Psychoblues
07-06-2007, 02:42 AM
Great article for those of us who resent revisionist history.
The Great Circle of History and the Re-Examination of FDR's Legend
July 2, 2007
Amity Shlaes asks why it has taken so long for us to focus on two important meters flunked by Franklin Roosevelt -- the unemployment rate and the Dow Jones Industrial Average ("The Real Deal1," editorial page, June 25). It seems fair to add some other meters that she did not. Three points for consideration, if I may.
First, banks and bonds. Few would deny that the American banking system was struggling in March 1933 when Roosevelt entered office. And at the time, banks, not the Dow Jones Industrial Average, were the repository of most people's wealth. Further, those of less humble means gravitated to bonds, not common stocks. Roosevelt restored systemic confidence, an important force in the credit markets surely. Roaring Twenties stock market giants such as RCA never really recouped their bull market overvaluations because they were the dot-coms of their day, a time when the DJIA was as speculative as the Nasdaq circa 2001. What did Roosevelt have to do with this?
Second, national politics. Ms. Shlaes skirts the fact that the Republican Party spent most of the 1930s in the political wilderness. Alf Landon's ill-fated campaign for the presidency in 1936 symbolizes Republican political haplessness of the era. Moreover, Republicans in Congress like Arthur Vanderberg inspired the isolationist movement prior to December 1941. Arguably, with Republicans marginalized, demagogues like Father Coughlin and Huey Long were able to achieve more political success than they deserved. Roosevelt successfully navigated both of these threats, which was no mean feat.
Third, Ms. Shlaes skirts the fact that the global depression of the 1930s secured the rise of National Socialism (Germany) , Fascism (Italy and Spain) and militarism (Japan). It also resulted in political paralysis in the United Kingdom and France, and it made Communism more appealing than deserved. Did Roosevelt employ some Communists in government? No doubt he did. But if his tenure -- despite 20% unemployment, periodic forays into public choice theory, and the absence of new DJIA highs -- spared us the fate of large swaths of the industrialized world, we should be very grateful indeed.
I believe Arthur Schlesinger would caution us to beware revisionist commentary and to be mindful of the cycles of history.
More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118334175378754739.html
Maybe you ought to think about it.
The Great Circle of History and the Re-Examination of FDR's Legend
July 2, 2007
Amity Shlaes asks why it has taken so long for us to focus on two important meters flunked by Franklin Roosevelt -- the unemployment rate and the Dow Jones Industrial Average ("The Real Deal1," editorial page, June 25). It seems fair to add some other meters that she did not. Three points for consideration, if I may.
First, banks and bonds. Few would deny that the American banking system was struggling in March 1933 when Roosevelt entered office. And at the time, banks, not the Dow Jones Industrial Average, were the repository of most people's wealth. Further, those of less humble means gravitated to bonds, not common stocks. Roosevelt restored systemic confidence, an important force in the credit markets surely. Roaring Twenties stock market giants such as RCA never really recouped their bull market overvaluations because they were the dot-coms of their day, a time when the DJIA was as speculative as the Nasdaq circa 2001. What did Roosevelt have to do with this?
Second, national politics. Ms. Shlaes skirts the fact that the Republican Party spent most of the 1930s in the political wilderness. Alf Landon's ill-fated campaign for the presidency in 1936 symbolizes Republican political haplessness of the era. Moreover, Republicans in Congress like Arthur Vanderberg inspired the isolationist movement prior to December 1941. Arguably, with Republicans marginalized, demagogues like Father Coughlin and Huey Long were able to achieve more political success than they deserved. Roosevelt successfully navigated both of these threats, which was no mean feat.
Third, Ms. Shlaes skirts the fact that the global depression of the 1930s secured the rise of National Socialism (Germany) , Fascism (Italy and Spain) and militarism (Japan). It also resulted in political paralysis in the United Kingdom and France, and it made Communism more appealing than deserved. Did Roosevelt employ some Communists in government? No doubt he did. But if his tenure -- despite 20% unemployment, periodic forays into public choice theory, and the absence of new DJIA highs -- spared us the fate of large swaths of the industrialized world, we should be very grateful indeed.
I believe Arthur Schlesinger would caution us to beware revisionist commentary and to be mindful of the cycles of history.
More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118334175378754739.html
Maybe you ought to think about it.