Tuesday, December 10, 2013
FDR Hero or Dictator?
We are taught in most history classes up to this point, about the heroic president who led us to war, and out of a depression. But now, we've gotten a little larger view point. Was FDR really the hero we make him out to be, or are there some ulterior motives to his assumption of power. "He was democratically elected, doesn't that mean he was the peoples choice!?" Response: Yes, but so was Darth Sideous.(Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine) The point is, FDR was elected, but in a time of dire need. He was left with an America on its knees that he could anything with, ei his four terms (4termz). He dissolved the gold standard, angering a lot of people and hurting the economy in many ways; the money now just an assurance from the government, no longer backed by precious metal. You can go through a lot of his "good" legislation like public works, and the less popular GI Bill ones. The fact of the matter is. Was it worth? Was America's recovery at a fitting cost, could Roosevelt avoided some of the collateral if he was willing to compromise.We can't change the past, but we can reconsider what has been preached as truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
eddie, you should proofread posts before you post them :) lol
ReplyDeleteThe book made the point (in chapter 8 I think) that Roosevelt was kind of in the same position Lincoln had been after Antietam. If the South hadn't kept pushing, it wouldn't have gotten to the point of Lincoln having to free the slaves. Maybe Roosevelt was too conservative in his reforms but he had been more willing to compromise the more effective parts of the New Deal like the Social Security Act probably wouldn't have been made. So maybe he wasn't a hero but I don't think he was a dictator. He was just trying to find the best way out that he could see.
ReplyDeleteHaha... ya Eddie, you should proofread your posts as Emma said. I personally think that it was worth. While Roosevelt may have been able to avoid some of the consequences if he was willing to compromise, it would not have changed the results of his actions. I don't believe FDR was a hero nor a person with nasty ulterior motives as you had implied, but Roosevelt was simply a president who fought for what he believed in.
ReplyDeleteIn times of danger it is necessary that remedies be implemented quickly. My viewpoint is that, in prosperous times, power should be balanced to avoid corruption, but short periods of near dictatorship by a reasonable and unselfish leader during wartime or financial ruin is beneficial because the country cannot afford the inefficiency of debate, filibusters, and congressional approval of every measure during urgent times.
ReplyDeletePerla had a good point when she talked about how Lincoln had to suspend rights of citizens and it resulted in positive effects. On the other hand we currently have many of our rights suspended for no significant reason because of the Patriot Act. After 9/11 our government passed this act that allowed for what the NSA does to us and much more under the name of safety. I, personally, do not believe that this is called for and it is apparent to me that we need some defining line that would determine whether or not it is necessary to take away rights because there are definitely cases where it is not.
ReplyDeleteI think it was worth, the end is justified by the means. And you did say that he is portrayed in a heroic light, so some large group of people, or small group with a large amount of power must have thought Roosevelt did a pretty good job. Roosevelt made a big step in the right direction when he started government regulation of the economy. Today, there are still government checks today on the economy to safeguard against another Great Depression.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh. No matter what Roosevelt's ulterior motives were, he was, in the end, one of the, if not the, key contributors to America's rise out of the Depression. He may have seized unnecessary power from others, may have been able to handle his problems better than he actually did, but all that truly matters in the end is that he did solve those problems, and that is what made him a hero in the eyes of the people. Any ulterior motives had no bearing on that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the rest of you who have said that Roosevelt was at least, to some degree, a hero of the time. Just consider what he did in the Hundred Days. He got rid of a chronic banking crisis, cut federal expenditures, helped lessen the problem of unemployment with the CCC, dealt with the grievances of the agrarian community, and passed legislature for the NIRA.
ReplyDeleteIt's very difficult to refute that he was at the helm of a lot of the change that America needed to at least start rising out of the Depression.
Eddie, I can see your point of view, but I would have to disagree. It is true initially that Roosevelt failed to support the nation during the Interregnum through his complacency and stubbornness, but he later proved himself as a sort of "hero" later on. He was able lower unemployment from 24% down to 14% in a span by the end of 1935. Not only that, but he supported the south and the agricultural market and helped the banks stabilize. He was crucial to the recovery of our country during the Great Depression, even if he had a Machiavellian personality.
ReplyDelete