There’s SO much to debunk about the FDR Myth that four hours of television could hardly suffice, but the History Channel offers to attempt something that sounds very much like it on Sunday, April 17. It looks as though they don’t intend to devote much of the debunking to his role in lengthening and deepening the Depression, but it appears they may get into his secret measures to embroil the US in World War II, an event of economic significance – and misrepresentation – at least equal to that Depression. 9PM on the coasts, 8 in the center.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/3465/fdr-debunked/
FDR Debunked?
Previous post: Politics Causes Unemployment
Next post: The Sarbanes-Oxley Morass
{ 10 comments }
The History channel is also presenting FDR as a “shining beacon”. I have a feeling that the History channel will attempt to justify and rationalize FDR’s actions and attempt to perpetuate the myth of FDR.
Regards,
TDL
A “shining beacon” of American-styled fascism that is.
I don’t have the exact quote or reference in front of me, but the History Channel would be going a considerable distance in presenting the facts if they mentioned that FDR’s Secretary of War (or was it State) Henry Stimpson wrote in his diary (and I paraphrase): the question was how to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot.
The parallels between FDR and George Bush are striking. After saying that, I usually have to explain why that’s not a compliment.
It is funny, though, to see people who idolize FDR while hating Bush. Just about anything bad that Bush did, FDR did worse.
I know I did a double take upon seeing that commercial. It is literally the first time in my entire life I have seen anything even remotely negative about FDR on TV.
I don’t think it’s possible to exhaust the mine of evil done by FDR. Even a half-hearted debunking by the History Channel would be a step in the right direction. At least his widow (unlike LBJ’s) isn’t available (thank goodness) to serve as a focal point for protests from left-wing “intellectuals.”
I think I saw a preview ad about that program the other day… I recently got into an argument with some pro-war young Republicans regarding the FDR & WWII controversy. It is unfortunate that so many of today’s Republicans don’t recognize the value of traditional conservative principles, and have a warped view of the history of our movement.
Here’s a good blog entry by a true-blue young conservative, on this matter. That entry was re-published, in article form, in several online conservative publications. I am mentioned in that piece, as is my web page on Pearl Harbor from 2001, which was included in an edition of LewRockwell.com.
Did FDR Know?
I hope that this History Channel program includes some material debunking the “Roosevelt Myth.”
Here are some facts that drive you guys nuts: FDR was elected four times by the American people. He was hated by some but liked and loved by a lot more.
Considering the era and what was going on with the world, and how the actions of Wall Street discredited the free market, and the fact that 1/3 of the country was unemployed and the country demanded action, and how isolationist America was in the late 1930s (see the America First Committee), and how electric power was first delivered to the Tennessee Valley during his presidency (ask current Repub Rep. Zach Wamp how successful it was), we were pretty darn fortunate to have FDR in the White House during that time.
No legacy is perfect but even on the question of Yalta, even Henry Kissinger said the realities of the battlefield dictated what happened at Yalta. Were the Allies prepared for WWIII with Russia in E Europe? And civil rights legislation would have to wait for another president. But that’s not what conservatives were really pushing for back then, was it?
“Here are some facts that drive you guys nuts: FDR was elected four times by the American people. He was hated by some but liked and loved by a lot more.”
I’m sure you can think of some other leaders who were loved by their people, but were also authoritarian tyrants. It’s not hard. You can even restrict yourself to Roosevelt’s era — you’ll find lots.
“Considering the era and what was going on with the world, and how the actions of Wall Street discredited the free market,”
Yes, I’ve certainly noticed how the free market has been discredited. That thing has done nothing good since 1929. We can debate the value of a free market later, but the facts are that Roosevelt’s action did nothing to help the economy, and in fact made things worse. Any claim that the free market was discredited must also apply to Roosevelt, since his policies were considered gospel for the next 10 years, yet the economy floundered.
“and the fact that 1/3 of the country was unemployed and the country demanded action,”
Shall we do whatever the country demands? Even when it contradicts the Constitution?
“and how electric power was first delivered to the Tennessee Valley during his presidency (ask current Repub Rep. Zach Wamp how successful it was),”
No one here is going to defend Republicans.
“No legacy is perfect”
True, but I like my presidential legacies to not contain little gems like:
1. wanton and targetted annihilation of hundreds of thousands of civilians
2. racist concentration camps
3. deepening and lengthening the worst recession of all time
4. ignoring the Supreme Court and the Constitution
Maybe I’m just picky about my presidents.
“we were pretty darn fortunate to have FDR in the White House during that time.”
Unless “we” were Japanese-American, an African-American (do some research about what was thought about some of FDR’s labor laws), a German or Japanese civilian or an American businessman.
“But that’s not what conservatives were really pushing for back then, was it?”
If you really think you’ve come to a site full of conservatives and Republicans, you probably want to read a little bit more.
“Here are some facts that drive you guys nuts: FDR was elected four times by the American people. He was hated by some but liked and loved by a lot more.”
I like to think that this is an example of what’s wrong with political decision-making in general and voting in particular. He kept getting re-elected in spite of the fact that his policies weren’t doing any good.
“Considering the era and what was going on with the world, and how the actions of Wall Street discredited the free market,”
I would say that the actions of the government discredit the government.
Comments on this entry are closed.