Would FDR and JFK be welcome in today's Democratic Party?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Poll question: Would FDR and JFK be welcome in today's Democratic Party?

I realize this may come off as a stupid question, but it has come to my attention. Most of us Democrats today look to FDR and JFK as our modern political icons. The conservatives keep telling us that the Democratic Party is no longer the Party of FDR and JFK (and RFK). I think they're wrong. What do you think? Would FDR and JFK be welcomed in today's Democratic Party?

[Maddy McCall]

1. The better question is "would LBJ be welcome"--he was more liberal

than both JFK and FDR together.

[mattclearing]

32. Or even better...

Would Nixon be welcome in today's Democratic Party? He was more liberal than Lieberman or most of the DLC.

[paulk]

34. would Lieberman have appointed William Rehnquist to the Supreme

Court?

Richard Nixon did.


"Nixon adopted conservative domestic policies, in part to win support in the South, where voters favored such policies. Although two of his nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States were rejected by the Senate, Nixon appointed appeals judge Warren E. Burger to the Supreme Court in 1969; federal judge Harry A. Blackmun from Minnesota in 1970; and Virginia lawyer Lewis F. Powell and Assistant Attorney General William H. Rehnquist of Arizona in 1971. Together they shifted the Supreme Court toward more conservative positions. Nixon also tried to slow the pace of integration of black students into white schools. Separate schools were common across the country, but they had been the norm in the South until the Supreme Court declared the practice illegal in 1957. Nixon did not aggressively prosecute segregated school districts, and Nixon opposed the use of public buses to transport students to integrated schools."

from Encarta


Nixon as a liberal?

LOL

[Traction]

45. That doesn't mean anything

Poppy Bush appointed liberal David Souter. Does that make GHW Bush a liberal?

[paulk]

50. It means what it means

Would Lieberman have appointed Rehnquist to the Supreme Court?
The answer is no.
Is Lieberman to the right of Nixon?
To suggest so is absurd - case in point - Wm. Rehnquist.


Souter (who, btw, is a registered Republican) is a strawman.

[Traction]

44. Nixon was far more conservative

Then Liberman on civil rights and abortion.

[mattclearing]

48. I'll give you that.

eom

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

41. Good point.

[malatesta1137]

2. if you are a true liberal and/or progressive today

you CANNOT vote for Democrats. They are almost as bad as Republicans, and way more hypocritical, since they pretend to care for the common folk while Republicans flat out spit on their faces.

[chi_girl_88]

6. I don't get that...

....if not, then who WOULD you vote for? Or, would you just stop voting?

3rd parties are no realistic answer, because they don't have a chance of winning. And, sad to say, there is no political significance, without the chance of winning.

BTW, I do disagree with you on the fact that Democrats "pretend" to care for the common folk.

I am a Democrat. And, we do. We really do.

[V. Kid]

9. the diff btwn voting for and against

I don't know malatesta1137 being a newbie and all, but I think the comment was said in the sense of not being able to vote for todays Democrats -- and against the Republicans. That's the problem the way I see it, too many people were voting Anybody but Bush -- and not enough were voting for Kerry. Granted it's voting for X Democrat in the literal sense, but not so much in the emotional sense. And don't get me wrong Bush is reason enough to vote for almost anyone else, but if that's the emphasis of ones campaign then things don't look too good.

[emulatorloo]

15. PLEASE READ THIS STUDY on the Bush Voter vs Kerry Voter

http://www.alternet.org/story/20263

I am serious please read it.

Now that you are finished:

Terra TErra Terra won = "Bush Will Protect You, Kerry Will Not"

It was a simple as that

Bush had nothing to run on but the false perception that Repugs are better at national security. Add that to the willingness of his supporters to beleive him, and you get his 1% victory over Kerry.

[V. Kid]

29. I'm not disagreeing the point is

That Bush motivated his opponents because he's a very divisive figure. That's wasn't good enough for Kerry. If the Dems want to win they have to do more.

[malatesta1137]

17. you care?

are you running for office? tell me where.

Clinton for instance never cared. He signed the most sweeping welfare reform in the history of this nation. He bombed Iraq for 8 years.

The fact that 3rd parties are small is not an excuse to vote Democrat.

Like Gore Vidal always says: 'America has one party with two wings, the conservative wing, aka Democrats, and the reactionary wing, aka as Republicans.'

[GOPNotForMe]

42. DEMOCRATICunderground

I'm just sayin'.

[youngred]

28. then who can you vote for?

there are some who really are liberals and want to do more, but sometimes compromise is all you can do to get at least part of what you want

[cavanaghjam]

3. They'd be welcome

they just would never be allowed to the fore. Plus Kennedy would be smeared as a womanizer and have to suffer slander from some guys on another PT boat. FDR would never get past governor cuz he spoke in complete sentences. And wore glasses, too. Then there's that whole polio thing. Still, I'm sure someone would photoshop his image into an embrace of Saddam. Ain't technology wunnerful.

[imenja]

4. What was particularly progressive about JFK?

What values did he have that you think we've lost? Which policies: that he was a cold warier, sent advisers to Vietnam, that he lowered taxes on the rich, and did not aggressively pursue Civil Rights legislation? I must be missing something.

[Maddy McCall]

5. That's right.

[fujiyama]

8. He was ready to pull the advisors and troops out

It was really Johnson's war. In "Fog of War" they have a tape of Johnson telling McNamara how much he disagreed with his and Kennedy's decision to start pulling the troops out.

Kennedy's decision to not use military force during the Cuban Missile Crisis also shows that he had a rare sense of competance and judgment not found in many politicians.

As for the tax rate for the rich, wasn't it extremely high at the time? It was something like 70% I think.

I do agree about Civil Rights to some extent. I don't think he was proactive enough, but he did make some progress.

[Comrade_Goldstein]

18. It was a major tax reduction

Kennedy lowered the top tax rate from 90% to 70%, and he also closed a lot of tax loop holes which had previously been used to avoid taxes (then Raygun opened them up again. Also, about the Fog of War, a lot of things contributed to Vietnam. I really liked the documentary but Robert McNamara is the type who brings his preconceived biases, and he also neglects to ever admit that he did anything wrong or that people he disagreed with were ever right. Kennedy did want to pull out of Vietnam, but many in the Pentagon and the military heavily opposed that. Johnson did not really want to get involved but was more easily pressured by the generals than Kennedy was. Johnson's White House tapes also reveal that he was hoping to fight the war to a stalemate hoping that the North Vietnamese would negotiate an end to the hostilities against South Vietnam. And to the point of being a cold warrior, some of the most ardent anti-communists were Democrats and those on the left, including Eugene McCarthy (he changed his views during the disaster of Vietnam).

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

25. A lot of his civil rights legislation didn't get started until late in his

tragically shortened term, but he did get the ball rolling, and LBJ finished the work, so to speak. JFK supported across the board tax cuts, not the kind that the Bush team embraces. Ther was also the Peace Corps, programs the poor, and the like. Kennedy being a Cold Warior wasn't necessariy bad in my view.

[DireStrike]

7. "party has gone to the left" - comedy option?

People are voting for this? On what do you people base this analysis? :shrug:

[Toucano]

19. It's the freeper option

Every good poll has one. ;)

[Leilani]

10. JFK would be a Republican today

because he was a Cold Warrior.

He beat Nixon by accusing the Republicans of being too soft on Communism.

Both parties used to have a much wider range of views.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. JFK Would Not Be A Republican..

If being anti-communist makes you a pug then I guess Harry Truman, LBJ,and RFK were pugs too....

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

26. Exactly. Being pro-defense doesn't make you a Repub.

The idea that being pro-defense makes you a Republican, only validates the Republican argument that the Dems are weak on defense.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I think that the current Democratic Activists would have given

JFK, LBJ and FDR the heave-ho...and none of these guys could have stood the liberal test here at DU....here's why:

The current contentious election issues were:

Gay Marriage and value issues - I personally don't think that any of these fellows would have advocated Gay Marriage. Don't ask me why...I just don't think so. I will say that JFK was a notorious womanizer...heck, today, he would have been impeached.

Abortions - I can't see any of these guys been for them. JFK was a Catholic, and although his brother stands for Choice rights...there is no guarantee that JFK or RFK or the matter would have been for it. If I recall, they came from a large Catholic family and RFK certainly had more than enough children to know that they were not practicing any type of birth control...not even the Rythm method. Can't say for sure about LBJ...but Texas is not known for being a hot bed of choice these days.

Anti-War/weaponry I don't think that FDR, JFK or LBJ would be terribly welcomed into our fold because of their stance on War. FDR and WWII; 6 million Jews perished in Concentration camps...many of them prior to America entering the war..which it only entered into because America was attacked by Japan...otherwise, Genocide would have continued. Further, Truman dropping the bomb would not be welcomed. JFK did start the Vietnam War...he would not be welcome here at DU especially. LBJ...do I need to even wonder on this question?

These days, many on the extreme Left deplore any war. I have heard a lot of complaints from them even about Kosovo...the only war ever fought to prevent Genocide and save Muslims lives (see Samantha Power's book "A problem from Hell-America in the age of Genocide" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060541644/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Falx-jeb-6-1%5Fbook%5F2127607%5F4/104-9655474-4389545 )

These EXTLeft Peace Warriors talk about Depleted Uranium like it's the the third rail. A left leaning PC situation...where one is forced to believe that this weapon is the weapon that ends all weapons (forget about the Nukes...DU is a bigger issue as far as the EXTLeft is concerned.) But the three leaders that we are discussing themselves promoted the making of Nuclear and Atomic weapons. LBJ had his Asian Orange research as well.

I think that these fellows were most likely too hawkish and had reasonably conservative social values...They may have won a primary or two...but I don't think that they would have been too welcomed at Democratic Underground.

That's my theory, and I am sticking to it....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. You Can't Look At A Politician From Forty Years Ago Through Today's Lens..

Hell, forty years ago homosexuality was still considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. It wasn't removed from the list of mental illnesses to to the 70's...


As for abortion rights Ted Kennedy , Patrick Kennedy, and Joseph Kennedy 111 are all pro choice... Who knows how Ted's brother,and Patrick and Joseph Kennedy 111's uncle would have felt on these issues..


I think a fair way to judge historical figures is by the tenor of their times... By that measure, JFK, HST, and LBJ were progressives...


I do agree with your larger point though.. Their pragmatic form of liberalism may have been out of vogue at DU...

[bklyncowgirl]

14. You are right.

These politicians grew up in very different times and were dealing with very different issues.

My guess is that FDR and Truman was a little too busy dealing with the Great Depression and World War II to worry about gay rights. Aside from private correspondence which may mention these lifestyle issues we really don't have a clue where they stood.

It's kind of like saying that Jesus would have been pro choice.

[AP]

22. Another angle: FDR wasn't great on race (alhtough his wife was fabulous)..

...but, a big reason race became an important issue was because FDR did do a lot of things that put economic power in the hands of black Americans. After that economic power built up for a decade or two, it meant that cultural and political power followed. In the 60s, African Americans never would have had enough political power to make an impact on society without the wealth created by FDR in which they participated a little bit.

And when that power came to the surface, JFK, LBJ and RFK were ready to help it realize itself.

[AP]

21. Furthermore, looking at how they felt about the issues that were important

when they were governing, I think it's safe to conclude that they would have been liberal on modern issues today.

[Leilani]

23. Until Vietnam came along

& divided the country & realigned traditional coalitions, the Dems were more pro military & had a much more activist foreign policy than the Republicans.

The Republicans had a very large peace wing, led by Mark Hatfield of Oregon.Many Repubs were isolationists, & there was NONE of the neo-con behavior you see today. And the so-called Rockefeller Republicans might be Dems today.


Also, the topic was JFK...he was pre Vietnam war...things changed after that, & RFK also changed. That's where you start to see a progressive, liberal, anti-war coalition in the Dem party.

Of course, we can't move historical people around like chess pieces, but the JFK of his time would not fit in today's Dem party.

[ReadTomPaine]

37. Good post, a lot of people don't recall or aren't aware of that context

[blondeatlast]

16. Welcome, yes, with the same exuberance shown Dennis Kucinich.

The party leadership must change NOW.

I heard on "Unfiltered" yesterday that the Democrats had more million dollar+ donors this year than the Republicans sis.

[AP]

20. JFK's 2nd Oxford, Miss speech is one of best ever on race. FDR was the

model of successful anti-fascism. FDR wrote the book on beating back fascism.

Both these guys gave the Democratic Party a template for winning elections which still has a great deal to offer today.

Demographically-speaking, both would have a hard time winning the presidency today. Nonetheless, if they were alive today they'd have very valuable things to say to the Democratic Party about how to win and how to act, and only the most wrong-headed Democrats would resist.

[chyjo]

24. FDR would not be welcome, JFK would

FDR completely transformed the country with what today would be seen as "scary" big govermnent programs(that in no small part helped save the country).

[Radical Activist]

36. Agreed

Kucinich was the only Democrat in the primary who identified himself as a FDR Democrat and we see how he was regarded by the party establishment.

[youngred]

27. They would be laughed out of the party

Dennis Kucinich and a few others are the only ones still carrying the torch of old fashioned liberalism. Today's Democratic party is largely to the right of Richard Nixon, that's just an unfortunate fact of the political forces that have shaped the country since 1968.

For those who said the democratic party has moved further left....what are you basing that on? It's so blatantly untrue

[bvar22]

30. Not only would they not be welcome,

neither man would want to join this predatory pack of CorpoThieves!

They would turn away in disgust. They would be joined in their contempt and disgust by former Republican Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower.

[MrBenchley]

31. Of course they would....

"The conservatives keep telling us that the Democratic Party is no longer the Party of FDR and JFK"
The only sense in which we're not is that it's not 1933 or 1960 anymore and the issues...but does anybody really think either of those great Americans would be sitting around encouraging open bigotry, or trying to trash Social Security, or supporting war against a country that posed no earthly threat to the US, or pimping for tax cuts for the rich, or trying to justify the torture of prisoners of war and criminal suspects? That is just ludicrous.

And by the way, you will notice that the conservatives fail to mention at the same time that they are furiously trying to tear down the advances and programs JFK and FDR championed and are opposed to every real principle they stood for.

And they also fail to note (although we should) that the crackpot ideas they are flouting today are at base the same idiotic ones they were hawking in 1933 and 1960....tearing down the UN (or League of Nations), demonizing one or another group of their fellow citizens, pissing on workers rights, letting the rich rape the country, etc.

[eridani]

33. Hell, Eisenhower wouldn't be welcome

After all, he was in favor of universal health care, cut out of the national Dem platform in 1996.

[bvar22]

39. Eisenhower also favored CUTTING DEFENSE SPENDING!

Eisenhower would be branded as Weak on Defense by the Democrats!

[flaminbats]

35. our party is somewhere between Wilson and Kennedy..

it's still where Kennedy stood on civil rights, Medicare, and defense.. where Roosevelt stood on conservation and Social Security.. where Wilson was on having an income tax and backing harsh steps to block sources of antiwar publicity.

[InvisibleBallots]

38. FDR? No way. JFK? Sure

Their economic policies were nearly opposite, they only seem similar in comparison to Bush.

[flaminbats]

43. JFK was building on FDR's dream for social security..

an economic dream for every American worker which provided for both retirement and healthcare needs. Medicare and Medicaid was supposed to complete the circle. Unfortunately John F. Kennedy was killed, and the legislation L.B.J. signed did not provide universal healthcare for the taxpayers.

John F. Kennedy made it clear in his campaign that he wished to complete the dream of Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid, essentially universal healthcare as well as retirement security. I still believe that if Kennedy had not died, this would be a reality in America today!

[NewJeffCT]

40. Would Barry Goldwater be welcome in today's Republican party?

After all, he was pro choice, pro gays in the military & pro environment - 3 things that are anathema to today's Republicans.

[bvar22]

46. Barry Goldwater might find a spot in....

...the DLC. He would have to be careful because he is kinda liberal for the DLC.

[JVS]

47. Certainly by some faction or other. After all we're fractured

[Mend]

49. Why do you think JFK, Jr.'s and Wellstone's planes "crashed"

Of course FDR and JFK would be a vital part of the Democratic party today. That's why their actual and spiritual heirs are no longer with us. Winners and uniters, all dead.

[Bush was AWOL]

51. I'm not sure they'd be welcomed

I think many lefty's would consider them to be far too hawkish. Economically, they were far more progressive or liberal than today's Democrats, but they were Hawks, and I'm not sure that would be welcomed.

[bvar22]

52. They were "HAWKS" in response to a very REAL threat.

The Cold War was very real. The money spent was necessary. Competing in the Space Race was necessary for our own protection.

I would like to know more about Kennedy's Invasion of Cuba ( Bay of Pigs). While he was aware of the event, it smell more like a Black Ops gone wrong. He DID pull the plug before it got too out of hand.

Unlike today where our Democrats are helping the republicans invent bogeymen to keep the pork flowing to the MIC.

[fujiyama]

53. Over the past twenty years or so

We can say the party has become more corporatized. The party, under DLC rule has been more inclined to take money from big business.

However, this is not necessarily completely the fault of the Democrats as it has been the case with society itself, which is more corporatized in many ways.

So, I think FDR and JFK would still be welcome in the party, but it is very possible they would not have quite as prominent positions. Not only that, but both presidents were very different from each other.

I think some people here tend to look at the party way too negatively and don't realize that the party IS to the left of Kennedy and Roosevelt in some ways. We HAVE made progress since then in terms of racial and women's equality, as well as gay and lesbian rights. This party still does fight for those issues, as well as a more equitable economy. We are still the only major party to address more accessible healthcare. It may not be as strong as we should, but it's still better than the other party, which holds open scorn towards any movements towards equality.

However, FDR and JFK had the luxury of not having to deal as much with certain issues. Abortion had not yet become the major polarizing issue it is today. Likewise, no one would have imagined gay marriage becoming a major lightling rod it is today. Whether we like it or not, we must fight for both.

The major problem has been allowing the right to set the debate not only in terms of cultural and economic issues, but in international issues as well. I'd say the party still has not found a way, which clearly addresses our opposition to Bush's policies in a post 9/11 world. Especially in the latter, Kennedy and Roosevelt never gave an inch.

This requires the party to define a clear set of priorities. We have to convince the people that the GOP's agenda does NOT provide a strong defense of our country, and that this war is NOT part of the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, the leadership wing seems incapable of understanding this. By giving only a muddled response, which looks weak and politically expediant, we are not giving people a real reason to vote for us.

Of course, I think we have two other major problems to deal with. An increasingly intolerant and hate filled religious right movement, and corporate control of the voting process.

[scrantonlib17]

54. Yeah.

Hell, everything is corporatized.

[T Town Jake]

55. Not only would they be welcome...

...they'd be helping lead the Democratic Party. Two great leaders - I wish they were around today. They are sorely missed.