
Home
About Apple Career Experiences General Graphics Hardware History Humor Interface Networking OS Opinion Politics Programming Quotes Reviews Security Software Sound Thought Web

Cheap International Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
 |
Legacy Looking back
By: David K. Every
|
Kind: Created: Size: |
Article Apr 14,1999 9 KB |
|
|
 |
DR should have never been elected to a third term, due to his health -- he spent the majority of the later years just resting (with over half his time spent out of office). To get elected to a fourth term there was a big fraud played on the public, with doctors and the press in a conspiracy to hide the truth from the public. By 1944 FDR was away from the WhiteHouse for 175 days of the year -- and when he did work, under Doctors orders, it was for only 4 hours per day (including lunch). It is not a surprise that he died in office -- emperors don't give up power easily -- but had people known his condition, he would never have been elected.
     
During the 1940 election, former President Hoover got up an made a brilliant speech. It talked about the weaking of liberty. He explained everything so eloquently:
Liberty had been weakened long before the dictators rose.... in every single case before the rise of a totalitarian governments there had been a period dominated by economic planners. Each of these nations had an era under starry-eyed men who believed that they could plan and force the economic life of the people... They exalted the State as the solvent of all economic problems. These men thought they were liberals. But they also thought they could have economic dictatorship by bureaucracy -- and at the same time preserve free speech, orderly justice and free government. They might be called the totalitarian liberals. They were the spiritual followers of the New Deal. These men are not Communists or Fascists [though those were about]... but they shifted the relation of government from free enterprise from umpire to controller! Directly or indirectly they politically controlled credit, prices, production or industry, farmer and laborer. They devalued, pump-primed and deflated. They controlled private business with government competition, by regulation and by taxes. They met every failure with demands for more and more power and control... when it was too late, they discovered that every time they stretched the arm of government into private enterprise, except to correct abuse, then somehow, somewhere, men's minds became confused. At once men became fearful and hesitant. Initiative slackened, industry slowed down production. [Which resulted in] chronic unemployment and frantic government spending in an effort to support the unemployed. Government debts mounted and finally government credit was undermined. Out of the miseries of their people there grew pressure groups [we call them special interests] -- business, labor, farmers -- demanding relief or special privelege. Class hate poisoned cooperation.
This was the most eloquent description of what lead rise to the dictators of Europe and the USSR -- and it was just as clear a warning about the path we were following. In hind-sight, we haven't had a complete colapse like Europe did -- but we have been teetering on the precipice a few times. Certainly we were lucky that the war came along (and FDRs death), which saved us from continued entropy of all that we held valid, like freedom -- but we haven't strayed far enough from this dangerous path. When you read speaches like this, it is hard to see the Hoover that is reflected in some of our history books. Where is the bumbling, insensitive boob that didn't know what was going on in the economy? Why did this man need saving from his intellectual and philisophical inferior (FDR)?
        
To give you a little idea of the man (FDR), and how desirous to please Stalin that Roosevelt was, at one point in Teheran (this is told by Elliott Roosevelt, intended to make fun or Churchill) -- Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were having dinner. Stalin made a toast, "To the swiftest possible justice for all Germany's war criminals -- justice before a firing squad. I drink to our units in dispatching them as fast as we catch them. All of them. And there must be at least 50,000 of them.". Churchill was pissed, and leaped to his feet explaining that mass murder before a firing squad was wrong -- and that all individuals (even Nazi's) should get a proper trial. FDR said, jovially, "Clearly there must be some compromise... Pershaps we should say that instead of summarily executing 50,000, we should settle on a smaller number -- say, 49,500". The Russians laughed and Churchill was furious. Elliott admits he enjoyed taunting Churchill and says he toasted that "[American] armies will settle the matter for most of those 50,000, if not 100,000 more". To which Stalin put his arm around Elliott, and got further protests from Churchill -- which his father found amusing. This incident clearly demonstrated either Roosevelts ignorance of diplomacy and the message he was sending, or his indifference for human rights. Of course 10's of thousands of German soldiers (especially officers) were murdered before Soviet firing squads, and many more were worked to death in slave camps -- and Stalin had been given permission by FDR. (Not that Stalin wouldn't have done it anyway -- but that's not the point).
     
So what was FDR's Legacy? Sadly the facts are not close to what is taught in our schools.
We are sometimes taugh about FDR the friend to the Jews -- but not taught how many more Jews lost their lives because of his indiference to the Holocaust, his knowing of it, and his desire to hide it -- and intentional delays to do anything about it. Nor are we told stories about how he made comments about 'the only concessions he'd make to Ibn Saud is to give him America's 6 Million Jews'. Or the many other events that would lead one to believe that FDR was a racist who was happy to let the Jews die -- and would certainly expend no energy to stop it unless forced politically.
When we are taught about the national debt and defecit spending, our schools spend a lot of energy on the excesses of Reagan -- but seldom expend a fraction that energy on the President that spent far, far more (relative). How often do the schools go into the detailed costs of the programs that FDR created, and the costs of the debt and defecit to later generations?
When we were taught about the Iron Curtain, and how Stalin took control of many eastern blok countries, are we taught that it was with the aide (or complacency) and often with agreements to look the other way by Roosevelt? Sure, we like to mention how Roosevelt got us in to WWII, to "help save" the freedom of a hundred million people in Europe -- but then they never go into how many hundreds of millions of people fell under totalitarian communist rule with FDR's assistance -- which includes 120+ Million in the Eastern Blok countries, and another 600+ Million in Asia. Not counting the moral ambiguity in helping a regeim and dictator (Stalin), with nearly 200+ million enslaved people, that we know was every bit as brutal and costly in lives and freedoms as the one we fought against (Hitler). Nor is it discussed how many died due to FDRs indifference.
When we are taught about later history like McCarthy'ism and the rampant paranoia that existed, are we told why it happened? Is it discussed how Roosevelt made agreements with the Communists and Socialists to help them get positions of power in unions and our government, and how Eleanor entertained leaders of those groups for support, and how they actually had infultrated many positions of leadership with the Roosevelts' help? Are we taught that it was those infultrations that fueled the paranoia and led to later over-reaction? Or are we taught how people were scared of what happened with the Iron Curtain and post-war Europe which was at least partly the reprocussions of FDRs actions? But what did FDR care about philosophy or things that happened because of him (after his death) as long as he got the votes while alive?
When we remember FDR we talk about diplomacy and what a great diplomat -- but do they mention how he got his concessions and what the costs? Sometimes the schools talk about the United Nations (Roosevelt's brain-child that was borrowed from the League of Nations) -- but do they detail how we pay the majority of the bill while FDR made secret agreements to give the Soviets more votes than anyone else had, plus allow them many puppet governments to thwart any true difference that the U.N. might have made?
Schools talk about how FDR kept winning elections -- but not by how close some were. They mention the good politician and ignore the bad. And they certainly don't talk about how he kept getting the votes (through intimidation, lies, or exploiting taxpayers money to his political advantage). We are not taught about the double-dealing and back-stabbing -- not about one of the greediest, most self-interested, corrupt and power hungry persons to ever taint the office.
When we look at a President's legacy, we should remember everything that happened under his ternure, and everything that happened afterwards because of his actions -- not just one side.
Format for Printing Mail
|
|
 |
 |