Is Obama the next FDR?

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

Is Obama the next FDR?

Monday, 29 June 2009 16:00

I’ve noticed an increased interest in the New Deal among my listeners lately. I’m betting it has to do with some pretty interesting parallels that can easily be drawn between Obama and Roosevelt. It’s far too early to tell, but it’s sure fun to think about, and as an historian, I’m always intrigued by these kinds of echos and rhymes. A few points to consider:

The Great Depression was far worse than where we are now, but in both cases, economic crisis blew open a whole range of political possibilities that didn’t exist before. Obama clearly understands and intends to take advantage of the unique historical moment he inhabits.
Debt and leverage lay at the basis of economic problems in the 1930s and today. In response to the Depression, regulators (including my grandfather, who worked for the SEC), designed a whole host of new institutions to manage risk. Over time, these reforms lost their efficacy. Now, the Obama administration must try to build a better mousetrap.

Differences?

Global crisis: We live in an unstable world, but FDR faced a host of dangers unknown to us, including the rise of fascism in Europe, military rule in Japan, revolution in China, and the development of nuclear weapons.

Realignment: historians talk about Roosevelt as the architect not only of the New Deal, but the “New Deal Coalition” – blocks of voters who began to consistently vote Democratic during Roosevelt’s terms in office. Could Obama create a comparable coalition? In his first election, Obama mobilized young voters and African-Americans in record numbers, and flipped several states from red to blue. If he can do it again in 2012, the comparison to FDR will get stronger. But remember that due to term limits, Obama can’t be elected 4 times, as was FDR. That means to truly create a comparable coalition, he’ll have to build the Democratic Party into an organization with political staying power and raise up a generation of successors on the national and state level to emulate his policies and approach.

It’s a tall order, and I don’t know if it could, or even should, be done. Indeed, the Obama presidency is so young, I can’t offer any verdict on it at all. All I know is that Obama is not part of an American political dynasty, and in that respect his ascent to the presidency marks the health of our democracy. Is he perhaps the founder of a new dynasty? Like you, I’ll be waiting to find out.

Comments (19)

|2009-10-19 09:59:44 KeithCu - More similiarities

Another similarity is thinking that we can spend our way out of this crisis. Also, that big government is the solution.

Obama is part of the Chicago machine is which is a political dynasty of sorts. He is also just the face of the 1960s left: it is Pelosi and Reid and a bunch of people who have been in Congress for decades (Waxman, Rangel) who are writing the legislation while Obama smiles and gives campaign speeches.

I recommend you read The Forgotten Man if you haven't. Maybe you will find more connections.

|2009-10-20 22:37:21 Sam - Never heard of Keynes?

Yes, Keith, the thinking is that. on the whole, the New Deal was a very good idea, and taking a similar course of action would be a good thing. Many have tried to revise history and paint Roosevelt as a failure. Whatever. Ask anyone who lived it. And yes, gov't spending should go up in hard times - it's not socialism, it's just Keynesian economics. Read up on that. It's not so easy to know what action to take in a crisis, but doing nothing will accomplish nothing.

|2009-10-20 22:46:59 Kai - Doing nothing is an option

Sam~ I think you're getting this intentionally wrong. No one is trying to paint FDR as a failure, he was quite successful at doing what he intended to do, namely, to make sure he and the Democratic Party held on to power no matter what. However, if you look outside the cabal of Keynesian adherents, economists are discovering that the New Deal may in fact have prolonged the agony. "Ask anyone who lived it" is nice polemics, but since we will never know what different policy choices might have achieved, we cannot really empirically determine how successful FDR really was. Finally, I submit it's a fallacy to say that doing something is always preferable to doing nothing. On the contrary, activism may make matters worse and/or have unintended consequences, while letting the system return to homeostatic stability may result in less disruption.

|2009-11-09 08:00:05 Alan - The government is not the answer.

In short, NO.
In the context of the actions taken address problems, it is obvious approaches of both men are similar as they intended to keep people busy. Be it the New Deal or the stimulus debacle, these expenditures are meant to keep people busy with make-busy work to placate and appease. I know from my grandfather’s recollections, there was a lot of discontent during the depression where many people were attending communist party meetings with the intent of action in that vein. Obama does not have that external threat now. Rather he now faces a threat from millions of Americans who are against his agenda he brought with him to office. Both men are loosely paralleled but by no means comparable. I find it odd Obama has since the election been compare to FDR, Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman. It seems people are desperate to fill a void with something worthy of recognition. To date, this president has been given any number of opportunities to make a name for himself and he has failed. Es...

|2009-11-09 08:01:53 Alan - The government is not the answer. (continued)

Essentially, his legacy is his to establish. It is not for us to try and shoe horn the stature of past leaders into the suit of the current commander-in-chief. It is up to the man himself to grow-up and mature into the character displayed by the men he is weakly compared to.
While circumstances may seem similar, both men are light years apart in character and personal make-up. It is worth noting Roosevelt’s oratories were without the benefit of the teleprompter technology not invented until the 1950’s where 0bama’s speeches are impossible without the aid of a technology to deliver words to the speaker. Roosevelt’s words were delivered from the person himself. The distinction has been made clear in those circumstances where the teleprompter failed or just no used. Obama is trying to cap the legacy of New Deal and Great Society programs which have asserted the government’s presence in citizen’s daily lives. This is an anti-Constitutional idea and one which has been done dishonestly.

|2010-11-04 12:06:32 Alphonse Warakomski - FDR-BHO a blessing

The fates have blessed us with two monumental figures within a hundred years, FDR and BHO. Both of whom save capitalism from itself. The Republicans, conservatives, tea baggers, and libertarians, will never recognize this. Indeed their slavish will to power and ideology excludes that recognition. The Murdock-Koch-Scaife-Perry conspiracy fund the beast's propaganda machine full chit. The souls that propaganda machine sucks in are so confused it is silly. My favorite "conservative" tea bagger poster was "Keep Government Out of My Medicare".
Let us hope that the fates bless us again in 2012 with the reelection of BHO, so he can continue his agenda to make America great again.

|2010-11-04 12:32:00 Alan B. - Repudiation of statism

The fates have seen to it the statism of FDR being resuscitated by Obama has been repudiated by right thinking Americans. This election has been the voice of Americans asserting their rights to be governed by their consent and not ruled by submitting to the collectivism being advanced. The next two years leading up to 2012 elections will hopefully be ones where the socialist agenda started by FDR is turned back and maybe sometime for BHO to reflect on his time as an ex-president.

|2010-11-04 14:46:07 Alphonse Warakomski - I disagree Alan B

Alan B you speak as though there was a full polling of the American people and that a unanimous voice of the American people spoke. But that is belied by the facts. In most of the recent elections only 50-60% of the registered voters actually voted. Of the ~ 55% that did vote the margins of the so called victories were 2-5% in most cases. So indeed a minority of voters were the deciders in most elections. Don't be so sure that same minority of voters will even show up in 2012.

Look at the Health Care Law; most recent polls show that the country is split 50-50 over the issue. Indeed recent polls show an upward trend in approval. Yet your standard bearers (Boehner, McConnell, DeMint, the Pauls) claim that their first task will be to repeal that Law. What if a a majority of people want the Law to stay in place at the time of the attempted repeal, whither the justice of your stardard bearers.

Tell me what you don't like about the following socialist programs that are in operation ...

|2010-11-04 14:48:13 Alphonse Warakomski - continued

Tell me what you don't like about the following socialist programs that are in operation in the USA: the interstate highway system, the CAP proect in AZ, the Central Valley project in CA, the TVA in TN, the locks leeves and dams on the Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi River system, NOAA, the US Geological Survey, the FAA, municipal water plants, municipal sewage plants, OSHA, etc, etc, etc, and etc.

|2010-11-05 16:28:52 Alan - I think you are confused

There is a difference between basic infrastructure requirements, rights and socialism. While well maintained roads are a necessity to the smooth operation of a free market system, it is not a right. Nor is it or any of the others in your list socialist programs. Although, some of these programs are used, hijacked, to advance socialist/progressive agendas which are not relevant to their purposes. Standalone, these organizations can operate with the assistance of concerned individuals and in no sense truly need a state to function. The seventy-five year socialist experiment called the Soviet Union demonstrated the failure in the statist ideology. Science can be conducted without the state as electricity can be generated without a central power. Doctors do not need the state to practice medicine nor does a patient need the state to administer medical care. People recognize this and have as such rejected the Obamacare model in a large majority (see recent elections).
These programs oug...

|2010-11-05 16:32:00 Alan - You are confused (continued)

ought not to be used as vehicles for the myriad social engineering agendas of the progressive movement. Healthcare is a personal responsibility which any individual can pursue as they see fit. It is not license to confiscate the income of working people who have already met their health care needs per their rights as individuals. As well, it is not appropriate to use such a program to reward people who ignore their personal responsibilities. That is, the government does not create and grant these rights. The government recognizes rights and insures the pursuit of such are unhindered. The government stays out of the way such that people can pursue these God given rights unimpeded. Rights are not man made because it then gives man the right to take them away.
Government’s limited role is governance, not charity. Charity is a role best met by organizations which are formed specifically for this purpose.

|2011-09-01 13:36:33 MendezMiriam18 - respond

It is known that cash makes us free. But what to do if somebody doesn't have cash? The one way only is to receive the loans and credit loan.

|2011-09-15 06:42:23 VondaKennedy - reply this post

That is understandable that money makes people autonomous. But what to do when one has no cash? The one way only is to receive the credit loans or secured loan.

|2011-09-27 05:13:13 LatashaNOBLE32 - respond this post

Make your own life easier take the personal loans and all you require.

|2011-10-08 19:30:06 PATRICKDeborah - respond

I think that to receive the loans from banks you should have a good reason. However, once I have got a term loan, because I wanted to buy a house.

|2011-10-22 01:16:25 STEPHENSAlyson32 - reply this topic

Specialists tell that personal loans aid a lot of people to live the way they want, just because they are able to feel free to buy necessary stuff. Moreover, a lot of banks present auto loan for different classes of people.

|2011-10-24 05:29:38 RitaEllis - re

I opine that to get the mortgage loans from banks you ought to have a good reason. Nevertheless, one time I've received a car loan, because I was willing to buy a bike.

|2011-12-23 19:06:20 CHAPMANMaryellen29 - respond

Houses and cars are quite expensive and not every person can buy it. Nevertheless, loans was invented to help people in such kind of hard situations.

|2012-01-25 21:52:07 ViolaREEVES32 - respond

If you want to buy a house, you will have to receive the mortgage loans. Moreover, my mother commonly utilizes a term loan, which seems to be really fast.