Comparing Franklin and Barack: Some Structural Differences

With President Obama recently signing legislation that (essentially) takes the Herbert Hoover approach to economic recovery, it seemed an opportune moment to delve more into every liberals' favorite presidential comparison game: Franklin Roosevelt vs. Barack Obama.

When Obama was elected, it seemed within the realm of possibility that the U.S. was about to witness a period comparable to the New Deal. Suffering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, with large Democratic majorities in Congress, and an inspired and activated grassroots, Obama seemed to have all the pieces in place. Today, however, U.S. economic policy remains as trapped as ever within the right-wing paradigms bequeathed to us by Ronald Reagan and the conservative movement.

Why has this happened? Could U.S. progressives have expected more from this president? I will attempt to explore these issues by further interrogating the historical analogy always present in such conversations: that Obama could have been the twenty-first century FDR. In this post, I will note some factors weighing against an Obama presidency being as transformational on progressive economic grounds as Roosevelt's was. In subsequent posts I will delve into details of specific political actions and strategies differentiating the two and try to make some judgments as to what progressives could have reasonably expected from Obama, matched against how Roosevelt tackled similar challenges.

1. Worst Economic State, Fewer Filibusters

First, it is crucial to understand just how devastating the Great Depression was, even in comparison to the current Great Recession. The Great Depression saw national unemployment levels soaring to 25%, while the Great Recession has peaked (so far) at around 10%. By the time Roosevelt came to power, the nation was desperate for solutions that would turn the ship of state away from sinking further into disaster.

Along with majorities often larger than Obama's, Roosevelt also faced a Congress where the filibuster was a rarity (and most invoked on issues threatening white supremacy in the South). Take the Glass-Steagall Act, one of the cornerstones of 1930s financial regulation (and whose dismantling in the late 1990s became emblematic of our new Gilded Age). Glass-Steagall passed the Senate in 1934 without one vote cast against! Victories such as this proved much more plausible while the filibuster lay as a mostly dormant instrument. Obama’s first two years would certainly have witnessed more progressive legislation without the stunning growth in historical terms of the filibuster’s use by Republicans and conservative Democrats. Examining bills passed by the House of Representatives from early 2009 to late 2010 (health care with a public option, cap and trade) one can get a glimpse of the more progressive legacy the presidency could have left (and this ignores legislation such as EFCA which would have had a better chance in a filibuster-less world).

2. A Weak Business Lobby

As incomprehensible as progressives may find this, the business community's ability to influence policy became much diminished in the 1930s. In a rare incident in which the elite classes found themselves strongly divided, business leaders divided between those who wanted to accommodate (or even profit) from the New Deal order and those who hoped to combat and reverse it. Conservative business interests that wished to actively fight the New Deal found themselves a fairly marginalized part of the U.S. political dialogue.

Certainly opposition existed. A number of the most prominent businessmen in the country, including the du Ponts and CEOs at General Motors looked with shock at the reforms of the New Deal. By 1934 they began to organize, creating the American Liberty League. However, it was a mark of the changed times that the New York Times could declare that "nowhere in the country has the lack of any organization of conservative interests been more acutely felt than in the financial community." Despite representing monied interests, the Liberty League proved unable to exert much influence in a nation where, as historian Kim Phillips-Fein notes, "the contrast between the lives of its [the Liberty League's] members and those of the working population of the United States had simply grown too vast." This relative lack of corporate organization and politicization would persist until the early 1970s when a swell of organizing took place that led to everything from the founding of right-wing think tanks to the emergence of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a mainstay of right-wing free market organizing.

Thus, Obama faces a much different political atmsophere. Business did not take nearly as hard a hit, either financially or in its reputation, as it did after the Depression. Furthermore, corporations already have a well-established political infrastructure and a commitment to using it that did not exist to near the same extent.

3. Timing

When Franklin Roosevelt started his presidency, the U.S. was entering its third year of Depression. Although Herbert Hoover’s response to the Depression included government stimulus efforts (such as road construction), his attempts to explain the crisis and offer solutions always maintained a strong conservative strain. For example, in a 1931 speech, Hoover described government programs to help the unemployed, while cautioning that, “We must avoid burdens upon the government which will create more unemployment in private industry than can be gained by further expansion of employment by the Federal Government. We can now stimulate employment and agriculture more effectually and speedily through the voluntary measures in progress.”

By 1932 Americans were ready for something sharply different and Roosevelt offered that, both rhetorically and pro grammatically. While his 1932 campaign sounded some conservative themes, Roosevelt also stressed that he would govern to serve “the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid” and his promises of “bold, persistent experimentation” rang the loudest. Roosevelt also served as a sort of “professor-in-chief” during his campaigns and presidency, telling a clear story of who caused the Depression and who was going to solve it. Americans were as open as they ever have been to such messages as this from his 1932 nomination speech:

“There are two ways of viewing the government's duty in matters affecting economic and social life. The first sees to it that a favored few are helped and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to the small businessman. That theory belongs to the party of Toryism, and I had hoped that most of the Tories left this country in 1776.

But it is not and never will be the theory of the Democratic Party.”

Conversely, Obama’s came into office mere months after the onset of the Great Recession. In attempting to comprehend what was happening, the American public found themselves bombarded by a jumble of messages as to the causes and solutions. While the greed of Wall Street seemed a clear culprit, the bipartisan nature of the bank bailouts (whatever one thinks of them as policy), confused the ability of many voters to ascertain who was at fault. Furthermore, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “Stimulus”) came not long after and, in many Americans’ minds, the bailouts and stimulus morphed into one nebulous massive government expenditure. Thus, the stimulus, both as policy and as a metaphor for a progressive solution to the crisis became confused with a pragmatic government move that saved the financial class from their own disaster. As the nation's economy sputtered, this jumble allowed the right-wing, through the vehicle of the Tea Party, to introduce a powerful counter-narrative of why the nation remained (and remains) in the doldrums.

Debt Default Crisis Solved in One Acronym: IMF

We in the United States typically don't like foreigners meddling in our affairs, but every once and a while we have needed it. Of course, one of the great (and awkward) facts about the U.S. is that we would likely not have gained independence (leaving us with a dysfunctional Parliamentary system and more frequent use of the letter "u") if not for the intervention of the French navy and army. And so it is today that perhaps another institution led by a French person can save us.

I refer to the International Monetary Fund. Founded at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, the IMF has been a vital institution in securing the world's economic stability ever since. Never did this appear clearer than in the 1980s. For the IMF is an institution with a great deal of experience in dealing with debt crises. Not solving such issues, but dealing with them, much like a mechanic who takes your broken car, does some costly repairs, tells you they'll take effect in a few decades, and then demands you keep paying in the interim.

In the 1980s nations throughout the Global South, who had seen rising debts through the late 1970s began to implode, with Mexico in 1982 as the famed first domino (one of those historical markers that is neither inaccurate nor accurate). The IMF stepped in and began introducing policy prescriptions (later joined by the World Bank) called structural adjustment programs. Spearheaded by the U.S. (and especially the Reagan Treasury in his second term), structural adjustment programs were implemented over the next decades in nations from Mexico to Ghana to South Korea.

It is time to bring our creation home. If structural adjustment was good enough for those nations, then why not here? Let me propose a few features of structural adjustment that I think lend itself to becoming our "grand bargain":

1. It Can Happen Fast: Obviously we do not have much time until the default - we don't have the luxury of developing a sophisticated program that meets the particular needs of the United States. However, for the IMF, that should be no problem. As former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz once noted, IMF teams " have been known to compose draft reports before visiting. I heard stories of one unfortunate incident when team members copied large parts of the text for one country's report and transferred them wholesale to another. They might have gotten away with it, except the "search and replace" function on the word processor didn't work properly, leaving the original country's name in a few places." This is exactly the kind of rapid, "just-do-it" mentality we need to solve our long-term crisis.

2. Republicans Will Love It: Much of the Republican Party program for rebounding the economy and attacking the debt is essentially the same as IMF structural adjustment, so there should be little problem here. IMF adjustment programs include measures to cut all manner of government programs for the poor (food price supports are a popular one), often lead to a general decrease in real wages, encourage privatization of industries, basic services, and deregulation of the financial sector, etc. Plus, the IMF can provide a handy scapegoat for Republicans who want to cut programs that they pretend to support.

3. Democrats Can Like It Too: OK, so if you're one of those "progressive" Democrats the stuff above may not sound great. But hey, you're irrelevant! For some other Democrats however, the IMF is your best ticket past gridlock and to that grand bargain! In fact, structural adjustment has key components of the much heralded super-compromise. Namely, when the IMF in the past has sought to counsel/cajole nations to balance their budgets, they often prescribe a mix of cuts and . . . wait for it, tax increases! They even suggested the U.S. raise taxes significantly back in 2004! Also, the head of the IMF is usually French. Democrats love French people.

Furthermore, if history is any guide, the IMF with its international presence and ability to exert pressure can essentially bypass our democratic system and pressure us into making the needed changes. America, your debt default crisis is solved.

Thomas Paine and the Wisconsin Workers

A quick note: I see that Tea Party groups are organizing a march to counter the massive protests being spearheaded by pubic workers in Wisconsin, a response to the governors' attempt to essentially eliminate public sector unions. I will be shocked if, as usual, the founders' eighteenth century economic thought and broad ideas are not easily converted by that march into a standard union-busting drumbeat from the days of the Pinkertons.

Uncomfortably for the Tea Partiers, when we examine the actual record of a key revolutionary icon, Thomas Paine, we find a man who himself was an agitator for justice and dignity for public workers. Paine's legacy for U.S. independence is of course vital; he famously wrote the pamphlet Common Sense, which played a crucial part in moving many North American colonists firmly in support of independence and the construction of a democratic state. Paine, however, was not a long-time resident of the colonies - in fact he only moved to Philadelphia in 1774.

What was he doing before? Well, most immediately prior, he had worked as an Officer of Excise, a tax collector, in Lewes, England. That is until he joined a movement of fellow excise officers demanding that their wages be increased to allow these public servants to escape poverty. Throughout the winter of 1772-1773 Paine worked to organize and prepare a petition to Parliament, an attempt which failed. The following year Paine was fired from his job and would make his way to Philadelphia.

The main contribution Paine made to this effort was to write his first political pamphlet, The Case of the Officers of Excise. While many of the specifics in this piece are more relevant to the eighteenth century world, in it we can find some of the same principles at work in Wisconsin today:

On the problems of low wages:

When a Year’s Salary is mentioned in the Gross, it acquires a Degree of Consequence from its Sound, which it would not have if separated into daily Payments, and if the Charges attending the receiving and other unavoidable Expences were considered with it. Fifty Pounds a Year, and One Shilling and Ninepence Farthing a Day. carry as different Degrees of Significancy with them, as My Lord’s Steward, and the Steward’s Labourer; and yet an Out-Ride Officer in the Excise, under the Name of Fifty Pounds a Year, receives for himself no more than One Shilling and Ninepence Farthing a Day.

After Tax, Charity, and sitting Expences are deducted, there remains very little more than Forty-six pounds; and the expences of Horse-keeping in many Places cannot be brought under Fourteen Pounds a Year, besides the Purchase at first, and the Hazard of Life, which reduces it to Thirty-two Pounds per Annum, or One Shilling and Ninepence Farthing per Day.

On the questions of wealth and poverty:

The Rich, in Ease and Affluence, may think I have drawn an unnatural Portrait; but could they descend to the cold Regions of Want, the Circle of Polar Poverty, they would find their Opinions changing with the Climate. There are Habits of Thinking peculiar to different Conditions, and to find them out is truly to study Mankind.

The final call for justice:

With an Addition of Salary, the Excise would wear a new Aspect, and recover its former Constitution. Languor and Neglect would give Place to Care and Chearfulness. Men of Reputation and Abilities would seek after it, and finding a comfortable Maintenance, would stick to it. The unworthy and the incapable would be rejected; the Power of Superiors be re-established, and Laws and Instructions receive new Force.

The King Identity

I have already written a version of the now requisite "Martin Luther King was a progressive/radical" entry. I am confident I will write similar posts in the future. While having King as a sanctified American hero is certainly a merited and wonderful reality, it has also led to a collective amnesia about the scope of his vision. Put simply, King was both a transcendent figure who could rise above politics and someone who progressives and radicals clearly can claim as a member of the family. To claim otherwise requires a heady mixture of denial and ignorance.

Given that, let me talk about a (hopefully) upcoming event that holds potential to introduce the complete King to a larger audience. Recently, I came across the news that English director Paul Greengrass has written a screenplay and is looking to make a film entitled Memphis. Greengrass is best known to a wide audience as the directer of the second two Bourne movies. According to NY Mag, "Greengrass wrote the movie . . . based on his own original research, and that it looks at King’s life while trying to organize the city’s sanitation workers in the spring of 1968, just before his murder on April 4 of that year."

While some of the web gossip is concentrating on the potential for the movie to tackle conspiracy theories around King's assassination, I hope that is not the case. Certainly Greengrass has trafficked in conspiratorial thinking in the Bourne movies, as well as in his (in my opinion) very underrated film Green Zone, but he is not an Oliver Stone. Focusing on conspiracies would, among other problems, distract from the true (and very fraught) drama one can find in the story of King's involvement in the Memphis strike and the turmoil of his own life in those last days.

While a director best known for creating incredibly visceral action scenes might seem problematic, my eagerness about him tackling this project comes from some of Greengrass' other films, namely Bloody Sunday and United 93. Both films are superb examples of how to compellingly present historical episodes on screen; they hew closely to the real history, while creating real tension and drama. For the moment, I will focus on Bloody Sunday, which recreates the events of January 30, 1972, when English soldiers killed thirteen protesters in Derry, Ireland. The film has been compared to the Battle of Algiers, which is both an apt comparison and an impressive complement.

As with The Battle of Algiers, Bloody Sunday evinces an intense fascination with the mechanics of political activism (how do protests get organized, the internal politics of movements, etc). This in itself is promising, for the politics of King's involvement in the strike and the dynamics between the many players are a vital part of this story. Furthermore, Bloody Sunday shows not only Greengrass' interest in these matters, but also his ability, through sharp dialogue, strong acting, and his ever restless camera, to keep such scenes interesting and even spellbinding. In addition, Bloody Sunday, while clearly taking a side, allows for the nuances and complexities of politics to shine; time is given to the English soldiers to show the context they were operating in, without excusing their actions.

To make this more concrete, here is a scene near the end of Bloody Sunday which captures much of what I mentioned above:



Suffice it to say, I believe Greengrass to be an excellent person for this job. Returning to the idea of historical memory, the potential of a major film being released centered on King's work in Memphis is quite exciting. While I doubt the film will transform the popular narrative about King, it can at least open up an avenue for challenging the "Santa Claus" version that dominates popular discourse. By choosing to depict King not during his heights at Birmingham or Selma, but rather as a much reviled radical prophet, Greengrass' film can educate more people about the King who stood firmly for workers' rights and believed that true justice meant profound change to our economy and society.

"The Best and the Brightest"

Governor Christie committed a verbal irony that's quite common, but still worthy of note. In calling for a new system for hiring school superintendents he stated that the new system would allow the hiring of "the best and brightest." This phrase has of course entered the popular lexicon via David Halberstam's book on the Vietnam War. Of course, Halberstam meant the term to be ironic; a bitter comment on how individuals and groups possessing the most impressive of credentials can still exhibit no real understanding of a situation and make horrific and disastrous decisions as a result.

If By "Anybody" You Mean "Most Men"

Anton Scalia has raised a ruckus with his statement that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect women or GLBTQ folks from discrimination. I will leave to those more knowledgeable to parse the legal questions. What I found troubling were certain underlying assumptions embedded in the language of the question and Scalia's response. Here is the text of the question:

California Lawyer: "In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation."

What appears problematic is the idea that it is foolish to think "anybody" would have conceived of the Fourteenth Amendment protecting women at that time. Tell it to Susan B. Anthony! As noted in this piece, feminist activists of the time advanced their own interpretation focusing on section 1's use of gender neutral language to make the case that the Fourteenth Amendment did protect suffrage rights, at the very least. This in fact led to a great act of symbolic protest as women activists in 10 states attempted (and in a few cases) succeeded in casting ballots, leading to Anthony being put on trial.

More broadly, we must be wary of statements regarding prevailing views in society which it is said that "everybody" or "nobody" held a certain belief. Such assertions usually consist of taking a certain sub-group of people (often "most white men") and universalizing their perspective to all of society. In doing so, we erase whole populations and histories; making unjust ideas and structures seem a universal norm. Men had greater power in the 1860s and could create laws and social structures enforcing that superiority; that does not mean everyone believed that this was "the way it ought to be."

Forgetting Reconstruction

The end of last year witnessed a perfect storm hit of news stories on race and history in the United States. At one end was Mississippi governor Haley Barbour’s nostalgic reminisces of the Citizens Councils, which attempted to put a “respectable” (and more effective) face to white supremacy. The story breaking on the 150^th anniversary of South Carolina’s declaration of secession seemed too perfect as a demonstration of how alive the gap between ideals and realities of equality remain.

At the same time, these incidents illuminate a profound deficit in how the history of racism and the struggle for equal rights are remembered. For in our popular imagination, the great struggles over these issues exist at two poles separated by exactly a century: the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. With regards to historical memory, the Civil War in the next years is sure to burn brightly, as the 150^th anniversaries of innumerable battles, the Emancipation Proclamation, etc arrive. However, as obviously significant as the Civil War is, focusing on the actual conflict does a disservice to understanding the full history. Certainly the war created many dramatic and concrete transformations, most notably the end of slavery and the intensification of modern capitalism’s emergence. Yet, especially when talking about the African-American community, the war’s greatest importance lies in the possibilities it created for even deeper changes and which, albeit with limitations, were seized upon during Reconstruction.

As well known as the Civil War’s contours are, outside of academics who study it, Reconstruction appears lost in a haze. The single best known depiction of the period remains Gone With the Wind, which traffics in the frankly racist viewpoint which received academic validation from historians of the “Dunning School” (think a somewhat toned down Birth of a Nation in footnoted book form). For the Dunning school, Reconstruction was a tragedy in which the North (or more specifically the Radical Republicans) imposed unfairly harsh conditions on Southern states' re-entry to the Union and Northern opportunists (so-called “carpetbaggers”) swept into the South to take financial advantage of a defeated land. Furthermore, in this interpretation, African-Americans were unable to take advantage of freedom; proving dangerously incompetent at governing or building independent lives. The advent of Jim Crow and the return to Democratic rule are thus seen as the forces that rescued the South from further misery.

Corruption and exploitation by Northern businessmen, entrepreneurs, and politicians of the Southern states did exist. To see Reconstruction as a tragic period is certainly apt, yet the tragedy lies not in its severity, but in its limitations. Many of the struggles for civil rights of the 1950s and 1960s were in fact efforts to regain rights that African-Americans enjoyed, briefly, one hundred years earlier. The period saw significant reforms to southern society beyond those directly concerned with the freedmen and women, such as the establishment of public school systems, economic development (such as railroad lines and non-agricultural industry). The reversal of the period’s gains, especially regarding African-American rights and dreams of fairness, represented a severe blow to creating a United States whose policies reflected its highest ideals. To forget it is to forget one of the most concentrated attempts to build a true “land of the free.”

Note: In a second post (and I’ll actually do it!), I’ll go into more detail on the specific history of the period, its gains and failures.