Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Are Hillary and Obama Afraid of Talking About the New Deal?

By Howard Zinn, The Nation. Posted March 31, 2008.


In today's climate of uncontrolled greed, it seems like a no-brainer to channel one of the most innovative programs in US history.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

We might wonder why no Democratic Party contender for the presidency has invoked the memory of the New Deal and its unprecedented series of laws aimed at helping people in need. The New Deal was tentative, cautious, bold enough to shake the pillars of the system but not to replace them. It created many jobs but left 9 million unemployed. It built public housing but not nearly enough. It helped large commercial farmers but not tenant farmers. Excluded from its programs were the poorest of the poor, especially blacks. As farm laborers, migrants or domestic workers, they didn't qualify for unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, Social Security or farm subsidies.

Still, in today's climate of endless war and uncontrolled greed, drawing upon the heritage of the 1930s would be a huge step forward. Perhaps the momentum of such a project could carry the nation past the limits of FDR's reforms, especially if there were a popular upsurge that demanded it. A candidate who points to the New Deal as a model for innovative legislation would be drawing on the huge reputation Franklin Roosevelt and his policies enjoy in this country, an admiration matched by no President since Lincoln. Imagine the response a Democratic candidate would get from the electorate if he or she spoke as follows:

"Our nation is in crisis, just as it was when Roosevelt took office. At that time, people desperately needed help, they needed jobs, decent housing, protection in old age. They needed to know that the government was for them and not just for the wealthy classes. This is what the American people need today.

"I will do what the New Deal did, to make up for the failure of the market system. It put millions of people to work through the Works Progress Administration, at all kinds of jobs, from building schools, hospitals, playgrounds, to repairing streets and bridges, to writing symphonies and painting murals and putting on plays. We can do that today for workers displaced by closed factories, for professionals downsized by a failed economy, for families needing two or three incomes to survive, for writers and musicians and other artists who struggle for security.

"The New Deal's Civilian Conservation Corps at its peak employed 500,000 young people. They lived in camps, planted millions of trees, reclaimed millions of acres of land, built 97,000 miles of fire roads, protected natural habitats, restocked fish and gave emergency help to people threatened by floods.

"We can do that today, by bringing our soldiers home from war and from the military bases we have in 130 countries. We will recruit young people not to fight but to clean up our lakes and rivers, build homes for people in need, make our cities beautiful, be ready to help with disasters like Katrina. The military is having a hard time recruiting young men and women for war, and with good reason. We will have no such problem enlisting the young to build rather than destroy.

"We can learn from the Social Security program and the GI Bill of Rights, which were efficient government programs, doing for older people and for veterans what private enterprise could not do. We can go beyond the New Deal, extending the principle of social security to health security with a totally free government-run health system. We can extend the GI Bill of Rights to a Civilian Bill of Rights, offering free higher education for all.

"We will have trillions of dollars to pay for these programs if we do two things: if we concentrate our taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population, not only their incomes but their accumulated wealth, and if we downsize our gigantic military machine, declaring ourselves a peaceful nation.

"We will not pay attention to those who complain that this is 'big government.' We have seen big government used for war and to give benefits to the wealthy. We will use big government for the people."

How refreshing it would be if a presidential candidate reminded us of the experience of the New Deal and defied the corporate elite as Roosevelt did, on the eve of his 1936 re-election. Referring to the determination of the wealthy classes to defeat him, he told a huge crowd at Madison Square Garden: "They are unanimous in their hatred for me -- and I welcome their hatred." I believe that a candidate who showed such boldness would win a smashing victory at the polls.

The innovations of the New Deal were fueled by the militant demands for change that swept the country as FDR began his presidency: the tenants' groups; the Unemployed Councils; the millions on strike on the West Coast, in the Midwest and the South; the disruptive actions of desperate people seeking food, housing, jobs -- the turmoil threatening the foundations of American capitalism. We will need a similar mobilization of citizens today, to unmoor from corporate control whoever becomes President. To match the New Deal, to go beyond it, is an idea whose time has come.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: taxes, democratic party, social security, gi bill, new deal, fdr

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Politics! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
None of the big name candidates wants to admit how deep in the muck we are
Posted by: Rune on Mar 31, 2008 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they did, they would be asked for a plausible plan for getting us out of the mire before we sink in over our heads, and none of the candidates has a plan for such a thing that their corporate benefactors will support.

All the candidates are willing to do is sell us on vague dreams of hope, an end to war, health care, a pony (oh, wait, they haven't started baiting the 2012 voters, yet), etc., and knowing that most people will go along with the game because it is just too scary to stand up against our notion of the least bad candidate when the others seem even worse. What is most frightening, is that the game is working. How will this country ever effect real change that is up to the mounting problems it is facing (or failing to face, actually) if it can't even find the nerve to criticize a bunch of sell-out candidates months before the national conventions, let alone the national election?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They're not afraid. They just don't care.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Mar 31, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article by Mr. Zinn is a bit idealistic and delusional. What bothers me most about the New Deal was that it did not go far enough. You could also say the marijuana tax act of 1936 was part of it too. That law was an early step in the government's fascist drug war. It effectively ended the use of hemp in the United States except during world war II when the richest amerikans lives were threatened by nazi germany and imperial japan. Also a lot of times to get a job with the TVA it was mandatory that one attend church.

The New Deal may have taken an extra 10% of the top ten percent of the richest people's income and distributed it to the bottom 50% of the people. The tightwads at the top hated that so bad they did everything they could to destroy FDR. It was common for the right wing to call FDR Rosenfeld to play on people's anti-semitism. Smedley Butler testified to congress that he was approached to participate in a coup to oust FDR. Think of what would have happened to him if he had pushed to get an extra 30% from the richest people as he should have. That percentage would have been something to truly admire and a reason to truly worship FDR as a man of the people. It's sad that FDR did just enough to save the capitalist parasites instead of condemning capitalism for it's predatory nature and it's ability to play on some of the worst characteristics of human nature.

What I've said may be somewhat derogatory towards FDR and the New Deal but I do think FDR may have been the best president we've ever had and programs like the CCC, WPA, and TVA did a lot of good. Plus those programs may be some of the great highlights in american history. We could use another New Deal that is much more enlightened that the first one.

"We will not pay attention to those who complain that this is 'big government.' We have seen big government used for war and to give benefits to the wealthy. We will use big government for the people."

Hell yeah! The ones that complain most about big government are people like reagan and bush II while at the same time making it bigger and more corrupt. Reagan and bush II wasted more money than any other presidents. At least with FDR we as a country might get something for our money instead of just lining the pockets of right wing looters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FDR
Posted by: Tom Degan on Mar 31, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was said of him at the time of his death on April 12, 1945, "Although he never regained the use of his legs, much as he wished to, much as he tried, he taught a crippled nation how to walk again." He was the pampered son of privilege from Hyde Park, NY whose battle with polio, begun in the summer of 1921, ingrained into his soul a deep and abiding empathy for the suffering of others that had previously been somewhat lacking in him. Through the developement of a series of radical, revolutionary programs - unparalleled in history - which his administration brought into the mainstream of social engineering, he was able to usher millions of regular people into the ranks of a middle class that hadn't even existed before he took the oath of office seventy-five years ago this month on March 4, 1933. It is now almost a cliche but it is as true as the rising sun: He saved capitalism by "tempering its excesses". The people would elect him to an unprecedented four terms. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was - beyond a doubt - the greatest president in American history.

Every once in a while, I visit the Roosevelt mansion and museum in Hyde Park, less than forty miles from where I now sit. It is the birth place and the final resting place of the man who saved America from the corruption and greed of its elitist class - and more than likely prevented a Communist revolution. What is largly forgotten is the fact that the America Communist Party, in response to the economic horror that riddled the American landscape during the administration of Herbert Clark Hoover, was gaining serious ground by 1933. It was only after Franklin Roosevelt was able to prove to his fellow countrymen that the government could be made to work for the benefit of all the people that it whithered and died. I always walk away from the FDR Library feeling better about America. The place is a gentle reminder that, what once worked so beautifully for WE THE PEOPLE, can indeed be made to work again.

The Republican Party used to be called "The Party of Lincoln". But that is so obviously no longer the case that even their most blatant propagandists don't even attempt to use that sort of language any longer. Unless today's cowardly, incompetent Democratic Party wakes up and realizes that it is still, in fact, "The Party of Roosevelt", America will only continue in its present, downward spiral.

The New Deal that Franklin Delano Roosevely offered to the people of the United States of America needs to be resuscitated.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
BUSH'S WAR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FDR Posted by: saltoafronteira
» RE: FDR Posted by: DeWriter
» RE: FDR Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: FDR Posted by: Doubtom
» Wrong on the Constitution Posted by: brunowe
Would be nice...
Posted by: packofwolves on Mar 31, 2008 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only are these the words we need to hear from our candidates, these are the actions we need in order to rescue our country from the brink of disaster and revolution. Will any candidate actually say and do these things that our country so desperately needs? Say? Perhaps in the not too distant future we might hear it said. Do? No. And why would they say and not do? Because they too are destroying our country with their own greed. I don't believe there is an honest politician left in this world, if there ever was one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Would be nice... Posted by: saltoafronteira
» RE: Would be nice... Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Would be nice... Posted by: dmmaze6
» RE: What Edwards was saying Posted by: Andie927
A new, New Deal, would be an anomaly to the Super Class
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Mar 31, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure a man of Franklin Roosevelt's stature, and vision, would even be permitted to run for president in today's environment that's unabashedly run by, controlled by, and monitored by, the Super Class.

Until people recognize there's really no discernable difference among any of the leading candidates, from either major party, the continued erosion of our Constitution will continue to be exercised by the real people who run this country -- the elite, the moneyed, and the powerful. Who they allow us to put into the White House is only window-dressing. Once you recognize this, along with millions of other Americans, then, and only then, will this country be given back to We the People.

We've evolved into a combination plutocracy and corporacracy, through our own unwillingness to see, dressed in the familiar red, white, and blue of feigned democracy and freedom for all. We let the fox guard the henhouse. Now we're paying the price.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nobody seems to be willing to admit...
Posted by: Farasien on Mar 31, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...That the real, underlying reason for all this greed-ism and allowing people to suffer they way they have, and will continue to is because there is a profit motive to do so. Any time there is a huge, wreckingly-expensive problem that could easily be fixed in the world- but ISN'T, is because someone, somewhere is making a huge profit on it. A broken system-our current system-is left to falter on as it is and has because companies and various privelaged others are literaly hauling off truckloads of cash from it every day. Until someone changes the entire cash/power/greed paradigm at its core, nothing will ever change in this or any other country. Keep this in mind when looking at the tragety of the day we see every time we look at the news. We have the world we do because we are unwilling to forcibly impliment the changes nesessary to short circuit the underlying problem, and will be in the same condition so long as we are still unwilling to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't forget racism Posted by: MikeOckhurtz
Democrats and Republicans
Posted by: OneliaG on Mar 31, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no difference today in either party cause they are still lying today and they fight and buy there way out of being impeached... and kill people ?? So why would we as the people Of the USA we demand parties get along or not at all and change your evil ways I would not vote for either..The Democrats are getting like the Republicans

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both represent the owners
Posted by: chlamor on Mar 31, 2008 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no political solution to the mess we are in. Until people realize this we will spin our wheels in the political rut of the American Corporate Political charade.

Please let me package a "solution" for you in nice and pretty, American-style, wrapping. All slick and shiny and ready for you to take home.

I really hope that's not what you expect when you ask for some "solution." The mere asking of this question betrays the lack of understanding of the fundamental issue here: That in order to find a "solution", or is it THE SOLUTION®, you must completely remove yourself from the reality that you have believed in through the years. This in and of itself is a very difficult task, and most people who sincerely want to "help the earth" (or humanity) die never understanding this. This is why so many feel hopeless about not being able to create true change. Because you're still looking for solutions on the same platform that caused the problems.

Strength in humility is a myth. Passive denial of the enormity of the problems that confront us and the radical solutions needed to address these, while understandable in light of all the devastation being visited upon the Earth by developers, corporate greed heads and a largely acquiescent populace, is still an indefensible and repugnant position.

As long as women and African-Americans were nice humble and passive what did they get? Nothing. Unless you count subjugation and servitude as something. Would those in power one day have awakened one day in a particularly genial and loving mood having experienced some psycho-spiritual transformation and said, "You are so nice and humble I'm going to allow you to vote, own property and while we're at it let's throw in equal pay?"

Dream on.

It took suffragettes and civil rights activists being insistent, unpleasantly arrogant, unrelenting and a willingness to risk what little they did have to attain the few freedoms that are "allowed" today. This meant laying their bodies on the line.

Those who are destroying our earth and our communities at breakneck speed are as humble and caring as barracudas, with all apologies to the more gentle piscine creatures, and will not easily or at all relinquish their stranglehold on the gasping planet or your neck.

What it will take is nothing short of large scale purposeful sustained direct actions that bring the system to a halt. This means tremendous sacrifice. This means discomfort. In this there is the inevitably of tremendous risk.

The only remedy will be when people begin to get interested in taking back active control of the processes that rule their lives and work with each other rather than crossing their fingers and heading off to the ballot box.

There is no political solution.

DEMANDS:

1) Universal Single Payerl Health Care

2) Promotion/Development of Local Food Systems

3) Government subsidized heating programs

4) 90% Reduction In Military Budget

5) Immediate Development Of Nationwide Mass Transit System

6) Immediate Withdrawal Of US Troops From All Parts Of The Globe

7) Triple The Taxes For Anyone Making Over $75,000/ Year. Sliding Scale Tilting Upwards

INTERMISSION:

Immediate Lashing Of All Ivy League Business/Economics Professors, or At Least Force Them To Get Hands-On Honest Work Preferably Outdoors With Sharp Objects In Close Proximity to One Another?


Doing What It Takes: Part One

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doing What It Takes: Part Two
Posted by: chlamor on Mar 31, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CONTINUED:

9) Immediate Dissolution Of All Federal Banking Systems followed by Creation Of Local Currencies

10) Elimination Of Rent/Mortgage

11) Fair Trials For All Members Of The Senate

12) Open Borders For People, Closed Borders For Bananas

13) Elimination of all Free Trade Agreements

Naturally when I skip into my polling place and look for these issues on the ballot I'll be aroused and gleeful to pull that lever "in favor of" but lacking that I’d say it’s time for direct action.

HOW TO DO IT:

- Massive boycotts and a general strike.

- A huge 'None of the above' vote-reform campaign

THOUGHTS:

In the context of such strategic co-optation of mainstream media by the military-intelligence rightwing establishment, comprehensive education and organization of the public will be an immense uphill challenge.

It vexes me to no end that the progressive/anti-war/anti-globalization/'liberal' public has effectively NO popular media channel, barring perhaps Link TV, Democracy Now which are severly compromised avenues. WHY can't we develop a viable opposition/alternative media providing the kind of objective journalism we need to provide a modicum of insight and perspective?

Of course, it takes money -- not being hooked into the MIC and big-corporate advertisers, it will have to be funded largely by alternative-energy, local and small-scale service-industry providers, and media-subscribers.

Well, slowly, people ARE waking up and beginning to ask the important questions, connecting the dots. But its going to take a huge groundswell of people to compel essential change, for issues of social justice and political/economic accountability, environmental stewardship and sustainable development, etc.

Mebbe a popular-campaign rallying around- Justice for the Gangster "leaders'! No More Mob-Boss Morality!"

But it'll be hard to organize a peaceful revolution without running afoul of Fascist laws aka Patriot Act and heavy Police intimidation. Unfortunately, that's probably what it'll take. People will have to lay it on the line to reclaim their stake in a just society and democracy re: the Government Of, By and FOR the People.

We could learn a lot from the Bolivarian Revolution.

SOLUTIONS:

1) Too much "unity"; too little confrontation...

2) Too old; where are the NAFTA kids?

3) Too organized; the "Mobe" should mobilize (i.e. logistics) - not set goals

4) Too much "bearing witness"; too little "we're going to shut this fucker down"

5) Too little pre-planning; D.C. is the place to swell numbers, after that Baltimore, Philly, NYC... Concentric Circles; go for the kids - they drag everyone else.

6) Too set piece; pro forma - it should be, "Bring your guitar and your motorcycle helmet"

7) Too little culture, or perhaps, just one kind of culture; let a hundred flowers bloom - make it a chance to meet America; turn it into a "festival".

8) The role of socialists in American street demos is to drag out the numbers and to set an example by getting their heads busted FIRST... not to TALK (this is a socialist talking). Shut the fuck up. Let passion speak.

9) Too much talking in general... The crowd should MARCH... A LOT... They form the mass around which the various tribes can organize sallies and retreat back to... Time to march our ass off.

Doing What It Takes: Part Two

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doing What It Takes: Part Three
Posted by: chlamor on Mar 31, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Before getting to the meat of this, let me pause for a moment, to offer a word in defense of righteous anger. There is a certain legitimacy to raw anger. Anger is a correct & reasonable first response to injustice. By itself, it is an inadequate response to injustice. But it is an excellent foundation on which more constructive responses can be built.

And, on the other hand, the most paralyzing & crippling response towards great injustice, is docile acceptance. THAT is what the filthy Evilcrats & their apologists are all about — getting you to somehow resign yourself to corporatists & warmongering imperialists, who however (like Obama) are skilled in the use of ‘uplifting’ language.]

OK, now the meat. We are at a time in our nation’s history where the political system is breaking down. It is no ordinary time. Mechanisms that have sufficed since the 1930’s are now failing.

There is zero chance that our system can be fixed through the officially-approved mechanisms. Whether overtly recognized or not, there’s a war going on — the US ruling class against all the rest of us. It’s essentially a class war. The rulers want you to remain a Democrat, because the D’s are a ruling-class institution, whose job is guiding the Dem half of the populace in paths that are safe for the rulers. To remain a Dem voter, and to swallow whatever slop the party dishes up, is to passively assent to this arrangement.

Therefore, your primary focus should be on resisting & criticizing the system, not on adapting yourself to it. You should be talking with your friends & family about the very real things that are wrong. You should be trying to make whatever contribution you can to elevating political consciousness. Accepting the slop of the Dem Party is the opposite of all that: it deadens political consciousness, & only makes your enemies stronger.

Voting for candidates only works when there are decent candidates — but that’s not our situation. We betray ourselves if we fail to recognize that.

Well, looking at it historically, the “solution” has to be a break from the officially-approved mechanisms. It must have the form of a broad movement based on the interests of the bottom 80-90% of the population, rather than on the interests of the top 1%. It has to be what they call “radical” politics — something that big business and the media are definitely not going to like, any more than they like Kucinich or antiwar protestors.

The 2 parties are really just a mechanism of social control. They’re not a way for “the people” to express their will; they’re a way for rulers to control the people — partly by making them believe that they (the peeps) have some say (which they don’t). Building a movement to oppose this takes time. But its sine qua non is political consciousness — the type that socialists understand & try to cultivate; and that the big-business parties & media try to suppress & eradicate.

We need Latin American-style "socialist" revolution in the streets, complemented by effective traditional political organizing, social-class based. Genuine socialism is good. An honest look at history shows that it's what the global fascists truly fear. (For instance, read "Killing Hope" by William Blum.) Why do privileged first worlders always think they/we know better, with their quasi-capitalist new-big-thing?

Here in the states we need more of the Seattle '99 and follow-up protests. The energy from those actions was derailed on 9/11. Funny thing about that...

Doing What It Takes: Part Three

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Check Out the Green Party, Posted by: Andie927
Not a new deal but a new politics
Posted by: daw13 on Mar 31, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is needed. It was Zinn himself, in A People's History of the United States who described how brilliantly U.S. capitalism had learned to control through misdirection and cooptation, rather than through direct repression. Even the act of voting, he noted, was presented as a form of activism. How false! Activism, he said, is when people create organization. Grassroots, people's organization, to counter the power of corporate organization.

Roosevelt, however much his policies eased pain, reinforced this kind of capitalism and set us up for what we experience today. The New Deal was designed to weaken, not to enhance the role of THE PEOPLE operating through their government to get their needs met. It was an exercise in further encouraging people that they could count on corporate america to come through for them, therefore no need to organize.

Zinn always understood this. I find this article baffling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's In A Word?
Posted by: TD odaly on Mar 31, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please take note of how your headline writers follow the wires with headlines that grant Sen. Clinton homey, cozy, fireside accessability by naming her first name "Hillary" in your headline, and by not granting Sen. Obama that same warm welcome into your readers homes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Depends on perspective I suppose. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: What's In A Word? Posted by: TD odaly
Precisely
Posted by: chlamor on Mar 31, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roosevelt and The New Deal was a salve for the capitalists and coopted the true social movements that were thriving and growing. The techniques and manipulations that Roosevelt perfromed in eliminating the Left in America were insidious and brilliantly orchestrated.

The liberal interpretation of Roosevelt ignores the facts of history.

Zinn should know better and I too am surprised by this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The innovation of the New Deal: "Play Now, Pay Later"
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 31, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The attitude that arose from the New Deal--that our representatives to Congress can enact legislation with no regard to it's future impact, has gifted this country with a 53 trillion dollar unfunded liability, starting with so-called social security privileges, and ending with medicare entitlements.

Don't get me wrong--I am willing to stomach a reasonable tax burden so that old people who haven't been able to or haven't chosen to save for retirement and medical expenses can live a frugal, healthy lifestyle.

Folks, that ain't what happened. The country got it into its head following the New Deal that stuff was free for the time being--and let's drop the political religionism, the New Deal was a massive government Credit Card--and we let our Congresscritters pass legislation willy-nilly, with 'ary a thought as to how it would be paid for.

It changed the attitude of the country. Many people were still paying cash or building their own houses back in the thirties. The only mass "consumer credit" was--basically--what the local store owner was willing to extend to you, along with loans that farmers might take out to produce a harvest after a bad year. The shiny appeal of being able to buy "things", be they social programs, houses, or 50" televisions and pay for them later took hold and hasn't lost its magical appeal since.

So, each time you reflexively reach into your wallet to haul out your MASTERcard for a great New Deal that will allow you to drink your soda pop now and pay for it later, think about two things:

A) Do you enjoy serving your Master?

B) Is it really ok for you to do it, just because your representative in Congress does it with national policy?

It's time to take our heads out of the sand. If New Deal-style programs are really worth it--and in my opinion as a voter many are, to varying degrees--it's time to start recognizing their value and paying for them, instead allowing our Congresscritters to simply wink and nod, and pass growing, potentially crippling Ponzi schemes on to be paid for by somebody else, some other time.

We are that someone else, and the time draws nigh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kucinich
Posted by: inquiringmind on Mar 31, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't Dennis Kucinich already say that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kucinich Posted by: dayenta
» RE: Kucinich, Nader, McKinney Posted by: yinyangme
Of course Clinton and Obama are loath to discuss the New Deal.
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 31, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton and Obama are right wingers--the delusional raving of Obamabots to the contrary notwithstanding.

And as I recall, right wingers have always--I repeat, always--hated the New Deal. `;^)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right-wing conservative: "A well-employed person doesn't need any handouts"
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 31, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tell that to the corporate American welfare kings & queens.

Roosevelt was right about the system of lucrative government contracts delivered to the cronies & sponsors of our elected officials at the taxpayer's cost. He called it corporate socialism, and it's at the very heart of the current U.S. government contracting system - budgets are written by executive branch apparatchiks with close ties to industry, given the stamp of approval by Congressional staffers and Senators, who usually try and add on lucrative pork for their cronies back home, and delivered up to corporate America on a silver platter - which shows appreciation by hiring the children of the Senators at high wages, providing ex-government officials and retired generals with cushy board positions, and generally just spreading the loot around like any good Don would.

We all pay taxes because we want things like roads and education and health care systems and military defense and fire and police protection and courts and financial systems taken care of.

We don't pay taxes to provide a floating cushion to Wall Street billionaires tied to Bear Stearns who make bad bets - but that's what's going on, with the approval of both the executive and legislative and judicial branches. Put the crooks in charge of the books and anything goes.

It's funny how all the right-wing conservatives, who howl about communism any time someone tries to increase the education budget or institute a national health care system, always keep their mouths shut about the gross taxpayer giveaways to giant corporations engineered by Bush and Cheney.

The corporate Democrats, of which Hillary Clinton is a prime example, are not much better. Clinton's economic advisers were Alan Greenspan, Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin - a more anti-Roosevelt collection of characters is hard to imagine. These were all avid pro-NAFTA enthusiasts - and now they're backing Hillary.

Lawrence Summers: "I think it's now generally appreciated that it's the market that harnesses people's initiative best, it's the market that best takes advantage of people's natural self-interest, gets goods and services produced best. The real focus and progressive thinking now is not how to oppose and suppress market forces but how to use market forces to achieve progressive objectives."

This is complete B.S. - the majority of global markets are controlled by cartels, as Summers well knows, whether its the OPEC oil cartel, the U.S. gasoline cartel, the Alcoa-led aluminum cartel, the corporate media cartel, the subprime and student loan cartels, the telecommunication and cell phone cartels, pharmaceutical cartels, cocaine and heroin cartels, etc. etc. Oh, there is infighting within the cartels, and some groups win and some lose, but they all march in lockstep when their shared interests are threatened, via vehicles like the American Petroleum Institute, etc.

What we really need are the anti-trust measures of the 1930s that relied on transparency and regulation of markets by independent government officials - the umpires, if you like. We need an end to the labyrinth of holding companies and hedge funds that allows secret and not-so-secret cartels to operate with impunity. At the same time, we need the New Deal programs: infrastructure rebuilding, financial regulation, and an increase in the minimum wage.

Of course, the billionaire's PR hamsters will quickly respond with screams of "communist!" (I think they're shifting to "economic terrorist!" nowadays...), but that's ridiculous. The Soviet Union was just one big cartel, and if J.D. Rockefeller had lived there he wuld have been Stalin's best friend.

Markets are the best way to exchange goods and services, but they need to be regulated - by democratically elected governments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about their support for Izrael?
Posted by: MikeOckhurtz on Mar 31, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They both seem to care more about Izrael more than they care about America. They listen more to foreign Izraeli agents than they do real Americans. In fact, maybe one of them will rename the United States of America - The States United in Support for Izrael?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Zinn missed the boat on this one
Posted by: batteredup on Mar 31, 2008 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I admire the work of Howard Zinn tremendously, but how could he overlook the fact that Dennis Kucinich made many impassioned speeches invoking a call to implement "an FDR-New Deal type of recovery program?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Kucinich was the real deal Posted by: Clockwise Cat
Green Jobs
Posted by: Verjenie on Mar 31, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary initially and then Obama have both been discussing Green Job Programs. This is a New Deal. Tax money would go into these job programs rather than Haliburton's hot little hands. Give someone a fish, they'll eat for a day, teach someone to fish.....etc. If they follow through with this, it doesn't need to be called a New New Deal. It simply will be.
Also without being unduly idealistic the economy is so disasterously tremulous at this point it is likely that even some bigwhigs who aren't in the craven category ( i.e. Bush Family) see the need to revisit a failing model and yes are aware that SERIOUS UNREST will result if a majority of people begin to go under. Also this is a moral issue that some religiosos now think trumps the usual Republican sex obsessions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Public opinion and
Posted by: willymack on Mar 31, 2008 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The public discourse have been continuously and dishonestly distorted and poisoned against New Deal programs and ideas since they were first discussed and implemented in the 1930s. Those with the most to lose were the same then as now. Attainment of obscene wealth and dictitorial power drive the robber barons now, as then. They've set themselves up as demigods in the eyes of most of our people, and given social programs a dirty name, with nonsensical phrases such as "creeping socialism", ignoring the fact that our secular society has socialist underpinnings, benefitting EVERYONE. They bring religion into the game, equating ideas of social justice with the Communist Manifesto, and hold these up as something to be FEARED, something GODLESS, therefore EVIL, misdirecting attention away from their own evil purposes and anti- American activities. Unless and until these traitors to the American ideal of equality under the Law are unmasked and prosecuted for the criminals they are, nothing will change and the United States of America will join other failed socities whose ruins are peppered throughout the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New New Deal..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Mar 31, 2008 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We had an opportunity for real change and due to the corruption and perversion of our economy and system of government a chance for real sweeping change and to reorganize America's infrastructure some of it's fundamentals, but instead we've got these celebrity types blowing all that after these many years of suffering under Bush and the corporate fascism it has inflicted upon America..

The Clintons are not New Dealers remember Bill Clinton never said one word when Bush was trying to hasten the bankruptcy of Social Security not one word..and was chumming around with Bush 41..!

Obama doesn't say anything about anything for the most part, he let's the suffering masses project their hopes upon him..like dazed sheep..

There are great opportunities to really change things instead we get bowling and bullshit..race and manipulation..

We could turn this country around pretty quick if we did a few things such as Single Payer Health Care, Nationalize the American Oil industry, and Nationalize the American Airline Industry..eventually Nationalize all Energy especially electric..

This would cut costs and create an economic boom..especially The Oil Industry and Health Care..!

We could cut costs for Oil products by 30-35% and still have $50-60 Billion per year for alternative energy, new technologies, new engine designs and the failing oil infrastructure also create a lot of jobs good jobs real jobs..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A New New Deal..! Posted by: yellow
We are a nation of canibals
Posted by: witchjug on Mar 31, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how many americans are employed by arms manufacturers? how many by health insurence companies? Tabacco? Prisons? Security? Law enforcement? Credit agencies? The most lucrative businesses in our country are those that destroy us. We are a nation of canibals. We do not create as a people but rather creativly make money on various forms of our own distruction. What is needed is a replacement to our economy of pain and death. People are prison gaurds, tabacco lawyers, bullet makers not because they want to be but because there is no viable alternative. We are a nation of canibals and the least squeemish among us are the most succesfull.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Edwards was talking about!
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 31, 2008 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad, no one would listen. They wanted to make History, first women or first black! What ISSUES?

What FDR did was Popular Progressivism, which is exactly how people described Edwards ideas! America Corp, young people doing public service work, so they could earn a free or low cost college education! He went to New Orleans, to work, not just make speeches! He was running on Public Campaign finance so he wouldn't be indebted to anyone!

If you wanted another FDR, the public (Dem.s') blew it! In favor of 'making history'!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

REPUBLICAN ROADBLOCKS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 31, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither Clinton nor Obama would dare to promise anything on the scale suggested. There's nothing that doesn't need an overhaul. I believe they would both change alot of things but the Republicans have created chaos
and continue to do so. They're both paralyzed and looking foolish because they are not miracle workers. Both are smart enough to know it. Bush's legacy will include as much damage as possible with the help of Cheney & Rove. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The New Deal seems as foreign to Americans as the Declaration of Independence
Posted by: ewalden on Mar 31, 2008 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howard Zinn is right, it would be a thrill to hear any of the Democratic Party, or even the "alternative" party candidates, speak eloquently, or even speak, about the benefits of the New Deal. However a Coup took place in this country, and unlike other timetables, we are only now realizing it's full effects.

The Coup that took place in this country had it's appex on Nov. 23, 1963 when John Kennedy was murdered. It seems that both parties agreed, conspiratorially or professionally, they have come to mean about the same thing, within the last 40 years to dismantle the New Deal and never remind the populace of it's benefits. Part of the strategy was never to mention it again. Another part was to refer to extreme conditions, say unemployment, as 25% of the population, using extinct statistical codes and taking the numbers completely out of context of the current codes, such as those unemployed who a have run out of unemployment insurance benefits, which we did not have back in 1932.

Oh yes, Roosevelt saved capitalism, but capital still had a great deal to contribute to the growth of the country. Now that we see the stage of capitalism and statism that can be called fascism we have a different perspective. How we will get out of this one no one seems to be addressing. A good dishing of the New Deal: decent education, parks, roads, public transportation, railroad reconstruction, guaranteed minimum livable wage, taxes on the very rich, regulations on the necessities of utitlities, water, quaranteed housing, little things of that sort would help a lot. We don't need to call it a New Deal we can call it the American Ideal.

I guess it is the politicians who will have to employ those ideas and address those words to even bring any of this to the minds of people who are less than 50 years old. I'm just an old pundit, Howard is just an Historian, Pete Seeger says he's just a musician - but Pete is up for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination, and who knows, one of the Democratic Party winners may hire Howard Zinn as a consultant, and he may use the rhetoric of a new American deal, and I may have to opportunity to go to Oslo to help mitigate the smell of the Henry Kissinger prize when Pete Seeger wins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fed Screwed America and TRAITOR FDR came to the "rescue"
Posted by: Adler Berriman Seal on Mar 31, 2008 5:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FDR was a scum-sucking traitor who intentionally participated in the conflagration of WWII. The Federal Reserve Banking Swindle was responsible for the Great Depression, and the same moneyed interests behind the creation of the Fed and the Great depression were behind WWI and WWII. FDR was one of their operatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» pearl harbor, 12/07/41 Posted by: e rice
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 31, 2008 8:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shillary & SmoovB are the neo-Nazi good cops.


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

voice in the crowd
Posted by: passive agressive activist on Mar 31, 2008 9:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is my opinion that the whole hillary/obama thing is a complete farce...much like pro wrestling. If you really want change in this country I think we need to start listening to people that are actually working for positive change...I know that this is not going to be a popular thing to say but...Nader told you so. Enjoy your farce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Deal? What's That?
Posted by: Blueprelude on Apr 1, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course Clinton and Obama don't want to talk about the New Deal. If your top campaign contributors were Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan Chase (which is true for both of them) you wouldn't talk about the New Deal either.

These two are strictly 1920's style Democrats; big business friendly and not exactly boat rockers. Who remembers 1920's Democratic candidates today, such as John W. Davis and Al Smith? Both of them later went on to become fascist sympathizers!

The only hope for real change in our financial system today is through public pressure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]