I'm not a big fan of Barney Frank, but to quote him, "What planet do you live on?"
The following was a comment I left on another post, but since it turned out so long I decided to just go ahead and make it a post of it's own, you betcha. While the below has it's own context, it might be helpful to read the other post first, just so you can understand the thought process.
Let's look at the paraphrased excerpt from FDR (taken from the other post):
"We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. The third is freedom from want. The fourth is freedom from fear anywhere in the world." (Franklin D. Roosevelt, Speech to Congress, January 6, 1941)
Okay, so it's paraphrased (badly), which only changes the meaning a little, well, mostly a little. The actual passage from FDR's 1941 State of the Union Address (which yes, is a "speech to Congress") is:
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.
Now let’s see the current minority party view on each of these:
Freedom of speech and expression: For example, tea partiers and other lobbyist fronted groups speaking their minds (Freedom!), but doing so in a way so as to make it impossible for others to also offer their views (Not so free). Making up outrageous lies about the President, like he’s a radical Muslim/Christian/Manchurian candidate who wasn’t born in this country and is just here to destroy the country he just got elected to run because he’s a socialist/communist/fascist who is putting death panels in the health care bill and trying to indoctrinate our kids by telling them to work hard in school and take responsibility for their lives. Etc. (Freedom to lie). Honesty (Not so much). Seems the minority party only believes in freedom of speech when it suits their ideology. All others need not apply.
Freedom to worship in their own way: Okay, lost the “everywhere in the world part,” but it’s not important because only the American versions of the Christian religions are acceptable to the minority party anyway. And not all Christian religions, only the “right” one will do. And it must be taught in our public schools (despite the Constitutional provisions against it) because otherwise parents and houses of worship would have to be responsible for teaching (indoctrinating?) their kids all by themselves. And we all know the government must stay out of our lives, except for things like religion and sexual preference, which of course our God (but apparently no one else’s God?) thinks must be written into federal laws.
Freedom from want: Well, FDR was talking about having a healthy economy. That seems to have been lost on the last Republican administration, who started with a surplus and immediately turned it into the largest debt in history. That is until our previous president left behind an economy in such shambles and dire straits that he had to get a huge stimulus package to salvage the country. And it was so bad that the incoming president had to have a second stimulus to keep the economy of the US – and the world – from going into a deep depression. Oh wait, Reagan also left the economy with a record debt, along with laissez faire policies that contributed to the 1987 stock market crash (Black Monday). Seems to be a trend.
Freedom from fear: As can be seen from the accurate quote, FDR was talking about a reduction in weapons worldwide. Oops. The minority party seems intent on increasing weapons. Not only domestically, but also internationally as the world comes to fear our lunatic fringe with their fingers on the red button. And guess what, now there are a bunch of countries working hard to obtain or expand their nuclear capabilities, along with China and Russia going to town on weapons sales. Plus as a bonus we managed to get everyone to hate us and wonder what country might get invaded next under false pretenses. Good job, guys.
And since this comment has already become longer than the post, I might as well continue and give you a huge chunk of irony. Because just before the section of FDR’s SOTU speech you mis-paraphrased is a whole section on personal sacrifice and improved social programs for all Americans. Seems most in the minority party have conveniently forgotten that part:
The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.
Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.
For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple.
They are:
Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
Jobs for those who can work.
Security for those who need it.
The ending of special privilege for the few.
The preservation of civil liberties for all.
The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations.
Many subjects connected with our social economy call for immediate improvement.
As examples:
We should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance.
We should widen the opportunities for adequate medical care.
We should plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.
I have called for personal sacrifice. I am assured of the willingness of almost all Americans to respond to that call.
A part of the sacrifice means the payment of more money in taxes. In my Budget Message I shall recommend that a greater portion of this great defense program be paid for from taxation than we are paying today. No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.
Which, of course, brings us to the real point. The post was a total non sequitur.
FDR’s paraphrased snippet has nothing to do with the (false) contention that our Constitutional freedom’s (at least the ones they care about) are under attack. The idea is simply absurd. There is no “consistent attacks” on the right to bear arms. It’s all in your mind. Do you think there is a “consistent attack” on the right to drive a 4000 pound conglomeration of metal, plastic and rubber at life-threatening speeds just because you have to register it with the state and get a license to operate it at DMV? Please.
The post was illustrative in one way though. It epitomizes the severe case of hyperboly that many in the minority party (and it’s even more extreme cousin) use to create false windmills at which to tilt.
After a while it gets embarrassing to watch. Who would have thought that the liberal Democrats would become the rational ones.
**
I should add that I'm hoping the sane side of the Republican party takes it back from the insane side that currently appears to be driving the bus. Needless to say, the sane ones in the Democratic party better be checking their own rear view mirrors, because there are lots of crazy people trying to grab the bumper of their transport as well.
I now return the normal part of the world, where people think.


Comments: 79
Yes, I certainly hope so too. And I also hope they start speaking up and taking back the podium from the ones now holding the microphones.
Then why is it that the majority party is the only one talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine...that is a big infringement on the first ammendment...
how about the recent AP (conservative/moderate news provider)
Photo of one of our dead soldiers over objections of the family.
Back to Freedom of speech.
The Bush Admin. by what means? prevented the press from showing such photos.
With your approval, I am certain.
(sound familiar)
Effectively, banishing a "point of view" not condoned by this administration.
Stop making excuses for being obstructionist. Get into the Congressional chambers and fight for your position, not on the blogosphere deceitfully trying to sabotage any action. Think about America for a change, and not just the games you think will win the next election.
Have a little integrity.
We are where we are because of the wings. They only care about power. The minute someone is elected the other side is plotting to take him down, hopes anything he does fail even if it takes the country down.
Not exactly.
The Republican National has deliberately published lies, for example the mailer that said Democrats will use voter rolls to deny health coverage to Republicans.
The Florida Republican party leader, published, before the announcement of the President's school speech, a list of lies the speech would include.
Is this how you identify the Right Wing Fringe?
Now don't blame this problem on just the fringes.
I agree that both the left and right fring both love name calling.
If you don't recognize when you make a racist remark, and don't intend to, you might need to examine the idea and your speech.
Ah never mind, I find your entire comment unsubstantial and lacking details.
I certainly diisagree with you that the Lies from the right are only from the "fringe"
If you want to challenge me with a recent example of a similar lie from the Democrat National Committee. Please do.
Excellent points Dave, I agree, and thank you for presenting these ideas so well.
And FDR had not even heard about the environmental challenges that threaten human future now. Climate change, peak oil, species extinctions at a rate not seen for tens of thousands of years.
other than those things, we are doing great, all 7 billion of us. yeah right.
We just have to start taking responsibility for our role in governing this country.
It also interests me that so many modern conservatives love Alexander Hamilton, ignoring the fact that he wanted the Federal Government to operate a national bank which would take a major role in running the economy.
Think, Linda, think.
Not likely as long as they think they can get more votes by pushing a fundamentalist, rather than a conservative, agenda.
What a sad state of affairs.
It's time for real Republicans to take back the party. The party of Abraham Lincoln, not the party of Bozo the clown.
My parents were Republicans from childhood through the 1930s to the 1990s. They would be ashamed of that their party has become. They hated what FDR did. But they understood why he did it and they accepted the benefits of FDRs actions along with the problems.
The Republican Party has been taken over by money. There's nothing of the founding fathers left in it. (The founding fathers of our nation nor the founding fathers of the Republican Party.)
The Democratic Party of today is far to the right of the party of JFK. I know. I was a young adult in 1060.
Actually, I wonder if the Republican party knows what a real Republican is. I would suggest that they are smart enough to not say something silly like "the democrat party has pretty much been taken over by socialists." I obviously don't know your background so can't possibly understand how you've come to this conclusion. But given that I have lived and/or visited socialist and communist countries, I can safely say that you don't know what being a socialist means. I've seen it...And the Democratic party ain't it. The Democrats have lots of their own problems, and always have, but their general philosophy is that ALL Americans count, not just the ones that are rich and/or Christian.
And since we're on the subject of saying the parties are not like they were before, the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, is spinning in his grave over what the Republican party has become today (or more accurately, what the part that seems to be running has become today).
But not surprisingly, the chatter has drifted off from the subject of the post. Feel free to provide substantive evidence that my characterizations for each of the "four freedoms" are inaccurate. Seems no one has yet, which suggests the characterizations are pretty much on target.
It's true. Today's Democrats are more like the Republicans in the time of JFK.
Thanks for the laugh though.
I agree.
While I am a registered Republican, so I can vote in the primaries, I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.
Disagree. You are a registered Republican so you can vote in the Republican primaries, which by any definition would make you a Republican. Otherwise you would be registered as an Independent or not registered as any party (but registered to vote). That way you can choose to vote for whatever candidate or party in the primary you want. By registering Republican so you can vote in the Republican party, you are a Republican.
But I am a conservative. I will always be a conservative.
Your views suggest you are more of a Constitutionalist or Libertarian, which is way to the right of conservative.
But then labels are rather meaningless, don't you agree?
CNN Washington Bureau Friday, June 13, 2003)
The numbers are conservative -- base estimates required by the financial disclosure forms. While lawmakers must detail their finances, they are reported in categories with broad ranges. For example, Kerry's estimated net worth, according to the form, ranges from $164 million to $211 million.
And the statements also do not include the value of federal salaries, pensions or primary residences, meaning the financial picture is incomplete. Bank accounts worth less than $5,000 are also excluded
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015
Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999
Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
And here's a few of those who surround him:
After leaving the Clinton White House — and before running for Congress from Chicago's North Side — Emanuel made more than $16 million in 21/2 years as an investment banker.
Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama, reported a money market fund holding between $1 million and $5 million
Axelrod sold his stake in two firms for $3 million before he moved to the White House in January.
Christina Tchen, left a lucrative legal career to become the director of Obama's Office of Public Liaison. Her disclosure shows she made $2.2 million last year as a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, a longtime Obama family friend from Chicago, reported $1.8 million in salary from Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas,
Chicago Tribune John McCormick Tribune reporter April 9, 2009
I know most of Kerry's money is actually his wife's money (heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune), just as most of John McCain's money is actually his wife's money.
I'd be interested in seeing the full list of Republicans as well. And any more Democrats you left out. Thanks.
My point is that BOTH are.
So you intended just to show the Democrats who have money? And you accidentally forgot to remove two of the Republicans on the list (meaning you removed all the rest)?
Doesn't that seem wrong, Nora? Why would you focus just on one party? Doesn't that suggest you prefer to show a biased view of reality to make a political point.
My point is that BOTH are.
If your point was to show that both parties are full of rich people, then you should show the data for both parties. The truth is that essentially everyone in the Senate and most of the people in the House are very wealthy. Even the poorest members of the House are "well off" by most American's standards.
But so what? Doesn't it show that these people have been successful in their lives, either as lawyers, businessmen, doctors, or some other profession? That they have excelled in their fields? Isn't that who we want making decisions that affect the country? People who have demonstrated their ability to handle companies, law practices, etc.
But then, that isn't really what Larry was talking about anyway, is it? It would seem that he was suggesting not so much that the Republican party is made up of wealthy people, but that they forgot about those who are not so wealthy. In fact, it seems sometimes they disdain those who aren't so wealthy. They call them lazy (remember to do that to the face of the woman cleaning your house who also holds two other jobs). They characterize everyone who isn't wealthy as a miscreant who doesn't deserve to be treated like a human being. After all, if they weren't lazy they would be rich, right? Well, except they weren't born into quite the right family or quite the right neighborhood or quite the right whatever.
You see, the point is that we are ALL Americans. And 99+% of us want to work, and want to work hard, to be successful. And most of us don't complain that we don't make a million dollars a year, as long as we make enough to have a roof that doesn't leak over our heads and send our kids to school and pay our taxes and buy the two year old car to get us to our two jobs. Most of us don't begrudge the rich being rich, just the fact that the rich seem to begrudge us not being rich.
It starts with not creating artificial divisions between people for political expediency.
Coulter: If I could change history. I would be FDR so I would NOT introduce the New Deal.
Franken: I would be Hitler, so I could call off the Holocaust.
Funny Video a must see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEHwk&feature=channel
What I thought was most interesting was that the clip started with Coulter plugging her latest book (which, after all, is her job) by reiterating that she admired Joe McCarthy. I'm not sure how being the leader of a political witch hunt is worth admiration, but it does very much fit into line with the subject of this post (which, for those who have forgotten is about tilting at windmills).
Judgment Day: Greed and corruption among the rich and powerful result in self-destruction. Right-wing anger tries to blame others for the failure of capitalism. When the rich get richer and the poor get poorer the stability of the social order is disturbed. The decadence of the super-rich knows nothing of the virtues of humility, simplicity, charity, and wisdom. Their wealth was imaginary. When the stock market crashed in 2008 they found out what they were worth--Nothing. Greed is not good. Wealth is not great. And the arrogance of power leads to impotence. The proud are fallen. Let's hope for their redemption. They, too, can begin again, but only if they love justice, become merciful and walk humbly. Like the prodigal son they can come home . . .
2. His economic policies were pure folly and used as examples of the failures of Keynesian economics in many places. Taking a recession and turning it into a 10 year economic disaster that remained unchanged until the total takeover of the economy by government in a war should not be viewed as success. Also I'm totally unsure where you can call what this president has done to the economy successful. He has copied FDR in large scale spending but he has neither helped a sort of recovery or gave anyone real freedom from fear of more problems to come.
* Clinton's budget surpluses barely dented the debt he inherited. He still passed on a large albeit temporally slowed debt onto his predecessor too. Never mind the fact that Obama has far increased said inherited debt in less than a year. That does not count whatever will be incurred with medical reform and cap & trade if passed.
3. Taking the fringe elements of the religious community (only the "righties" of course) and saying they are voice of the entire American Christian society is a bit of an overstep. It makes things easier to give you a serial rebuttal though.
4. Freedom from fear (war). Ironic that we end in up in the largest and second most bloody war of our history under him. I personally feel it was inevitable but its ironic he said such things. Comparing that to Obama's stated desire to cut back on and refuse to modernize our remaining nuclear stockpile while the rest of the world races on is a bit strange too. The world is full of wolves and tigers. Regardless if we become supplier to the whole world of teddy bears, that is not going to change a sizeable number of people/nations views of us. Even FDR for his talk of such, armed like a madman but too late. That is the one area he talked while preparing just in case.
FDR is thankfully getting finally recognized by people other than economists and some historians for the menace he was in so many ways.
[As an aside, it's interesting that Truman only became VP in FDR's last term, after others had been VP until that point. Just like Andrew Johnson for Lincoln, Gerald Ford for Nixon.]
That said, since the article isn't actually about FDR it didn't focus a discussion on FDR himself, just the way parts of his speech were taken out of context, paraphrased to remove the original meaning, and then used as a tool to preamble a conclusion that has nothing to do with FDR or anything he said. Nor was the conclusion drawn supported by any real information, just some excessive imagination about what MIGHT happen IF things were different (like, for example, this were Russia or some place without the checks and balances our political system has).
As noted, however, FDR would be an interesting case study to examine. Clearly he did things that others didn't, and don't, agree were necessary and/or effective. But then, he was elected by the people 4 elections in a row.
I do understand now what you meant about incomplete quotes and citings. Its a pretty common problem on here too.
Its just FDR is one of those historical figures long overdue for a major take down and its been immensely pleasing to see it finally happening and so roughly too. His elections and the various midterms showed support for his ideas dwindled more as time went by. Never mind how his own party revolted after his second term. Anyway thanks for your input!