Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

FDR vs. Reagan

By David Sirota, AlterNet. Posted October 31, 2008.


The final stretch of the Presidential race has become an ideological proxy war between Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

So it has all come down to this.

After two years and a quarter-billion dollars worth of ads, the pulverizing election has become a steel-cage match pitting rivals against each other -- and not Immigrants versus Natives, Americans versus Foreigners or Whites versus Blacks.

No, John McCain and Barack Obama have made the race's final weeks an ideological proxy war between two presidential icons who still loom larger than them: Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt.

McCain promises to "follow in [Reagan's] tradition and in his footsteps" while vilifying Obama as a 1930s-era "socialist" looking to "redistribute wealth." Obama counters by invoking Roosevelt's speeches and depicting the financial meltdown as "the final verdict" on McCain's "failed philosophy" (i.e., Reaganism).

Mind you, neither personifies these predecessors. Obama's moderate record is not FDR's quasi-socialism, and McCain has renounced some of his Reagan-inspired dogma.

Both also ignore inconsistencies. Obama criticizes the "failed philosophy" of Reagan conservatism while infusing some of his own prescriptions with such conservatism. McCain attacks Obama's "socialism" after voting for the bank bailout bill -- the most aggressive stroke of socialism in contemporary American history.

But all that is less important right now than the duo's binary framing. They both effectively say a vote for McCain is a vote to continue Reagan's trickle-down tax cuts and free-market fundamentalism, and a vote for Obama is a vote to resurrect Roosevelt's regulations and redistributions. And because this choice has been made so clear -- because we know what we're voting on -- whoever wins will have a huge mandate to implement the ideology he thematically represented.

That's why conservatives are so worried.

They see the cause and effect: As McCain doubles down on the right's economic catechism, Obama is surging. Even in traditional Gipper territory like Colorado and Virginia, the Rooseveltian Socialist is running ahead of Reagan Reincarnate.

Conservatives' response is a preemptive "nah, nah, can't hear you!" They contend that no matter how big progressives may win on Election Day, this is nonetheless a center-right nation. Indeed, a LexisNexis search shows this poll-tested term -- "center-right nation" -- is lately among the Punditburo's most ubiquitous Orwellian buzzwords. From a Newsweek cover story by conservative dittohead Jon Meacham to a Wall Street Journal screed by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan to a Politico.com diatribe by former Rudy Giuliani aide John Avlon, the "center-right nation" phrase is being parroted with the propagandistic discipline of Cuba's Ministry of Information.

The proof of this center-right nation? Republicans cite polls showing more Americans call themselves conservative than liberal. While that data point certainly measures brand name, those same surveys undermine the right's larger argument because they show majorities support progressive positions on most economic issues.

Nevertheless, if Obama wins, expect more frantic talk from the fringe about how electing a black man billed as an Islamic Karl Marx obviously means our country is more conservative than ever. We'll also be treated to hysterical assertions like those from former Bush aide Peter Wehner, who this week told the Washington Post that "it is a mistake to assume that significant GOP losses, should they occur, are a referendum on conservatism."

But with the Bush era finely tuning America's BS detector, repetition and revisionism can no longer cloak reality.

"As the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative," writes The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, adding that a McCain loss in such an ideologically polarized contest means "Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected."

That would be the very mandate for "direct, vigorous action" Roosevelt described in his 1933 inaugural address. Should a President Obama try to capitalize on it, he will have nothing to fear but fear itself.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


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

See more stories tagged with: economics, reagan, fdr, financial crisis

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was just released this month. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! 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:
There's also a debate between what conservatives SAY Reagan did, and what he ACTUALLY did.
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 31, 2008 3:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, Reagan himself constantly railed against protectionism, but he was the most protectionist president since WW2. Conservatives talk about "free trade" (whatever that means) but Reagan promoted tariffs- for example the strict control over steel imports enacted in 1984. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to protect US industry through protectionism. I'm saying that this is the opposite of what these Republicans claim to stand for, and they did it because they know that it actually works.

They say Reagan cut taxes, but that's not exactly true. Tax cuts were on capital (capital gains) not on labor (payroll). He raised payroll taxes in 1983, and made them much more regressive, so that increasing rates only went up to about $80,000... meaning that billionaires paid the same amount as someone making about $80,000. He also raised gasoline taxes in the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 - note that's a tax increase during a recession, which was used to raise money for public works projects. Again, the correct thing to do, but it's not what they SAY they do. Reagan also raised taxes in his "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982" - of course he SAID that he'd sign it if 3x as much was cut from spending as was raised by the tax hike, but those spending cuts never happened. Because they know perfectly well that you don't cut spending during a recession. You allow deficits to grow if they have to. Again, not what they say, just what they do.

The fascinating thing is that the old breed of "conservative" knew the difference between what one says and what one does. The new breed seems to believe their own rhetoric.

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

» damnit, you stole my post! Posted by: hurricane hugo
» Reagan the Magician Posted by: greenknight
» RE: Reagan the Magician Posted by: popeurbanxxiii
Greenspan admits it.
Posted by: Veros on Oct 31, 2008 4:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even Alan Greenspan has said that Reagonomics and deregulation policies have failed. What more will it take for people to understand this. David is right, this election is about economic policy. Get out and vote for Barak Obama. The time for good government awaits us. Ronald Reagon gave out a license to hate government when he said the worse 9 words in the English language are " I"m from the government, and I'm here to help". George Bush, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and others hand out a license to hate on a daily basis. They dispise governemnt for the people, and promote government for themselves (the handlers), and the corporate theives. They want you to hate liberals,and follow their creed of greed,and that you too can become a country club republican. Just sign up for their 3 hour daily shows, let them do the thinking, and by the end of next month you will be the country club republican that they are. If not rich, at least you will have those small town values that Sarah talks about.
It is way past time that our government be run by its people, and for its people. Barak Obama is our man to represent us. Vote for Barak, and then get involved. This is going to take a huge effort to undo the damage conservatives have done - almost 30 years worth. And remember that Reagonomics and derugulation are dead, Greenspan said so.

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

Lillly
Posted by: Lilly on Nov 1, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article raises a point we were just talking about over the breakfast table. We wish that Obama had said straight out, "In recent years, American government has been very far from the right. What we are proposing is that the swinging pendulum be allowed to return our government to the center. Conservative doesn't mean 'normal', with liberal meaning 'abnormal'." Seems as if such a statement would have deflated all this hype about how liberal, far left, Socialist, Communist etc Obama is.

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

Are we finally waking up from the nightmare?
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 1, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't recall whose characterization it is, but the description of our two party system as between a "party of memory" and a "party of the future" helps me cut through the rhetoric. At the level of soundbites, Reagan/Roosevelt do represent that distinction.

Thanks to Sirota, also, for alerting us early on to the possibility of a Demo western strategy. Along with Gary Hart, they may have proved prophetic. Go CO, NM, etc. Obama will need your help.

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

style over substance
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Nov 1, 2008 6:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like the first poster said, what Ronald R. did and what the myth makers say he did are two different things.

Ronald R was an actor, and in this day of TV soundbite politics, that's what it takes. Whatever storyline makes it on the TV is what people believe, regardless of reality.

If TV news in America were any good, McCain and his Barbie doll would be down about 80-20% instead of the race being so close.

If you have a second, go check out a new you tube video I made poking fun of this election and how so much of it is just a story presented to the public and it has no basis in reality. I do not make money on these videos, they are for fun only.

Granny's crazy videos = Go get a chuckle!

Luv,
Granny

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

» RE: You aint no granny Posted by: Edward George
MOMO
Posted by: shd1230 on Nov 2, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN CONFERRING SAINTHOOD ON RONALD REAGAN FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS, MOSTLY BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY REPUBLICAN THAT LEFT OFFICE UNDISGRACED. TO COMPARE HIS PRESIDENCY TO THAT OF FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT IS RIDICULOUS. ROOSEVELT SAVED THE COUNTRY; REAGAN WAS PLAYING THE ROLE OF PRESIDENT AND HARDLY KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING MOST OF THE TIME. PREACHING "BALANCE THE BUDGET" AND THEN RUNNING THE COUNTRY INTO HORRENDOUS DEBT IS WHAT THE REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS DO--BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF THE POOR AND DISAVANTAGED, AND SPEND SPEND SPEND ON WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS.

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

FDR 1,000,000, Reagan nil
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Nov 2, 2008 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
28 years of BS is about to end.

jdfu!

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

FDR vs RWR
Posted by: snowdude38 on Nov 8, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets see shall we;

FDR - created a movement that lasted some 50+ years and created one of the most prosperous and unified times in our countries history. He was elected after the rightwing-induced stock market crash of 1929 and rebuilt our country from the ground up. Reinvigorated the middle class with jobs and social support and making the USA the largest and most powerful manufacturing based economies EVER!!!

RWR - gutted our middle class with the beginning of the outsourcing revolution, created the "greed is good" style of neo-cons cretins that we have finally defeated after 28 years of destruction to the working class and middle class Americans that were the backbone of our economy. Oh yeah, and spent us into the deepest financial whole ever during the 12 years of Reagan & Bush41, until "W" came along and shattered that "record" in just his first 3 years in office. What an amazing legacy to have created a movement that has demolished an entire countries economy and left us indebted to communist China!!! Good one Gipper!!!

President-Elect Obama would be in excellent company if he were to emulate our greatest President Ever, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

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

  • 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