And what also happened in 1936, because of the rabid stupidity of the Repiglicans, which is the same now, is that they ended up with a total of 16 U.S. Senators. So what is the real difference now given that the lies, deceptions, and stupidity of these rapid pigs is the same ? The Corporate Media which is, of course, Repiglican. The only little exception right now is a few reports on ABC World News. NBC and CBS continue the Big Lie.

Republicans have been wrong on so many economic issues that one wonders when they will be right.

Social Security
Medicare
Reagan supply side economics 1980
Clinton tax cuts 1992
Bush tax cuts 2001

How many more times must they be wrong before we just tell them to go away?

It isn't really true that Obama has followed FDR's example. If you go back and listen to FDR's approach he savaged the Republicans. He ridiculed them. He tore into them. He denigrated them. He heaped scorn on them. The public then as now were disgusted with the Republicans and he fanned those flames he encouraged these sentiments and built on them rather than taking Obama's misguided tack of bipartisanship. When you have the advantage, when the other side is down, that is when you have to stomp on them. Not offer them a seat at the table. There is nothing so dangerous as a wounded animal. You just have to destroy it.

SW is so fucking right on ...........

"there's quite a chasm between the status quo and the kind of reform the nation deserves."

There's also quite a chasm between the reform that can be passed with 60 senators and the reform that can be passed with 50+Veep. I'm tired of mendacious roadblocks like Baucus defining what can be passed.

Steve, thanks for the reality check that certain major programs have been a work in progress. And SW, thanks for the reminder of why I am so frustrated with Obama's need to lick the hand that slaps him.

SW is spot on.

Barack Obama is no FDR. He's not even close.

FDR was not afraid to name names -- those obstructionists on the right, he openly called them out.

Also, I don't know where you got the idea there was no "propaganda machine." It's certainly true that Goebbels was then still refining the process (control all the message) that is used by Republicans today, but FDR was routinely savaged by Republicans, the press, and talk radio.

Fortunately, FDR was a true progressive who came to realize early on that the people of America had been hard done by and deserved more from the best nation in the world.

(Mr Benen, I suggest you look into "a traitor to his class" and also one of my personal faves, Father Coughlin, without whom, very likely, we would not have Rush Limbaugh today. The good Father was the father of hate radio, could easily have been tried & convicted of sedition (FDR passed on the recommendations of his advisors, not wanting to create a diversion), and set the path followed so lovingly today by everybody with a mic and a following on the right today. It's also worth pointing out that the man openly leaned toward fascism (hellllloooo revisionist Jonah Goldberg) and virulent antisemitism. You know what ended up happening? The people marginalized Father Coughlin when he went too far. Something that, apparently, is impossible today.)

The democrats have learned nothing about "framing" issues. When confronted with lies, they assume the media cares about the truth and so they first a) repeat the lie and then b) start some reasoned dialogue about why this the lie is stupid BS.

First, never, ever, repeat a lie. If in an interview a newscaster says the "death panels" you say "part of propaganda effort to stop reform". That is the frame that you want to put crazy BS. Propaganda by the right. If pressed by the newscaster by who the "right" is, you say there is a lot of "money behind keeping the status quo". If a newscaster offers up Republicans as the right you say "of course, they have always been against providing health care to most Americans".

For God's sake, any spokesperson who repeats a lie should be slapped in the head. I've been shocked at how poorly Democrats and Obama have framed this issue. Always remember, when talking to the News Media, they don't give a shit about the truth.

If you go back and listen to FDR's approach he savaged the Republicans. He ridiculed them. He tore into them. He denigrated them. He heaped scorn on them.

Did Roosevelt face a national media that had elevated "bipartisanship" to a religion? Or that cheerfully propagated the lies in the name of "balance" and "fairness?"

This is an honest question, by the way; I don't know the answer and would be interested in hearing about it if anyone has any knowledge of the time.

The Republicans, of course, are never wrong. What they predicted has not come to pass only because generations of Republicans put themselves on the line to fight back against the waves of encroaching socialism.

Their plaintive cries of "We want out country back" for the last 70 years are the indication of how right they were.

/snark

Altman writes:"Today, opponents of a public health insurance option claim that it would drive private health insurance out of business . . ."

-and that would be a bad thing?

A different point of view-mine: When Social Security became a reality, private 'old age insurance' did not dissappear.

Today we have annuities, pension funds, reverse mortgages, etc, up the ying yang.

Why not a BASIC health policy for ALL? Then, if you want/can afford additional coverage, I'm sure there will be for-profit insurance companies happy to provide. . .

most of the media was solidly Republican in the 30's. That was the motivation for the fireside chats.

So where were the geniuses "on the left" who completely missed the brilliant, get-out-in-front media blitz to advance healthcare reform which should have included side-by-side clips of what they said then/what they're saying now and reality.

As far as I can see, it's too late to change anyone's mind. People who believe in "death panels" (or -- my favorite -- Guiliani's "end-of-life decision-making councils") are unreachable.

I don't know what's happened to Obama's star team but they seriously misunderestimated the advance work needed for the healthcare bill. They're doing pretty poorly in the thick of it too. That ridiculous "viral" email I heard that David Axelrod sent out sounded like it was conceived and written by Palin.

SW, Chopin et al, please remember one important difference between FDR and Obama. FDR never had to worry about being called an angry black man, with all the fear that conjures up out of the American psyche. The truth is that a lot of Americans, for many generations, have been living in dread of getting their karma for slavery, Jim Crow and racism, and whenever even the most moderate and reasonable of African Americans achieves a position of power, they start to jibber hysterically about having to "bend over and grab their ankles."

Obama demonstrated during the campaign last year that he knew how to allay those fears without being weak. Remember when everyone was writing his epitaph, saying he wasn't tough enough to stand up to Hillary Clinton, that her well-disciplined machine was going to roll all over him? Well, oops. Even though Maureen Dowd still hasn't figured out that she was wrong. Now, I know there's a difference between campaigning and governing, but I also know that Obama is a master of political jujitsu: using the opponent's strength and anger against him without seeming to play rough. Don't underestimate him.

Did Roosevelt face a national media that had elevated "bipartisanship" to a religion? Or that cheerfully propagated the lies in the name of "balance" and "fairness?" Posted by: PaulB

Certainly Roosevelt had cooperation from the media. The public did not know he couldn't walk for most of his presidency.

That being said, given the larger variety of options for getting information and messaging to the public that Obama has, there really is no excuse that we should find ourselves this August with town hall meetings being disrupted by shouters and thugs and US senators telling us that the only end of life care we need is a conversation with Jesus.

Yesterday Steve wrote a nice little post about how Obama is just the president, the Congress really runs things and we shouldn't be disappointed with Obama.

Well, Obama should be controlling the messaging and the agenda, and he clearly is not. THAT is a HUGE disappointment.

The shriekers, by the way, have won. The part of the bill that would underwrite your end-of-life discussion with your doctor has been removed.

The lesson is, folks, if you want it, you better get organized and disruptive.

FDR was not afraid to name names -- those obstructionists on the right, he openly called them out.

You mean like when Obama mildly criticized Rush Limbaugh in private and the entire media spent two weeks howling about how unfair it was for the big, bad president to attack poor little Rush, who's Just An Entertainer?

I think we need to remember too that in 1936 there was not a Fox News, there was not 24/7 cable stations with their millionaire 'journalists' that are mostly Repiglicans, and that there was no television at all. Only radio. Very few of us remember that by 1933 there were over 3 million Americans that had actually signed up in the then Communist Party. Why ? This was a direct reaction to the Repiglicans of the 1920's, and of course Hoover. All the corruption and greed of that time that they promoted. So Americans rebelled at this and wanted a government that was focused on the COMMON GOOD. The common good is the opposite of what all the CORPORATIST are defined by: their own self interest and their own ability to create 'capital formation'. Fuck everyone else. It is the onslaught now of the Corporate Media who enable all the lies and deceptions to infiltrate into the brains, such as they are, of those like the one's showing up at these town hall meetings. These are the very people WHO WOULD BENEFIT by Obama's plans. They are so deranged that they vote against their OWN SELF INTEREST. The very one's for over 8 years under Bush and his goons that thought it was great to restructure the tax code to benefit the wealthy on the back of the poor or middle class who are in fact who these people are. It is this group of people the the current Repiglicans and the Corporations are sadistically manipulating now for their own self interests: the greed of self interest to the exclusion of the Common Good.

Comparisons with FDR can only go so far, as several people have pointed out. Another huge factor is the simple fact that there was no television in FDR's time. No fear that a "gaffe" or misplaced comment would be endlessly replayed and would drown an issue in trivia. This gave FDR more flexibility to attack his opponents.

And remember - even FDR couldn't get universal health care.

SW and those who agree are being myopic. Let us get something this year, and then it will gradually turn into something bigger as years go on. It's worked that way in Washington ever since there was a Washington. It's frustrating I know, especially if you're one of the uninsured or the underinsured, but the system is set up this way.

"Republican arguments against Clinton's economic policies are almost laughable now, but were widely believed at the time."

Steve, I am confused. There was opposition from both the left and the right to NAFTA, MFN, and the repeal of Glass Steagel. All of which have been a complete disaster for the middle class and all of which greatly contribute to the chart on income inequality in the above post. What economic policies are you speaking of?

Keep in mind that the Republicans then did not look on the onset of a great depression as a sign that their policies had failed. Nor did that obvious failure keep their ideological heirs from laboring for the last thirty-plus years to reinstate the very system that had failed in 1929. Nor do their ideological heirs regard the current collapse as an indication that their policies are fundamentally unworkable.

I think our young president is still figuring out where his power lies. It is an evolving formula. But I would suggest that it is mostly in perception. And although I find few things worth emulating in Bush, he understood that one thing you don't do with the media is back down. They are like a pack of hyennas and will attack any sign of weakness. When you go after them, if they hit back you come after them harder still, if you flinch they will consider it a sign of weakness. If you go after Rush and then his enablers come to his defense you have to be prepared to go after them too. I live in Colorado and there are cougars around here. The advise is when confronted with one, you never turn your back and run. It triggers the hunter prey instinct. You make yourself look as big as possible and fight like the devil. I believe that this is how you have to deal with the press.

FDR also pandered to the Dixiecrats to get Social Security to pass sometimes a president does thing to get things done. Moreover, Obama cannot rail against the GOP like FDR or else he'll be seen as the angry black man.

Totally agree with SW again: they need to BE NAMED AND SHAMED by Obama for every lie and deception that they make.

Famous quotes of FDR,

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.

A reactionary is a somnambulist walking backwards.

Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.

Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.

Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.

I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking.

I believe that in every country the people themselves are more peaceably and liberally inclined than their governments.

I do not look upon these United States as a finished product. We are still in the making.

Your main point, Steve, is so 'spot on' that I wish you hadn't weakened it by your comments about the 'Republican propaganda machine' and your commenters hadn't built on it. zhak seems to be the only one who has studied the time.

The Republican propaganda machine was much stronger then than now, and the media was less blanced than it is now. (And less present in people's lives. There was no television, news on radio was five minutes an hour, and while there were a lot of commentators who spoke on the subject most of them were far to the right.

It is true there were probably as many papers supporting Roosevelt's election as supported Obama, but not because they were Progressive. They had simply seen the Republicans have three years to prove their total helplessness and cluelessness in the face of a crisis that was destroying America. They saw FDR as 'one of their own' a 'rich man who made Progressive noises to win votes' and even that was counterbalanced by a campaign that criticized Hoover for failing to balance the budget.

(And of course, Roosevelt would be held in check by the fact that a large proportion of Democrats came from the "Solid South" that was far from Progressive -- with some majot exceptions, and even they were 'whites-only progressive.')

But find a progressive voice that reached the average person and you'll find only one, the Unions. There were progressive magazines and newspapers, but again they were 'preaching to the converted.'

As for the newspapers, the key -- contrary to stormskies -- was that they weren't 'corporate' but 'entrepreneur.' Bertie McCormick -- whose Chicago Tribune shaped much of the Midwest -- and Hearst owned their own papers, and therefore could make any decision they wanted since they were spending their own money. The same is true of Murdoch and Scaife today. (But that same freedom allowed Frank Stanton to stand behind Ed Murrow whatever hits he took for it -- and similarly allowed Katherine Graham to keep Woodward and Bernstein digging away.)

"Corporate" media are owned by faceless stockholders and run by boards of directors whose only legal responsibility is to maximize the investment return for those stockholders. Theoretically, a board of directors who made a decision based on their own political beliefs rather on profit could be prosecuted. (Again, 'theoretically,' a good board can always argue that the 'right decision' -- however they define it -- will be 'profitable in the long run.')

But take a look of the number of papers who supported Landon in 36, or who worked to minimize the Republican losses in 34, and you'll find they were in the majority, and there was NO mainstream equivalent even of MSNBC.

The difference was that there were truly Progressive Republicans then, many to the left of the Democratic Party -- still the party of city machines and southern bigots -- who helped Roosevelt succeed. There ain't, now.

I would love an example of FDR going after the republican congressmen in his first term.

"power lies...mostly in perception..."

Exactly. This has always been to a certain degree the case, but in the postmodern world the ubiquity of immediate media, answering only to go/no go response patterns, has massively amplified said tendency. The cart is fully before the horse, or, unregulated affect has assumed full primacy over thought and reason as the age of enlightenment draws to a close. We are immersed in not just the death throes of empire, but the transition from positivist "knowing" to...whatever's next.

"[conservatives understand] that one thing you don't do...is back down. They are like a pack of hyennas and will attack any sign of weakness....if they hit back you come after them harder still, if you flinch they will consider it a sign of weakness"

I would say that part of the self concept engendered within imperialist conservatism, in myth if not reality and in particular within our incredibly individualist American self storying, is a highly aggressive alpha response to anything which even hints at restriction or obstruction - of any kind - of absolutely limitless agency. In other words, an emotional working model of the world akin to a four year old's. Therefore, I personally have found that standing toe to toe with conservatives gains immense respect win, lose, or draw. This is a rule which modern progressive liberals MUST internalize if they have any real desire for a working relationship with conservatism. In the end it's a show of respect, not just for the person(s) but much more important for the process of democracy.

"Roosevelt ... had to take what he could get on Social Security..."

Why do I have the feeling that FDR wouldn't have accepted the equivalent of Co-ops on Social Security? There may have been whole tiers of American society left out of the eventual compromise of 1935 but the overall structure was in place.

Law makers who came afterward didn't have to somehow amalgamate a countless number of local semi-public, semi-private Social Security Authorities, all operating according to their own rules and juridictions. FDR thought too much of this country to leave a legacy like that.

Thats funny leo because there were huge swaths of Americans "left out" of FDR's comprimise. I find refreshing that so many on the left can be sober about Obama but refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of their "progressive" icons.

FDR was great in calling out the "economic royalists", but it took him a year or more to really build up a head of steam. President Obama has been in office only about half a year. He has time to grow into this. Perhaps it takes a year or so to get a true measure of the nature of the opposition.

Don't forget, we are on the right side, Obama is going to fight for this health care reform but he really needs all liberals to stand up, to take any action needed to help out. Not in the way the repubs have, they have spread fear to those who have not done the research, or perhaps those who are racist.I think the liberal community can be smarter.Great job of getting Becks advertisers to pull out of his time slot. Also great job of spreading the news of the boycott of Whole Foods.

Interesting video link on Drudge. Shows Reagan in '61 arguing against socialized medicine. I think what he's talking about is the run up to passing Medicare, but I'm not done investigating that yet. His argument is that if Congress passes national health insurance then your family will no longer have work choices, that the government will tell everyone where to work and doing what.

SW is right on his history in 2 ways:

The mainstream media of the 30s was massively Republican and savagely attacked FDR. Newspapers, radio stations, and magazines all pilloried him.

Second, FDR fired back - savaged and ridiculed the GOP. And it worked. And yes he did it in his first term.

And as far the angry black man angle, FDR's was traitor to his class, hypocrite, etc.

@clifton: Um, like you missed the first two sentences of my comment or something?

"Certainly Roosevelt had cooperation from the media. The public did not know he couldn't walk for most of his presidency."

bullshit

"...It isn't really true that Obama has followed FDR's example..."

FDR would never have heaped praise on Sen. GRassley or Enzi...or seek bipartisanship from those who only stall for defeat and failure. But he is learning. He's offered his hand and it was rejected more than once. Now he must work on the members of his own party who are not supporting the dem agenda. He is starting to relinquish all hope of dealing with reasoning people or making the mistake that they care about "the people".

Obama is dealing with the cultivation of FOX idiots by hate radio etc incited to violence.
There is no longer 'fire side chats' but there are internet chats but no matter, FDR didn't have to deal with the right wing propaganda machine that is destroying our nation which democracy is 'required' to overthrow and end their power.

No one came on after FDR's fire side chat and said, "Well there you have it, the president again spreading lies and propaganda about a program designed to kill your gand ma. Let's go now to senator Grassley, oh but wait, I simply have to describe to you this billboard sign someone is holding up of Atilla the Hun raping a horse on an American flag that has the face of FDR painted on it which reads even animals will have social security under FDR's plan...amazing...and now Sen Grassley's comment"

Sen Grassley: "Make no mistake about it. Under FDR's plan money will be taken from all workers pay checks and put into a huge fund that FDR will use to pay off ACORN as his private army and the workers will never see a dime of that when they are old and can't work any longer. They will be shown the death panels in Alaska and you will never hear from them again. We should be doing what that young enterprising man with a plan is doing in Germany right now...protecting those who can build new plants and manufacture products that will get America back to work again"

"Now stay tuned for the Glenn Brecht hour where he will discuss how to deal more effectively with the democratic leadership through a wine tasting ceremony."

The stupidity and absurdity of our modern day GOP media would cause FDR to wonder just what country he was in he could see how pathetic and divisive and seditious our media has become as represented by Fox and Rush and the GOP pukes. These are not your daddy's republicans but corporatists without conscience.

Why do I have the feeling that FDR wouldn't have accepted the equivalent of Co-ops on Social Security?

Huh? Message deleted? Busted italic tag killed the rest.

Hi leo, It is really funny, because there were huge swaths of Americans "left out" of FDR's comprimise. I find refreshing that so many on the left can be sober about Obama but refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of their "progressive" icons.

-Mehul
reverse mortgage

I cannot believe this will work!

I cannot believe this will work!