Returning to the Days of FDR

That crazy comic duo of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are calling for the Democratic Party to return to those halcyon days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration where the party in power was able to do almost anything it wanted because those evil-industrialists, bankers, and the Republican’s had started a global depression.  Having grown up in Franklin’s hometown I was indoctrinated with all the wonderful things he, his closest advisors and Eleanor did to save America and the world.  But I approach this latest call for a return to those days of essentially a single-party government with some trepidation.  I am older now than when I was in grade and high school, and I’ve seen a number of things in the world, which cause me to question the role of big government and the abuses they are capable of inflicting on the individual. 

Today, while I enjoy the fruits of the socialist policies started under the Roosevelt administration, and greatly expanded under LBJ’s arm-twisting of Congress, I’ve begun to wonder just how long it can be sustained before the Chinese come storming the gates of DC seeking repayment of all the monies they have invested?

Here are some interesting things to consider about FDR’s 3+ terms of office.

When the stock market collapsed and the people made a run on the banks, seeking to get their dollars back and into a safe place (like their mattresses), the government under Hoover sat on its hands.  It was the government under FDR who intervened to stop the run.  They declared a “bank holiday” where all the banks were closed and no one could get their money.  Before they reopened FDR and the Federal Reserve had new authorities passed by a unanimous Congress that allowed them to decide which banks would reopen, and which would come under government scrutiny.  In his soon to be familiar style, he came on the radio to assure the American people that the Government would take care of them.  It was a positive move to reinstate consumer confidence in the banking system.  A modern equivalent would be the crash of 2008 where the government loaned billions of dollars to businesses and banks “too big to fail.”  A bunch of new legislation came out of Congress at that time, among them the Glass-Steagall provisions of the 1933 Banking Act.  Glass-Steagall separated banking from investment.  The intent was to provide greater security to the individual accounts held by a bank, and not let them speculate with small investor’s money. 

In the years since that calming decision the government has played an ever-increasing role in running the lives of the average citizen and we’ve happily played along.  On a selfish level, I think we all like to believe our government is thinking of our best interest when they propose new entitlements (or free stuff for us), but I believe that is hardly ever the case. For example, the provisions of Glass-Steagall have been eroded by the efforts of the banking industry with the Congress, and with the approval of the Federal Reserve.  The reductions in those separations were claimed to be a contributing factor to the collapse in 2008, but I would say the decisions by the late 20^th and early 21^st century Congresses to let even the most unsuitable candidate secure a home loan and then default was the bigger trigger.

As part of his plans to reshape our society, FDR and his administration began creating new agencies, organizations, and programs that greatly expanded the power of the Executive Branch.  When the Supreme Court began striking down New Deal programs like the National Recovery Act in 1936, FDR considered ways to reduce the power of those in the Judiciary who opposed him.  It was a miscalculation on his part and his ideas for packing to courts to get favorable rulings soon died.  But the influences of the socialist and unconstitutional agencies he created long outlived him and the justices who found them in violation of the Constitution.  The NRA made unions a strong political entity for the decades that followed the closing of the agency itself.

Since the 1930’s unions have played an active political role in local, state and federal politics.  Usually on behalf of the Democratic party.  But one has to ask, what have the unions actually done since the mid-1930s to enrich their membership?  Have they actually protected jobs, kept their members on a path to financial security, or just made the union leadership rich and influential from the wealth of union dues?

Those of my generation will recall the scandals of the Teamsters Union, Jimmy Hoffa, and organized crime.  The question still remains today, which part of the Giant’s end zone is Jimmy buried in?  Unions seem to be great at vilifying management, but not so great at figuring out a win-win solution that keeps a business alive to provide long term employment for the membership.  For the record, a lot of business management deserves to be vilified for their own stupidity but that’s for another rant.

I love this video from economist Milton Freedman talking about unions.  In it, he points out the two most successful unions (as of 1980), if we assume the primary role of a union is to enrich their members, were the Air Line Pilots Association and the American Medical Association.  He also talks about the inherent problem with municipal unions and those they bargain with.

We, as voters, would be far better served if we understood under our current rules politics is purely a game about power and control and has next to nothing to do with making the lives of the average citizen better.  To support this hypothesis, I only need to look at the principle positions of the two parties.  Show me in either party’s platform where the average citizen comes out ahead?  On the Democratic side, it is all about centralizing and maintaining power by letting anyone they think will vote for them cast a ballot, on the Republican side it is about allowing the big corporations a free reign.  Of course, religion gets thrown about as a useful tool because on the one side they’ve chosen to abandon their faith, or at least give it only lip service, which opens the door for the other side to be the defenders of it.

For me, the most amusing things I’ve read are the party platforms.  Each contains about 10-pounds of BS stuffed into a 5-pound bag, but I’m sure they’ve paid good money to have them written and published.  Historically, their use can best be described as a tool to say it’s the other party’s fault when things go south.

Let’s take one example for each party and see if I can prove the point.

In the section titled Government reform, the RNC platform lists about 17 things it says are important.  They range from “Making Government Work for the People,” to “Preserving the District of Columbia.”  In the first, and I assume the most important section they suggest we should return power to the states and reduce the federal government.  When the Republicans were in complete control of the Congress and the Executive has there ever been any fundamental changes to our government that even slowed just a little bit the growth of a central bureaucracy?  In the words of John Pinette, I say “nay-nay.”

One the DNC side, we see a section called Raise Incomes and Restore Economic Security for the Middle Class.  In that section, they talk about everything from “Raising Workers’ Wages” to “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Postal Service.”  The funny thing about this section is it is really about making the unions strong again and offers the approach they should do this through Executive Orders or some other mean. That sure sounds like an endorsement of a dictator (as long as it’s the right dictator).  Today we have record low unemployment, does that work for the Democrats?  Apparently not!

So my bottom line remains one of skepticism and distrust of a large all-powerful government regardless of who is in charge.  Those who advocate for the DNC version of Government I can only offer this advice.  Be careful what you wish for.  If it comes it may come in the form you don’t like.  (Kind of like Trump winning in 2020).