FDR, the New Deal, and Unemployment Rates

There is this conservative writer named Amity Shlaes who authored a book called The Forgotten Man about FDR and the Great Depression. She has become the latest conservative expert on the Great Depression. Her book is an attempt to argue that Roosevelt's policies actually made unemployment worse, not better, and that it was WWII that ended the Great Depression, not governmental action. One of her outlets is the Washington Post, who is publishing her articles apparently as a conservative counter-weight to arguments being made for more aggressive public works spending.

Shlaes by the way, is a Ivy League graduate who majored in English, not economics or history. This is from the Wikipedia entry about her:

Shlaes graduated from Jonathan Edwards College, Yale University magna cum laude[1] with a bachelor’s degree in English in 1982.[2]

As David Sirota points out in an excellent column about Shlaes, the New Deal and unemployment, her analysis of unemployment data has been discredited by a University of California historian. Sirota goes on to point out that under the New Deal, America experienced the second greatest drop in the percentage of unemployed recorded from 1932 through 2008. (Sirota is considering the New Deal as having ended in 1941, the year that WWII started.) The only greater drop occurred during the period of 1940 through 1944.

Why is any of this important? Because right now the Congress is considering how to stimulate the economy. Conservatives and Republicans argue that government projects won't work in reducing unemployment. They will be citing Shlaes's book in support of these arguments. Sirota's column is one small way to argue back.

Medina County Dem Book Recommendation

U.S. Political History Book – “Electing FDR”
– The New Deal Campaign of 1932, authored by Senate Associate Historian Donald Ritchie.

Don Ritchie recently appeared on C-Span2’s BookTV to discuss his new book, which can now be viewed as a podcast. The events of this historic campaign have relevance to what is happening, and may happen in the current 2008 campaign. Why should one want to hear this history? Consider the Will Rogers quotation, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes”. There are some rhymes that are in play in 2008. For example, in 1932 the Democratic and Republican campaigns each had a message that could be characterized by a four letter word. Are those words being used in 2008?

Before listening to the podcast, a short review of the conditions in the U.S. in 1932 can be found at: http://www.infoplease.com:80/year/1932.html

Secondly, see a review of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s biography at: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760616.html

Now enjoy an enlightening talk by Don Ritchie at:
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9075&SectionName=History&PlayMedia=Yes

Submitted by:
Bob Simmons
Wadsworth, Ohio

Bush Again Changing Rationale for Iraq War?

Let's see how many reasons Bush has given for the United States going to war with Iraq. First it was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction because Saddam might give such weapons to terrorists. Never mind that there was no record of any co-operation between Iraq and al-Qaeda or that no Iraqis had been involved in the horrible events of 9-11.

Then, when we found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the rationale for the war was to establish a democratic Arab state in the middle-east that would apparently serve as a model for Arabs and serve as an ally of the United States. Never mind that no one bother to find out that if Iraq was a democratic state whether it would actually become an ally of the United States or whether a democratic state could exist in a society where there were sectarian tensions between two or three large groups of people.

Now, after we see that, yes, the Iraqis aren't going to get along with each other and are fighting a civil war, the rationale given by Bubble-Boy changes again. Now, according to a statement quoted in the Washington Post, "Our main enemy is al-Qaeda and its affiliates". Of course, we won't mention that al-Qaeda is in Iraq because we went there in the first place.

Successful wars are fought by America when the goals are very clear. Can anyone imagine FDR coming up with three rationales in four years for WWII? He didn't need to because everyone knew what the goals were and, more importantly, how those goals related to American security. Bush either didn't have a clear goal when he started this mess or he was lying about his real goal, or both.

Second point about successful wars fought by the United States: someone else started them, not us. Unsuccessful wars are fought by the U.S. when we intervene in someone else' fight, as in Vietnam, or when we start the fight, as in Iraq. You would think that someone would have pointed this out to BB before now, but then, thanks to the Bush administration, the media, and yes, a lot of Democratic politicians, we never had a real debate about a war with Iraq.

You can read the whole Washington Post article by clicking here.