dagblog - Comments for "This Ain't 1936"

Did you ever find the

John Woods — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:54:14 +0000

In reply to Shucks, looks like he said

Did you ever find the lecture? I would love to read it too.

And your point is? But

Elusive Trope — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:56:34 +0000

In reply to And your point is? I think

And your point is? But seriously, to say someone thinks about moving up the economic ladder doesn't mean that there is some collective belief that they will more well off then their parents and their children will be more well off then them, and so on. There were some who tried to make their fortunes, and some did, but the average American just did their job. Looking at the average wages before the New Deal they are basically flat. One went into the factory or down into the mine or out on the family farm, and that is what you did til you couldn't do it anymore. And if somewhere along the line you made a little more than you did before, you considered yourself fortunate. Then you went to one of those new moving pictures and watched those in the upper classes in their formal wear and lavish lifestyles. Afterwards, the left the movie house and went back to their flat and expected life to be the same struggle ten years from then. I would posit that there was a much more intense sense of class (as in the poor are the poor and the rich are the rich and never shall two meet). Something that the post-WWII boom unraveled in a way that hadn't been seen before.

But even if that isn't true, even most of those factory workers making at the time $1,200 a year believed in a decades time they would be making $4,000, the significant point here that the typical voter in the 1930s, even if the depression didn't happen, were, by our current standards of living, existing around the poverty line. This is compared to where we are today, where we speak of the middle class, where the median household income is about 50K.

Many of these of voters have lost their personal connection to the New Deal, The Fair Deal, The New Frontier and the Great Society, just as many workers have lost their sense of gratitude to the union workers that struggled to get to the concessions over the years.

This is added to the fact the more income one makes, the more likely they are to register and vote. In the past election the estimate is the only 58% of households who made less than 50K voted, while 77% those who marde 50K or more voted.

My basic premise, which you can argue against, is that typical voter whose household makes 40K, 50K, or 60K are not inclined to respond well to the "class war" and "anti-capitalism" rhetoric. Their incomes and fortunes are tied up with the "corporate overloads" and are not in the mood to overturn the system. They are just as likely to see radical change as leading to those rotten days as they are to believe it will be the workings of evil capitalists.

The short of it is if the foundation of political constituency is basically poor, this will increase the likelihood that a politician/president will be able to successfully campaign and govern through a progressive framework than if that foundation is the middle class. That is why we should temper our hopes on another FDR at the moment since the current economic class driving the elections find little resonance with New Deal, The Fair Deal, The New Frontier and the Great Society. I would argue that for most Social Security is seen as essentially separate from the New Deal as a whole.

A good indicator of this situation is to listen to a white collar moderate Democrat on his or her opinions regarding union workers and unions in general. I would say you would likely hear a pro-management position than a pro-union one. If you were a politician looking to win what you say to that pro-management Democrat? That is what we are facing. Among other things like the influence of corporate donors in campaign financing, etc.

And your point is? I think

oleeb — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:19:13 +0000

In reply to This Ain't 1936

And your point is?

I think you are incorrect in thinking that Americans didn't think about upward mobility. They sure did, because they didn't have it. That's, in many ways, the point many on the left are making to people who obviously don't appreciate history or know it well like our President. Capitulation to and accomodation of the Republicans is allowing them to recreate those very days of sweatshops, desperate workers barely able to make ends meet, complete lack of protections in the work place and so on. That is precisely the agenda of the Republican Party and of some Democrats who do not share the vision of the New Deal but essentially believe as the Republicans do and that is that the rich guys should be allowed to call most, if not all, the shots in the economy in the workplace and for that matter everywhere else. The whole point of the New Deal, The Fair Deal, The New Frontier and the Great Society was to prevent there ever being a return to those rotten days. Each accomodation of the Republican agenda brings us closer to that very ugly past. What kind of person submits to that? What kind of person fails to fight such things?

If we get a choice, I pick

wabby — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 05:07:31 +0000

In reply to Another way to point out the

If we get a choice, I pick perforation, please.

ACORN was such a threat

Elusive Trope — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:37:29 +0000

In reply to Yeah, that is the entire

ACORN was such a threat because currently the lower classes are underrepresented at the polling booth.

The median income in the US is just around 50K. In 2008, the estimate is the only 58% of households who made less than 50K voted, while 77% those who marde 50K or more voted.

So when a politican who focused on winning the vote, as a rule, is going to tailor one's message in a way that appeals to the higher income brackets.

Imagine what would happen if we could get 85% turnout for those who made 50K or less.

Another little tidbit

Employment status is another key indicator of voting participation. In the 2004 presidential election, 66 percent of employed citizens reported voting, compared with 51 percent of those who were in the labor force but not employed. Citizens who were not in the labor force, a group that included many retired people, had a voter participation rate of 61 percent.

The unemployed are less likely of the three groups to vote. Yet they are the ones who have the biggest interest in getting some real progressives into the government.

Yeah, that is the entire

Richard Day — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:01:01 +0000

In reply to A.T., I really like the jist

Yeah, that is the entire point of this piece to me anyway, you just put it into the right words.

I mean otherwise, why has there not been more of a hue and cry?

A.T., I really like the jist

Oxy Mora — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:16:58 +0000

In reply to First off, there is a reason

A.T., I really like the jist of this post. What it sparks in me is the thought of how complicated the messaging is in2010 not only to the lower income people but to the middle class as well. And I think it's very useful to look at all of this in a historical perspective, maybe we'll learn what's wrong with our messaging--or for that matter, what's wrong with the policies.

I like your spin on the Bank

Elusive Trope — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 01:57:09 +0000

In reply to A.T., thanks for the post.

I like your spin on the Bank Competition Act. It would be difficult for the Republicans to fight something that supports competition. Of course they'll try and find a way to convince people it is some kind of end-around to eventually nationalize the banks and give more power to the bureaucrats. But I think it is something I see Obama taking up as 2012 now appears on the horizon.

A.T., thanks for the post.

Oxy Mora — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 01:51:29 +0000

In reply to I definitely think something

A.T., thanks for the post. Some great comments here. Like you, I caught that glimpse of Obama shifting his language and that's what I am waiting for. I am encouraged by the floating of Levin's name to replace Summers. Not that we need any more Yalies in government, but Levin holds a contrarian view toward the banks, so I''m hopeful.

I think there needs to be a focus on the banks, and I don't think it is too late. O.K we saved them and prevented systemic risk. Now it's time to make them competitive. I was actually surprised to learn from Bernie that three Fed District Presidents actually favor decentralization. I'm going to call it the Bank Competition act, put a free market spin on it. It seems to me that splitting up the banks into more responsiive and competitive units is a different kettle of fish than saying the government is going to take them over, nationalize them, etc. It's also a different concept than talking about the "wealthy". As you noted above the poor retain that American Idol hope--which imo is a major reason why tax arguments are so hard to win.

Shucks, looks like he said

artappraiser — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 01:23:18 +0000

In reply to He must be referring to

Shucks, looks like he said the date wrong or the transcriber got the date wrong, or he remembered the chronology of the speech wrong, see

When did FDR run for the Vice-presidency?
In 1920 the Democratic Party nominated Ohio Governor James M. Cox for President and Franklin D. Roosevelt for Vice President. They were defeated by Republicans Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge- @ http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/facts.html#fdr

His alma maters were Harvard BA 1903 followed by Columbia Law School -admitted to the bar 1907.(from@ http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/resources/timeline.html) I'll keep looking. Maybe easier to find in my own library from an index (still good for a lot of things, google is nice but definitely not god. ) Will let you know if I do find it.