Comments on: The Real Reason for FDR’s Popularity

By: Tim Kern

Tim Kern — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:52:27 +0000

So, the medium is indeed the message.
Too bad about principles.

By: Tim Kern

Tim Kern — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:50:43 +0000

Who are the “they” who have the right to destroy the property of those who own it?

Here’s the old societal conundrum: At what point does the “common good” override private property rights? Does it ever? (Of course, one could also ask why those buildings are vacant, and who caused that…)

By: Jordan Viray

Jordan Viray — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:15:40 +0000

The proponents of Prohibition at the time were very well financed and made the knowledge of the ills of alcoholism quite widespread. Illegal means of obtaining alcohol e.g. speakeasies and moonshine were nevertheless, wildly popular. With the repeal of Prohibition, the various syndicates which had provided alcohol illegally could not compete with legitimate businesses and so the prevalence of the gangster thankfully also went down.

By: patrick

patrick — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:20:19 +0000

This article reminds me of the one that Lew Rockwell just put out last week. Lew’s was out on 10.22 and Mark’s here was out 10.20…maybe Lew drew some inspiration from it and that’s why he wrote his article.

By: Charles Landesman

Charles Landesman — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:11:52 +0000

One statistic that was not mentioned in the discussion of prohibition was the statistic that would tell us how much an increase or decrease in alcoholism followed repeal. Alcoholism is a major source of accidental deaths, family breakups, serious illness, unemployment, and so forth. So it is relevant to an evaluation of prohibition.

By: Dave M

Dave M — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:13:56 +0000

I like this article by Mark. It shows how FDR’s initial popularity came about and survived much more draconian measures taken under his direction later. Very few people, outside the extreme left, have much good to say about FDR yet overlook or ignore his seeming popularity during his term. Perhaps a better way to put it would be to ask how many people then would have liked to have had a beer or glass of wine as opposed to how many people actually had any measurable amount of gold that was later confiscated.

A libertarian he was definately not, by any standard, but the popularity of one of his first acts resonated for a long period with the masses.

By: Jim Kussy

Jim Kussy — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 05:27:02 +0000

I don’t disagree with the article’s basic premise, but 99+% of us are mixtures of both good and bad. tThe article exposes the bad in FDR with gusto. May I point out some positive qualities of the man?
In my lifetime (80 years) I have never know a President who was as good a communicator as FDR, not even Ronald Reagan, who was superb in that skill. FDR would have had no difficulty with a word like nuclear or any other word. His voice and delivery was as good as it gets. Listen to recordings of his fireside chats and his campaign speeches as examples.
His ability to inspire the nation was also unsurpassed in my memory of 11 subsequent presidents. People who hated FDR with a passion in many cases said that when they met him in person they
were surprised and won over at least insofar as finding his personality and charm a pleasure. If I could choose 10 great luncheon companions out of the last 80 years he would be close to the top of the list.
I agree that some of the measures he instituted during the depression crisis were harmful. I don’t excuse that. But I suggest we not get carried away with venom as exemplified in some of the above comments which are in agreement withthe article. I remember the campaigns of 1940 and 1944 and if I were able to vote in those elections knowing all I now know I would vote for him in preference to Wilkie or Dewey.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:21:42 +0000

Actually I watch the show “Hung” and it shows Detroit all the time. Doesn’t look that bad, except could they tear down all the old manufacturing plants that are longer operational? If it wasn’t for the crime in the area and could see a re-birth of the Detroit with shops and upscale shopping.

By: Matthew Swaringen

Matthew Swaringen — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:06:53 +0000

Thornton was not trying to make FDR sound appealing in his article, but it’s obvious you took his statements that way.

By: LugNut

LugNut — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:52:38 +0000

Another cheapshot aimed at Detroit. As a fifth-generation Detroiter, I can tell you that the downtown area is as safe as any other large city downtown. Can only think of three incidents in the past thirty-five years where people were murdered in the downtown area. The surrounding neighborhoods are another story.

By: Dave Albin

Dave Albin — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:02:58 +0000

“The Village” and “Unbreakable” were good, too.

By: Bryan Björnson

Bryan Björnson — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:02:02 +0000

With the repeal of Prohibition FDR got the buzz and we got the hangover, the New Deal.

By: Dick Fox

Dick Fox — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:43:35 +0000

“It is Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his first 30 days, he did more to bring liberty to Americans than any president since Thomas Jefferson repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

“Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. After dealing with the banking crisis and the budget during his first week on the job, on March 13 he called on Congress to repeal Prohibition.”

This is perhaps the dumbest statement I have seen in a long time. Thornton states FDR brought liberty in one paragraph, then in the very next paragraph mentions FDR’s first first act, closing all of the nation’s banks. Give me a break!

Thornton is so taken with psuedo-libertarian rhetoric that he simply ignores the obvious. And concerning prohibition, I don’t at all think he understands that it was primarily about politics, taxes, and government power.

FDR followed Hoover who was one of the most interventionist presidents in history. I actually expected Thornton to contrast FDR with Hoover in making his case. Instead he floated into fantasyland.

By: Allen Weingarten

Allen Weingarten — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:08:32 +0000

“The repeal of Prohibition then is the real reason for FDR’s popularity.”

The repeal was excellent and is a fine precedent for the legalization of drugs. However, I doubt that FDR’s popularity stems from it. When schools and commentators laud Roosevelt, they rarely mention Prohibition, but rather his social & economic programs. This is seen even more clearly when speaking to liberals & Democrats today, who ask for comparable policies.

Liberalism lauds wealth distribution and using the government to further what they consider to be morality. Here they view Roosevelt as a paragon.

By: newson

newson — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 02:52:05 +0000

i’m looking forward to seeing “devil” (2010).
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/nowicki_devil.htm

By: Jordan Viray

Jordan Viray — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:15:10 +0000

That sure gets the animal spirits going!

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:09:50 +0000

I like a beer and hard drink myself sometimes but would I vote for FDR? It is hard for me to understand that there are voters that would vote for all the socialism FDR put forth over a beer. I guess it doesn’t say much for democracy and that is why Madison made sure we had a constitutional republic so all our rights can’t be taken away in a short period of time. But in the long run look out.

By: Bala

Bala — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:36:59 +0000

I presume Rick is referring to “The Sixth Sense”

By: Seattle

Seattle — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:30:41 +0000

Shyamalan did anything good ever? This is news to me.

By: gene

gene — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:34:14 +0000

article makes a great point.

and what good is a depression without a good beer, anyway?