General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This is what a REAL Democrat sounds like. [View all]MADem
(135,425 posts)the Great Depression. He wasn't a "traitor"--he was a champion, even if unwittingly, of "deferred compensation." The military-industrial-congressional complex existed before the "Greatest Generation" war, but it was a highly polished, integrated. perpetual motion machine by the time peace was declared--and it had no trouble gearing up to full strength at a rapid clip when Korea came our way. It is now entrenched, it is a part of governance with very little accountability--and that needs to change (a topic for another day).
And speaking of taxes, FDR was a guy who felt that everyone should pay their taxes, but he tolerated regressive taxation (i.e., taxing the poor at a more burdensome rate) in order to get to the taxes of the more wealthy tax-avoiders. On DU today, a POTUS would be called a traitor to the working man if people caught one doing that.
No "recent Democratic President" -- in fact, NO president, ever since -- has had the spectre of a dual front genuine, no bullshit, put all your infrastructure up against it World War to deal with. So no comparison is either fair or apt. When your entire nation is on a war footing, you can get away with a LOT.
And prior to that, no one remembers "court packing" (imagine if Bush had tried to double the size of the Supreme Court, what people here would say...? I'm sure people wouldn't be talking about his "guts" but they would be remarking that he had a lot of another portion of his anatomy to try to pull that crap...).
Of course, no one (save George Takei, perhaps) wants to talk about those camps full of Japanese people, because they're inconvenient, and no one dares bring up how much was known about those far less pleasant camps in Germany....because that requires people to toss off the idealistic rose colored glasses, and see the guy in a more pragmatic way. Sure, his heart was in the right place, but he put essential elements of human compassion, and certainly human liberties, to the side, in pursuit of what he felt was a "greater good." Now, if one is not Jewish nor Japanese, one can probably more easily forgive him his frailties--but it's always about whose ox is gored, isn't it?
And while people rip Hillary for "standing by her man" no one is going to even bring up Eleanor's deliberate ignoring of Missy LeHand or the curious relationship FDR had with the unfortunately monikered Daisy Suckley. And that's just the tip of his iceberg, too--but people didn't talk about that stuff back then, so it makes it easier to ignore.
But here's the bottom line. FDR was a great leader in his time. Other Democratic presidents, including some that some DUers profess to "hate" will be seen as great leaders as well through the long lens of history.
Every President acts in their OWN TIME. To compare a Lincoln to an FDR to a Kennedy to an Obama is simply folly. One can only judge them by how they dealt with the cards that were played to them. If they failed in everything they attempted, if they didn't accomplish any gains that furthered the well-being of We, The People, or strengthened our nation on the international stage, they are generally regarded as failures.
Not really sure who "they" is in your last paragraph but suffice it to say that "they" are not friends of mine--I do not associate with a single soul who would regard Reagan as anything more than a front man, a useful idiot, an actor playing the role of President, who was manipulated by a cabal of wingnut assholes. The strongest leader in the WH during the Reagan years was Nancy.