar resounding result ought be the case this coming November.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoWayMan
06:46 PM on 07/15/2012
I don't know how many times I've seen some repub on here trying to push this false stat: obama won't win because no incumbent was ever re-elected president with unemployment over 8%.

Rush must've said it for there to be so much parroting of that nonsense.

then I have to remind them, in my friendliest tone of course, that FDR, considered by everyone to be one of our greatest presidents, if not THE greatest, was re-elected not once but twice with unemployment above 8%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peripeteia
Oedipus never saw it coming
06:43 PM on 07/15/2012
Wonderful article!
06:01 PM on 07/15/2012
Delusional article that completely misses the reality of what's going on in America today. The entire article is just more of the good cop bad cop nonsense that the demopublican establishment has been running on the American people since before I was born.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Texas Justice Party - Chairperson
05:45 PM on 07/15/2012
President Obama is no FDR. FDR was a staunch progressive fighting for the people. President Obama is a right of center globalist fighting for corporations and banks. The Republicrats have so thoroughly blended themselves that only an outsider can provide honest competition.

Support the outsiders, vote for anyone but Obama and Romney.
FoundersFan
right = correct
05:11 PM on 07/15/2012
A much closer parallel would be Jimmy Carter and 1980.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoWayMan
06:41 PM on 07/15/2012
...according to rush limbaugh.

really, much closer to reagan.
that's if you want to be honest.
but that's not the vibe were getting from the false equation in you micro bio.
photo
Leigh49
Hey, you, get off of my cloud
06:42 PM on 07/15/2012
In your dreams. Carter was just too nice of a guy and put up with all the mud slinging. Obama has caught on to the Repubs dirty politics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Josh Crawford
Just the facts, man!
04:54 PM on 07/15/2012
The popular vote may be close this fall (as current polls clearly indicate) but the popular vote means basically NOTHING when it comes to winning the White House. To do that the ONLY thing that matters is getting enough votes in the Electoral College. And in that regard, Obama is currently way, WAY ahead of Mr. Romney. Even Republican strategist Karl "Ham" Rove acknowledges this simple fact on his web site where his electoral college map has Obama with 194 votes strongly in his corner to just 101 for Mr. Romney. In terms of votes that "lean" one way or the other, Rove puts 63 in Obama's column and 71 in Mitt's with the remaining 109 listed as "toss ups". If those numbers hold, and both men get all the votes leaning their way (in addition to all the "strong" votes) then Obama would need to win just 14 of the "toss up" votes to win reelection while Mr. Romney would need to win 98 of the "toss ups" to win.
http://rove.com/election
11:05 PM on 07/15/2012
It is rare for the popular vote to differ from the electoral outcome, so saying it "means basically nothing" is just silly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Josh Crawford
Just the facts, man!
02:45 AM on 07/16/2012
It IS rare (three times since 1876) but it happened just 12 years ago. And my guess is that Obama will win the popular vote but that it will be MUCH closer than the electoral college vote....And that's the point: everyone is looking at national polls and all they do is predict the popular vote. People really need to be looking at the breakdown of the EC votes and in that department the President is currently way, WAY ahead of Mr. Romney....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
04:26 PM on 07/15/2012
SO WHAT is wrong with US Govt.?....MONEY and Mo Money from all the wrong people.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
We need to change Citizens united, OR take the Supreme Court to task. today it should be obvious that our Govt. is Controlled by the MIC, mega Corporations and Connected people from Goldman Sacks, BANKERS, Wall Street, and Military Complex...the uncontrolled amounts of money going to people in :POSITION that demand that they have their way in the governments handling of all guidelines, laws that only benefit the above. the number of Lobbyist coming from K Street, corporations and AIPAC have grown and all demand things that go against the Public good.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

WHEN does the People get Government by the People for the People...I AM STILL WAITING
04:21 PM on 07/15/2012
I agree with every word in this article and see Obama winning easily once everyone is on board with the facts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
04:06 PM on 07/15/2012
Here is what a smart gutsy no nonsense Prez sounds like....this is what I call a Ballz out speech... Obama has a lot to learn. hope he can do this early in his second term...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU

OBama 2012
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:24 PM on 07/15/2012
Lordy! Wasn't FDR great??!! What a speech. If only Obama had that.

More telling is how nothing has really changed since 1936. The parallels are almost eerie.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:27 PM on 07/15/2012
Yeah, again FDR shines in his glory, hard earned and well regarded place in American history. Obama is no FDR, FDR called himself Dr. New Deal and was willing to do anything to resolve his era's unemployment crisis. Obama tried a halfbacked half measure Kenyesian effort that Krugman and others denounced as far too little and far too tax cut focused, and then Obama turned on every Democrat who voted for it when less than 1 year later he was using the asinine household analogy and calling for spending cuts on everything except defense! Then Obama spends the next couple of years hoping for the best and doing relatively nothing. Obama is the slightly preferable of two bad choices. If there was any justice at all, Obama would resign in shame and let Biden fight it out. Biden at least has guts beyond a shameless obsession with getting reelected.