Ah echoes of history... here is how the RIGHT reacted to the new deal

[nadinbrzezinski]

http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/20th/1930s/depression-responses4.html

Conservative Backlash


Al Smith campaign for President 1928
newsreel 1931

Supreme Court by Eric Salomon in Fortune, 1932

Justice Sutherland by Thomas McAvoy in Life, 1937/10/25

O. W. Holmes Jr. and C. E. Hughes from Historic Beverly

Federal Theater "Triple A Plowed Under"
The "Old Right" emerged in the 1930's in opposition to Roosevelt and the New Deal. The American Liberty League founded in August, 1934, as a bipartisan anti-FDR coalition of the rich and corporate oligarchy, led by the duPonts as the leading contributors - organizers were John J. Raskob, John Davis, Nathan Miller, Irenee duPont, James Wadsworth - supported by Al Smith who opposed the New Deal and declared in Nov. 1935 that he was going to "take a walk" - spent $1m 1934-36 to defeat FDR, especially with propaganda sent to newspapers - Postmaster General Jim Farley called it the "American Cellophane League" because it was a DuPont product you could see right through - but Liberty League financed lawsuits against the New Deal, especially the 1935 Wagner Act that required collective bargaining


Supreme Court led by 4 conservatives (James McReynolds, Pierce Butler, Willis Van Devanter, George Sutherland) vs. 3 liberals (Louis Brandeis, Harlan Stone, Benjamin Cardozo) and 2 moderates (Charles Evans Hughes, Owen Roberts) - the moderates had joined with liberals in the early depression to allow states wide latitude in dealing with the crisis - but Court opposed FDR's unprecedented exercise of power and centralization of government in New Deal agencies - in Jan. 1935 "hot oil" case ruled that the President's power to prohibit interstate shipments of oil under NIRA, and in the May 27 Schechter "sick chicken" case overturned entire NIRA in a unanimous vote, with Chief Justice Hughes arguing that although the chickens had crossed state lines they came to "permanent rest" in New York and were no longer part of interstate commerce- in Jan. 1936 the Court overturned the AAA because agriculture was a local issue reserved to the states, but farmers protested the decision as did coal miners when the Court overturned the Guffey-Snyder Coal Conservation Act that guaranteed collective bargaining and established price and production controls by local boards - in Feb. 1936 the Court overturned NY's model state minimum wage law in the Tipaldo case, but states protested because the Court earlier had supported such laws; FDR said it was a "no-man's land" - after FDR won the 1936 election, he decided the problem was not the Court itself but the members of the Court - revealed his court-packing plan Feb. 5, 1937 - FDR's opponents now had a cause around which all could rally - in March, the Court changed its rulings (especially Owen Roberts) and upheld a series of New Deal and state laws.

MORE at link

And as they say... those who refuse to learn from history... why bringing the RNC to play by the new deal II rules will NOT work

I just hope they realize this SOON

[WheelWalker]

1. Yep. Yes, indeed.

:kick: & r

[catnhatnh]

2. However the threat of packing the Supreme Court...

...seems to have had a salutary affect. Which might be worth keeping in mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. It still leans heavily to the right

[PM Martin]

4. kick

[liberalhistorian]

5. My mother and I both have history degrees and we were

just talking tonight about how eerily this resembles 1933 all over again, from the same causes of the meltdown and its effects right down to some of the same words of the (clueless, obstructionist, selfish) right's reactions. Sometimes history really DOES repeat itself, and I think we are very, very, very fortunate indeed to have the right kind of leadership at this point, just like we were with FDR.

There are some stark differences, however. Back then, if your bank went under, that was IT for your money. It was GONE. Didn't matter if, as was the case with too many people, it was your life's savings or all you had to live on, or the fact that it was your money and not the bank's. It was GONE, with no recourse. There was no FDIC to make you whole up to a certain point, there were no federal guarantees or regulations to force your bank to be a proper fiduciary with your money, there was no social security backup, etc., etc. It was a lot worse for a lot of people. It's not at all hard to understand why so many people of a certain generation, and even many of those of the generation just following, didn't trust banks at all and kept their money at home.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. You are correct as to the fact that there are some stark differences

that came from the great depression

And I am ALMOST willing to bet we would not be here if certain critical New Deal era legislation was not taken off the books by the usual suspects

But as a fellow historian... I feel I just came off the time travel machine into the DC of 1933

Oh and when you go to the store, not the supermarket, not obvious there YET... but places like Penneys... deflation is here

[liberalhistorian]

8. I know what you mean, believe me, it's positively

eerie. Of course, hubby and I both being out of work and having difficulty securing employment despite our professional credentials and experience certainly adds to the deja vu feeling.

And yes, I definitely agree regarding the certain critical New Deal era legislation. And it's truly disgusting and disheartening to me that some Dems were as responsible for that as repubs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I gave up on Academia a while ago

Good luck

And sadly these days I'd discourage any bright eyed kid from a liberal arts education. As a society we don't appreciate it or learn from it

As to history, fortunately the GOP hasn't learned some of those lessons either, points at the current cabinet and the possible limit on CEO compensation.

Where have I seen that before? HMMMM (Points at early New Deal legislation)

As to the dems who got rid of them... neo liberals the lot of them... and that was also predictable as to how this has come to be... and yes I do include Clinton and Glass Steegal in the mess

[liberalhistorian]

17. Oh, we're not in academia, we're in the legal field.

He's an attorney and I'm a paralegal. I've often considered graduate or law school, but now, obviously, would not be a good time financially or otherwise. Finding jobs for us is paramount now. He's taught in community colleges on the side, though.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Very Good Observations...

I was only a History minor...but my parents were Depression kids. I heard many stories about the hardships they faced and how it affected their lives. Both always did cash or check wherever possible and never bought what they couldn't afford (even their houses). When I cleaned out their home after they passed, I found jars of old buttons my mother collected...I could hear her say "ya never know when you'll need a button". There were also old electrical cords, zippers and anything else she thought she may need "just in case".

In her later years in the 90's, my mother and I would talk about the high flying finance I was seeing going on and she was always predicting that all the lending and debt was doing to create another depression. She was right and I know she's glad she's not around to see it again.

You are very right on pointing out the many safety nets we have in place now that we didn't in 1933. One can only imagine the suffering that would be going on if there wasn't any unemployment insurance, social security and other programs. We'd be seeing breadlines and homeless living on the streets worse than we do now...and that's where my obesrvation comes in.

The good thing is the collapse happened at the very tail end of the booosh regime. Hoover spent 3 years after the Oct. 1929 collapse and made things worse. While the 350 billion dollar bailout was mostly squandered, it did stablize the markets (not rebound them...but at least it's kept it at around 8,000) that has prevented a run on the banks, but I question if this is a "bottom" or just a ledge we're hanging out on.

The key here is to create a flow of money...get it back circulating in loans and government projects that will ease the credit crunch and put people to work. Hopefully President Obama has the financial brainpower around that can balance what works with what doesn't.

Cheers...

[liberalhistorian]

18. Oh, Hoover wasn't quite the devil that

he's been painted out to be. He was, frankly, quite the humanitarian, and was responsible for running the programs to feed and house displaced Europeans and refugees after WWI. He was not an evil, uncaring man. His huge, insurmountable problem was that he could not go beyond his philosophical underpinnings and think outside the box, as FDR could and did. He kept thinking and insisting that the old solutions would work for the current problem, and that simply wasn't the case. The Great Depression was of a scale and kind and duration that had never been seen before in this country and he just didn't grasp that. He kept thinking that it was just a bad recession that would soon end. His economic cabinet advisor didn't help, either.

That advisor (can't remember his name at the moment, but I could look it up), was so independently wealthy, and his wealth was so secure, that he didn't lose anything in the Crash or even subsequently and couldn't understand what it was like for those who HAD. He had little understanding of its true causes and considered the losses mostly the fault of the indivual who'd incurred the losses and if anyone didn't have a job, it was their own fault. And he had a huge influence on Hoover so that Hoover didn't fully grasp the real significance or loss, and still held more to the individualist notion of fault rather than seeing it as endemic and a system fault.

So Hoover tried to do what he could for people to the limits of his individualist philosophy, which was, frankly, quite common in those times. There was little notion of the "social contract" at that time. A lot of FDR's proposals were nicknamed "Hoover with a smile." Another huge problem with Hoover was that he believed in "volunteerism" instead of governmental action against unscrupulous, fraudulent corporations and businesses. He believed that you could get said businesses to "do the right thing" in terms of regulating themselves and doing right by their workers by asking them to, rather than encoding it into federal law and using federal enforcement. Yeah, we've all seen how THAT nonsense works. But Hoover just couldn't grasp the full magnitude of the crisis and its duration, much less get beyond his philosophical underpinnings to deal with it, the way FDR could. THAT was his biggest problem, not that he didn't care about people or that he wanted them to be hungry and homeless and unemployed. Unlike Bush, who did know and couldn't care less about anyone but the banksters.

And if you think Bush was hated, it's nothing compared to the magnitude of hatred for Hoover during the summer of 1932. He couldn't go anywhere during the campaign without angry, bitter crowds surrounding him to let him know just what they thought of him. MacArthur's assault on the Hoovervilles that summer really put a nail in his re-election coffin. McArthur went beyond the bounds of what Hoover had ordered against the WWI vets who were camped out in the "Hoovervilles" in D.C. demanding their pensions early by torching and burning it, but Hoover still took all the blame for it. Of course, he never should have ordered anything against the Hoovervilles to begin with so it was right that he take the blame for it.

[defendandprotect]

7. Good reason for preventing great wealth and preventing monopoly ....

"Behind all great wealth is great crime."

[Two Americas]

10. yes

The right wing is not an "ideology" - that is a mistake many people make - and you can't fight it as though it were. The "ideology" is whatever song and dance they can come up with to fool people. Whether one "agrees" or "disagrees" with the "ideology" is irrelevant. So long as you do believe that it is an ideology, their agenda is effectively disguised and they can move forward. It also is not "the Republicans." The Republican party is merely a tool they use. They also use the Democratic party. You cannot defeat the right wing by fighting the "ideology" nor the Republican party, because it will just morph into a new form. It is all a front, a sham.

[defendandprotect]

11. Very true ... but many reluctant to take in ...

"They also use the Democratic party."

Especially at DU ... Outside of DU, everyone knows, of course --

Many are also reluctant to acknowledge r-w violence and stolen elections over

decades --

[Two Americas]

12. teams

I watched the Super Bowl, and thought "this is just like DU." Actually, some of the analysis of the game was much more sophisticated and serious then what passes for political analysis around here.

Seeing politics as though it were a sporting event and political opinion as mere cheer leading - and a thread that does not include that is rare - can only serve the right wing. But, hey, Pittsburgh's quarterback - otherwise know as "Our Leader" or "Our Presumptive Super Bowl MVP" - was large and in charge and definitely knows what he was doing, and was the one calling the plays. It is a good thing we cheered him on, stayed real positive, and didn't try to second-guess his decisions. Hey! It is only a 15 minute quarter! Don't make such a big deal about it. So long as we win, who cares how we go about it? He had the Cardinals fooled but good, by letting them have a touchdown there in the last few minutes and letting them have the lead. But it was all part of a clever plan, as we can now see. All of those nay-sayers and negative people were wrong wrong wrong! I knew I had picked a winner!

The same approach that people are taking to politics sounds absurd when applied to the Super Bowl, yet it would be far more appropriate there.

Come on people, let's all get behind our team! Goooooooo Dems!!!!

[pnorman]

13. This brings to mind Noam Chomsky's comment on sport discussions on talk radio.

"CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief."

http://tinyurl.com/ylsw4e


"...On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief." Chomsky was referring to the general population rather than we enlightened ones here at DU, but his words still bear reading.

pnorman
Full disclosure: All my life I've had absolutely NO interest in "Sports", whether professional or amateur, or as participant or as spectator. The ONLY reason I know who won the Superbowl, is because I saw it here on DU! That's not a boast, but it isn't a shame-faced apology either!

[Two Americas]

14. amazing

Amazing, isn't it? Political thinking and speech are dramatically suppressed. It is not much better among liberal activists than it is with the general public. Worse, in some ways, because they use a lot fancier language to say the same simple-minded things and it is harder to wade through.

[defendandprotect]

19. Think of how much time is devoted to sports in suburbia ---

My town paid $1 million for astroturf for a crappy soccer field --!!

Now our roads have potholes --

Sports for males -- shopping for females === distractions from reality--!!!

[malaise]

16. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

Nice post.

Meanwhile the French government is afraid of history

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7861774.stm
<snip>
"Sarkozy is right to be afraid of us," says Marine, a 22-year-old student and member of the League of Communist Revolutionaries in Toulouse.

"We are the ones who are going to break the rules and the control of the old system. We are the new alternative".

Across Europe, victims of the economic slump who are losing their jobs in their tens of thousands are furious that public money is being doled out to the banks.

In some countries, they are more willing to vent their anger.

As huge crowds took to the streets across France this week, in a national day of protests and strikes, the far left points to a boost in the number of its supporters in times of financial gloom.

The French communist movement has remained a significant political force even in the decades when their cause was less than fashionable abroad.


We are seeing a radicalisation... Inequality is growing in Europe and inequality is always the cause of revolt

Now, France's communists believe they are staring at the proof that capitalism has failed, once and for all. And they see an opportunity.

[defendandprotect]

20. Americans, I think, have heard little about real history -- good or bad ---???

[MadMaddie]

21. No doubt. Obama knows this but he had to stay to his

word to try to include everyone including the opposition party.

Obama took a stand today...he is letting the American people that his patience is wearing thin with the child like Repugs.