Ok, so some things in the golden era were not too cool...

[GHT]

Wow, that makes this child's play look harmless.......

Now where have I seen that before?

Talking of colluding with the Nazis, does anyone know about the Vatican involvement?
It gets a bit long winded, but the gist can be found here.

 

[Stanley Doble]

A quick search turned up the surprising information that the Four Freedoms originated in Roosevelt's State of the Union address on January 6 1941. I knew they were his, but thought they were from the New Deal era.

 

[jamespowers]

Did you know President Eisenhower fought on the same side as the Russian Communists in WW2 (shock horror).

That was just by circumstance. When Patton was asked what he would do if he were caught between the Germans and the Russians---he said he would have to fire in both directions.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

t the Nazis, then - in the 1930s, before WWII and before all the evidence of their evil was fully revealed (it wasn't until the Allies liberated the concentration camps at the end of the war and fully document them [thankfully, the Allies understood the monstrous wickedness they were seeing so they expended great efforts to document it] that the Holocaust was better understood and evidenced) - weren't viewed the way we view them today.

They made it clear they hate and want to rot out the jews from the very beginning. I live in germany and I often buy old magazines from fleamarkets for the fashion pages and let me tell you: The Propaganda was very aggressive and didn't hide much. Maybe they didn't mention cyclon B or how a death camp really works but everything else was quite on the open. The people would need to be blindfolded not to see that. After all this years it is still unbelievable how they could get this far.

 

[Fading Fast]

A quick search turned up the surprising information that the Four Freedoms originated in Roosevelt's State of the Union address on January 6 1941. I knew they were his, but thought they were from the New Deal era.

The first two of the four freedoms are very different philosophically than the second two. The first two - freedom of speech and worship - are freedoms that only require others (other citizens and the government) to leave you alone and let you practice your free speech and worship and are, effectively, protected by our Constitution. The Second two - freedom from want and fear - require others to provide you with something (goods, protection) which means things must be taken, potentially, by force (via the government) from some and redistributed to others. These two are not embedded in any legal documents of our government and would require a herculean effort never before accomplished in history. They are philosophically more Socialist / Communist in nature (utopian ideals) rather than traditional American "leave me alone and let me work hard to earn my living" freedoms. The essence of the first two are freedoms to be left alone and do not require others to provide you with anything; the essence of the second two are freedoms requiring others to provide you with something (which then impacts the freedom of those being required to provide).

 

[Story]

They made it clear they hate and want to rot out the jews from the very beginning. I live in germany and I often buy old magazines from fleamarkets for the fashion pages and let me tell you: The Propaganda was very aggressive and didn't hide much. Maybe they didn't mention cyclon B or how a death camp really works but everything else was quite on the open. The people would need to be blindfolded not to see that. After all this years it is still unbelievable how they could get this far.

Hindsight is always 50/50. Look back at your own life and see how many mistakes you made that, in retrospect, should have been blatantly obvious.

 

[Fastuni]

Hindsight is always 50/50. Look back at your own life and see how many mistakes you made that, in retrospect, should have been blatantly obvious.

Usually it's 20/20.
Joking aside... I don't think this is a fair or relevant comparison to the history of US (or other countries) companies dealing with the "Third Reich".

Problem is that not few influential people in Britain, US and France were not merely "naive" towards the Nazis' and Fascists' motives, but sympathized with them. Be it racism, antisemitism, anti-Marxism or just an admiration of authoritarianism.

That helping to built up well into wartime a transparentely aggressive warmachine of an oppressive regime, is not a good idea is rather obvious from an ethical and halfway realistic geopolitical point of view (as far as "patriotism" is a factor for companies). This also pertains to the Soviets who provided war-important ressources to the Germans 1939-41. Speaking of the Soviets... Stalin's "industrial miracle" of the 1930's was also accomplished through cooperation with US companies.

With profits at the heart of considerations, it is rather unsurprising that certain companies behaved the way they did in the 1930's and 40's.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Another fact to think about: an authoritative, unexpurgated translation of "Mein Kampf" into English wasn't published in the United States until March of 1939. There had been an earlier abridged edition in 1933 which was drastically cut -- by demand of Nazi officials, who required that nearly half the text be left out of the English version, including nearly all of Hitler's discussion of his foreign-policy goals. Both the British and the American publishers of this abridgement were just fine with that.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The first two of the four freedoms are very different philosophically than the second two. The first two - freedom of speech and worship - are freedoms that only require others (other citizens and the government) to leave you alone and let you practice your free speech and worship and are, effectively, protected by our Constitution. The Second two - freedom from want and fear - require others to provide you with something (goods, protection) which means things must be taken, potentially, by force (via the government) from some and redistributed to others. These two are not embedded in any legal documents of our government and would require a herculean effort never before accomplished in history. They are philosophically more Socialist / Communist in nature (utopian ideals) rather than traditional American "leave me alone and let me work hard to earn my living" freedoms. The essence of the first two are freedoms to be left alone and do not require others to provide you with anything; the essence of the second two are freedoms requiring others to provide you with something (which then impacts the freedom of those being required to provide).

You wouldn't have enjoyed living in the Era, a time when the majority of Americans believed that a just society loved its neighbor as itself. They fell short of that goal in many ways, but at least they believed it was a goal worth trying to achieve, and the Second World War was fought with such goals in mind. The golden era of the "go away and leave me alone" culture was 1840, not 1940.

As far as the rest of it goes, I'm afraid I'm not a member of the Cult of the Founding Fathers, so arguments based on their teachings don't really carry a whole lot of weight with me. They had some very good ideas, they did some things right, and they had some very bad ideas and did some things wrong. But in the end they were flawed, imperfect men trying to make sense of their world the same as anyone else, and I don't believe that all the answers to life or government can be discovered by merely inhaling the holy wig powder.

 

[Fading Fast]

You wouldn't have enjoyed living in the Era, a time when the majority of Americans believed that a just society loved its neighbor as itself. They fell short of that goal in many ways, but at least they believed it was a goal worth trying to achieve, and the Second World War was fought with such goals in mind. The golden era of the "go away and leave me alone" culture was 1840, not 1940.

The core difference in those two types of freedom is who can provide / guarantee them and at what cost. The first two require only the government and other citizens to leave you alone - there is no burden place on someone to provide you with free speech or worship. The second two - if embedded in our laws - are entirely different and require government to redistribute resources and goods from some to others. I emphasized in the first post on this that these second two freedoms are not embedded in our laws and lean to Socialist / Communist ideology (not practice because that's a mess than runs from Gulags to bankrupt Greece).

That said, the desire to improve others' condition was, is and hopefully always will be a goal of our society acting in the sphere of personal freedom and association, but not being forced on us by government. To wit, there were many more private societies (i.e., associations formed and run by private citizens not associated in any way [no funds, coordination, etc.] with the government) in the Golden Era that did social and charitable work than there are today. Many parents were members of several of these, they believed in helping others in need (despite having very, very little themselves), but also believed that the government should not be picking winners and losers; should not be redistributing wealth by force. Compared to today - the Golden Era was a period of smaller government social work and larger private sector charitable work: I know I would have enjoyed living in that Era.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm not interested in revisionism. Suffice it to say that those who lived thru the winter of 1931-32 know just how effective "private charity" was in meeting the needs of a Depression-wracked population. And I believe the results of the 1936 election -- widely considered a referendum on the New Deal -- settled the question of what the public wanted quite nicely.

As far as the whole question of Sacred Personal Liberty is concerned, my Loyalist ancestors would laugh at the idea that this country was founded on such, having been driven from their homes into Nova Scotia because of their views.

 

[Fading Fast]

I'm not interested in revisionism. Suffice it to say that those who lived thru the winter of 1931-32 know just how effective "private charity" was in meeting the needs of a Depression-wracked population. And I believe the results of the 1936 election -- widely considered a referendum on the New Deal -- settled the question of what the public wanted quite nicely.

As far as the whole question of Sacred Personal Liberty is concerned, my Loyalist ancestors would laugh at the idea that this country was founded on such, having been driven from their homes into Nova Scotia because of their views.

Yes, you seem not at all interested in revisionism and, of course, all was decided in the election of 1936. I'm amazed it is even still debated today.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yes, you seem not at all interested in revisionism and, of course, all was decided in the election of 1936. I'm amazed it is even still debated today.

For those in 1936 it was, and their opinion is the only one germane to a discussion of what values the majority of people held in the Era. Certainly there were hardboiled old Liberty Leaguers and Union Clubbers who fumed and cursed That Man and went to their graves insisting he was really just a Jew named "Rosenfeld" and that he was going insane from the VD that Eleanor caught from her secret contacts in the Kremlin. But I don't think their views are worth discussing either.

 

[Fading Fast]

For those in 1936 it was, and their opinion is the only one germane to a discussion of what values the majority of people held in the Era. Certainly there were hardboiled old Liberty Leaguers and Union Clubbers who fumed and cursed That Man and went to their graves insisting he was really just a Jew named "Rosenfeld" and that he was going insane from the VD that Eleanor caught from her secret contacts in the Kremlin. But I don't think their views are worth discussing either.

LizzieMaine, your knowledge of the Golden Era is amazing. Your understanding of the feel of that Era is amazing. I enjoy your posts and look forward to reading many, many more of them. I wish you the best for a great day.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Another fact to chew on, for those in a chewing mood --

As of 1935 there were an estimated 7 million registered members of the Huey Long "Share Our Wealth" movement. There were over 10 million card-carrying members of the Townsendite movement, which advocated revolving old-age pensions and other social reforms. There were over 800,000 people who supported the farmer-labor-populist Union Party movement. By comparison, there were only 16 million people -- out of a population of about 150 million -- who cast ballots for Republican Alf Landon in 1936.

For a great many Americans the problem with the Roosevelt Administration wasn't that it was too "liberal." It's that it wasn't liberal enough. The Old Dealers in the 1930s weren't just a minority, they were way out of tune with the beliefs of the majority of Americans, which is why they remained in the outer darkness until the 1980s. (Eisenhower and Nixon were both Willkie-Dewey-Rockefeller New Deal Republicans, and their legislative records prove it.)

 

[Otis]

As of 1935 there were an estimated 7 million registered members of the Huey Long "Share Our Wealth" movement. There were over 10 million card-carrying members of the Townsendite movement, which advocated revolving old-age pensions and other social reforms. There were over 800,000 people who supported the farmer-labor-populist Union Party movement.

Ok, let's assume those figures are correct. There was probably a great deal of overlap in the rolls, but giving your side the benefit of the doubt, let's say there wasn't. That's 18 million people, almost all FDR supports, no doubt.

By comparison, there were only 16 million people -- out of a population of about 150 million -- who cast ballots for Republican Alf Landon in 1936.

I think the population was closer to 140 million at the time but no matter. Let's knock off 50 million of those as being ineligible to vote, children, etc. That leaves roughly 100 million eligible. 18 million vs 16 million. Seems a pretty small turnout - about what you'd expect anytime. Let's also face it, Landon and especially Wilkie later on weren't strong candidates. More like placeholders. Think "Bob Dole, 1996".

For a great many Americans the problem with the Roosevelt Administration wasn't that it was too "liberal." It's that it wasn't liberal enough. The Old Dealers in the 1930s weren't just a minority, they were way out of tune with the beliefs of the majority of Americans, which is why they remained in the outer darkness until the 1980s. (Eisenhower and Nixon were both Willkie-Dewey-Rockefeller New Deal Republicans, and their legislative records prove it.)

Hmm, well maybe not a majority of Americans. How many votes did FDR get all tolled? If your larger point is that a great many people were willing to stick their hands in their neighbors' pocket and pilfer a "free" benefit, then yes, that's undeniable. That's been apparent since at least 1913, when the new Income Tax was sold as a 'soak the rich' scheme.
I totally agree with you on Eisenhower/Nixon et all. Their rhetoric and records don't quite match. Disgusting.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Roosevelt received approximately 28 million votes in that election, or more than 60 percent of the popular vote. Lemke got just under 900,000, with another 183,000 going to Norman Thomas, the Socialist candidate, and another 132,000 going to assorted other parties, including the Communists, Prohibitionists, and such. That's over 29,000,000 voters who didn't want Alf Landon -- or the Old Deal -- in the White House, compared to 16 million who did. That's forty six out of forty eight states by the Electoral College, which seems like a pretty clear statement to me, as it did to just about everyone else in 1936 outside of Col. Robert McCormick, Al Smith, William Randolph Hearst, and the editors of the Literary Digest (who were soon to be added to the roster of the unemployed.)

How people interpret the pros or cons of the New Deal today, in 2013, is completely irrelevant to the question of what the actual mood of the country was in the 1930s. I've said before, and will say again, the idea that the America of the Era was some sort of libertarian idyll where nobody depended on anyone else and everyone was ruggedly individual is product of Reagan-era revisionist fantasy. America in the Era was a nation that functioned on communitarian principles, more so than at any other time in its history.

 

[Fading Fast]

Ok, let's assume those figures are correct. There was probably a great deal of overlap in the rolls, but giving your side the benefit of the doubt, let's say there wasn't. That's 18 million people, almost all FDR supports, no doubt.


I think the population was closer to 140 million at the time but no matter. Let's knock off 50 million of those as being ineligible to vote, children, etc. That leaves roughly 100 million eligible. 18 million vs 16 million. Seems a pretty small turnout - about what you'd expect anytime. Let's also face it, Landon and especially Wilkie later on weren't strong candidates. More like placeholders. Think "Bob Dole, 1996".

Hmm, well maybe not a majority of Americans. How many votes did FDR get all tolled? If your larger point is that a great many people were willing to stick their hands in their neighbors' pocket and pilfer a "free" benefit, then yes, that's undeniable. That's been apparent since at least 1913, when the new Income Tax was sold as a 'soak the rich' scheme.
I totally agree with you on Eisenhower/Nixon et all. Their rhetoric and records don't quite match. Disgusting.

Otis, nicely done. Not sure on the population / voter total math from the 30s (looks like FDR got 28 million, but still that's out of 150 million people or 18.6%), but highlighting the denominator for only the Republican totals needed to be called out (and is an odd ratio since, as you pointed out, since so many of the total can't vote). No politician's vote total, today or then, looks great versus the population. Obama received 59 million votes out of a population of 320 million or 18.4%.

My last point, and then I am going back to my work and life and using visiting these boards for fun - and I went back and reread this stream - is that I wasn't arguing that the country didn't support FDR (I never said that, so I don't know why that became a point), I only was arguing that Capitalism is not at fault for human nature and that all the venality that we see from Capitalists (selfishness, greed, self-aggrandizement, lying, cheating, stealing, selling out of values) is also seen in government and charity scandals. My second point was that there is a philosophical difference in the first two and last two of the four freedoms. And finally, I pointed out that there were more non-governmental charities in the 30s than today.

I stand by those points and am moving on - looking forward to seeing more of your and LizzieMaine's posts.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Keep in mind the total population includes children -- who were not, obviously, voters -- and also those who were kept from voting by various extra-constitutional "state's rights" measures. I suspect that had the latter category been allowed to vote the Roosevelt margin would have been even more substantial: 71 percent of the black vote in 1936 went into the Democratic column, and given black Americans' historical allegiance to the Republican party up till then, it's a pretty good bet that those votes were votes emphatically in favor of the New Deal.

 

[vitanola]

...and that he was going insane from the VD that Eleanor caught from her secret contacts in the Kremlin. But I don't think their views are worth discussing either.

I had always heard that Mrs. Rosenfeld became Luetic due to her mania for Mississippi share-croppers.

Probably Communist Mississippi share-croppers.