Barth's picture

    Dangerously Out of Touch

    Go ahead. I dare you. Watch those Sunday talk shows from our nation's capitol and see how much of what passes for political discussion concerns the need for government to cut back on spending. David Gregory will almost certainly ask someone what ideas there are to get "entitlements" "under control".

    Then, even if you have already seen this, listen to what those who study these things say (about halfway into this):

    As discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere, these are not outlier opinions or those of the radical left. It is the view of almost every economist who does not work in Washington or for a political point of view. Yet the noise machine keeps telling us about deficits, and excessive government spending.

    Of course, as Jon Stewart pointed out repeatedly during a week of virtual tributes to schoolteachers such as his mother, this demand that government balance its budget does not apply when discussing tax breaks for the wealthy:

    What did we expect? Some of us are practically unable to discuss politics without talking about how stupidity reigns supreme across the land and that those who revel in anti-intellectualism can hardly be expected to support schools.

    Still, the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll that got so much notice this week offers some hope doesn't it? The public may actually be seeing through all of this noise, and remembering, perhaps, what parents, grandparents and, ahem, teachers, might have told them about the Depression, the New Deal, the growth of unions and of the middle class, might be rethinking the refrain made popular by the movie actor who played the part of President of the United States from 1981-1989.

    [By the way, we are obligated to note here that the best actor to portray a President of the United States, has a son whose is self-destructing on national television, providing yet another excuse for what passes for news to be diverted to a voyeuristic delight in watching someone kill himself. This is a truly sad aside, which presents little more than a reason to feel very bad for the actor who so brilliantly portrayed the greatest president fiction ever created, President Josiah Bartlet).]

    Returning to reality, sadly, all the poll means to your self-absorbed Congress and its hangers on, is that the public is being stubborn in opposing what "everyone knows" must be done. Chris Hayes, unsurprisingly, brilliantly explains what he aptly describes as Washington's "disconnect" in The Nation this week and the question that follows from that is what are the ramifications of a government which has been bought and paid for, and no longer even considers what is best for the country, and what a growing number of people seem to understand.

    Don't look here for an answer, just a stab at hysteria. Nick Hornby and Ben Folds may think "he should know. He's got his own blog" but this blogger does not. What is out there does not suggest solutions or much of a positive future, but who knows, maybe FDR will come back to life.

    Maybe, if he does, he will threaten Congress the way President Roosevelt did when he took office 78 years ago yesterday:

    I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.

    But, in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

    For the trust reposed in me, I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.


    Take that. And, you know, it is not clear that people today would support a would be near dictator any less than they were prepared to do in 1933.

    Comments

    I wrote to you at another site about this.

    The story goes that FDR shows up in Ford's office demanding his support in 1932.

    Ford responds: Are you nuts?

    FDR tells him that there is a real possibility for a real socialist revolution out there in the streets and if he does not get support from folks like Ford, HE IS GOING TO LEAD IT. hahahahaaha

    I just marvel at the experimentation that took place in the thirties as you have noted before. A coalition of people that could not stand each other--something like the Lincoln Administration.

    Well this did not work so well so let us try that!!

    Immediacy was paramount.

    don't just stand there, do something for Chrissakes!

     


    I read your comments elsewhere (and, of course, all of your posts).

    And what did Henry Ford do after being approached by FDR?  I do not believe he conspired to overthrow the government; it's sort of ridculous that he would so endanger his business and life, but there are people who do.  Did he sympathize with the Nazis?  Probably, to a point. Not after 1941, I am sure.

    Here on planet earth, there is this fascinating report in Time magazine of a Ford/FDR meeting at the White House.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,759585-1,00.html

     


    Why on earth am I so enamored by stories involving the meetings of historical giants; giants who are almost imaginary specters  or constructs like Trope likes to talk about?

    They have nothing to do with me! At least that is what one of many voices tells me.

    Thank you for this. Damn, 1938:

    If finance would get out of Government and Government would get out of business, everything would go again. . . . Financiers may claim that they want lower wages and lower prices, but actually they are trying to create a system whereby they can manipulate wages down and profits up."
    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,759585-3,00.html#ixzz1FnuGX9G9

    Sounds like every repub, every prick on Wall Street arguing with a dem!


    Everything is as it was then, except WE are there, or here.


    Go ahead. I dare you. Watch those Sunday talk shows from our nation's capitol and see how much of what passes for political discussion concerns the need for government to cut back on spending. David Gregory will almost certainly ask someone what ideas there are to get "entitlements" "under control".

    You know, while working in Washington DC I really remember this being brought up alot. Of course, I was in the presence of conservatives but nevertheless, it was odd to hear someone telling me that "getting entitlements under control" took precedence over, say, cutting down the bureaucracy of American immigration.

     


    Latest Comments