SF Chron: FDR, Dems would be total strangers today

[Gannon Man Date]

FDR, Dems would be total strangers today
Party of New Deal has swapped cultures, constituencies with GOP

Martin F. Nolan

Sunday, April 10, 2005

---snip---

Democrats and Republicans have since swapped cultures and constituencies. FDR might not recognize his party today and would find it difficult to win its presidential nomination. Democrats have drifted away from Roosevelt's common touch and intellectual innovation, while Republicans have robbed from their rivals his confidence and optimism. In 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944, FDR campaigned as the champion of the poor, but in 2004, the poorest states, on the Great Plains and in the South, voted for President Bush.

On education, foreign policy and Social Security, Democrats defend the status quo -- unlike Roosevelt. In his 1932 acceptance speech, offering "a new deal,'' he scolded "those nominal Democrats who squint at the future with their faces turned toward the past."

Since 1945, Democrats have expanded the Roosevelt coalition, welcoming new groups with fresh grievances, but are now running out of both. The Democratic base today does not resemble a factory floor, but a faculty lounge, where people focus on careers, not jobs.

Academics, advocates and artists agree on the Democratic message of compassion for victims of oppression. When Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, thanked Christian evangelicals for helping re-elect his boss, he probably knew that Democratic intellectuals would discover a new class of victims, themselves. When intellectuals complain of being oppressed by Baptist preachers, they look ludicrous and answer Rove's prayers.

---snip---

more at link

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/10/ING0UC4LLM1.DTL

Discuss.

[Gannon Man Date]

1. Sorry mod.

My mistake. Thank you for moving.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Oh hooey.

The author is stretching things more than a yoga instructor.

[alarimer]

3. bullshit

It is the Republican party that is unrecognizable today, captive to the radical right. Democrats still adhere to the same principles (at least the rank and file do) even if it seems like the leadership is far too pro-business for some. The reason the poorest states voted for bush is because people have been brainwashed into voting against their own interests. They ignore the fact that Bush and company are the party of, by and for megacorporations and will do anything to screw the common person. They have successfully campaigned against abortion and gay rights on a "moral values" crusade. Even though homophobia is not a moral value and neither is being anti-choice. The GOP is the party of greed, selfishness, immorality and hypocrisy.

Liberals are being victimized and demonized and have been for years. Does the word "feminazi" ring a bell?? With righwing hate radio all over the airwaves, the liberal message is not getting through. The only thing we have going right now is Air America.

The article is complete bullshit. Evangelicals are trying to take over the government (I guess they already have).

[BillZBubb]

4. What an absolute crock.

The writer knows NOTHING about FDR. Roosevelt would still see the Repugs backing every item to help the rich while picking the pockets of the rest. He wouldn't stand for that.

[applegrove]

8. This is just more of the Delphi Technique where they co-opt our leaders

(apparently FDR would really love Karl Rove - not!). They don't seem to be able to steal our real live leaders... not like what rove stole in Texas (a few Dems were flipped to repuke by him and their flocks followed) so the GOP & Karl Rove steal OUR DEAD LEADERS!

And then some poor duped person asks us to follow FDR. Where? Into the crematorium? Up to heaven? Cause FDR was one rich ass boy and he could never stomach selfishness.

[smoogatz]

5. Republicans, However, Still the Party of Herbert Hoover

Complete with laissez-faire economics, fascist sympathies, and a healthy dollop of contempt for anyone who isn't white, male, straight and rich.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Democrats have much room for improvement, but Nolan is exaggerating

FDR did not squirm at the mention of religion. In the 1930s, his harshest critic was the Rev. Charles Coughlin, the Roman Catholic radio padre, a far more potent foe than today's preachers. An Episcopalian, FDR sought common ground. In 1933, he told the Federal Council of Churches of Christ, "If I were asked to state the great objective which church and state are both demanding for the sake of every man and woman and child in this country, I would say that that great objective is 'a more abundant life.' "

This makes it sound like FDR sought common ground with Fr. Coughlin; that is simply not true. Fr. Coughlin was a vile anti-Semite, the sort of thing that revolted FDR. The Council of Churches is a broader-based organization that had little in common with the teachings of Fr. Coughlin.

Granted, the Democrats have a problem with much of the religious community; I have expressed a belief in these forums that it is possible for the Democrats to make inroads into this Republican constituency and can start by being more respectful and less condescending toward the beliefs of evangelicals and appealing to evangelicals vote for candidates who will improve their economic standing make it easier for them raise their traditional families.

However, that does not mean that the Democrats need to adopt Jerry Falwell's agenda. Democrats should stand for the separation of church and state, as they do. Republicans have, as of late, stood for blurring that line and have resorted to demagoguing evangelical issues, such as end of life issues.

It is possible to embrace much of Falwell's religion and none of his politics. After all, Jimmy Carter is a leader of the Democratic Party who just happens to be an evangelical Christian.

[applegrove]

7. Democrats are the Party of Giving Good Information to the People

Repukes are the Party of giving anything but the good information to the people.

In your dreams - you are falling for a freeper's lies.

DUPE :applause:

[applegrove]

9. Rove is "decompensating". He lost the SS battle. Hide your children.

Rove lost the battle on SS. Rove lost the battle on SS. Rove lost the battle on SS. He is forced to change his schedule. He is forced to change his schedule. He is forced to change his schedule. Rove is not in control. Rove is not in control. Rove is not in control.

Rove lost.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

10. The liberal media of San Francisco?

I'd like the author of this "article" to tell me which leading Democrat does not talk about God? They may not do it as much as geedubya and Co. but they do talk about religion. I have a hard time believing FDR would be anti-gay and anti-choice, therefore keeping him out of the modern Republican party.

The Democratic Congressional leadership is far from perfect but the leaders of of the other side wish to undo everything FDR did. I think that clearly shows who is on the side of the last GREAT American President.

[Larkspur]

11. This author is correct. Thanks to the DLC the Dem Party today would

brand FDR a leftwing extremist and would blast FDR for his populist appeal. NAFTA, which has hurt the Midwest and the South the most, was promoted by the Clintonistas, and according to author Thomas Frank, NAFTA is the major reason why Dems have currently lost the Midwest.

The Democratic Party today is controlled by Rockefeller Republicans, who were pushed out by the Republican Party by the Reichwing extremists. These ex-Repukes are still pro-corporate and view unions and labor as antagonists.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GOPFighter]

13. I've got some problems with this

While I think this column makes some good points, the following quote is really unfair to the Democrats: "On education, foreign policy and Social Security, Democrats defend the status quo -- unlike Roosevelt."

This is apples and oranges. Roosevelt didn't defend the status quo because the status quo back then was plutocratic. He changed that with the "Great Society" programs his administration devised. Since then the decades Democrats have implement even more progressive programs - and this is now the status quo we are defending.

We've long been the party of ideas and those ideas were so good that the public embraced them. Now they are under attack. Does the writer think we should abandon them because it's normally conservatives who defend the status quo and progressives who want change. Yes, today it's the Republicans who want change...they want to change back to the plutocratic days before Roosevelt. I prefer the status quo!

[Warren Stupidity]

14. "New Deal" not "Great Society"

Great Society was LBJ not FDR.

But your point is exactly what jumped out at me as well as the rhetorical sleight of hand in the essay. FDR opposed the status quo, not because he was a friggin nihilist, but because the status quo of the 20's and early 30's sucked. Huge disparities of wealth, massive poverty, economic collapse, that status quo. The status quo FDR would support today would include his beloved Social Security program, the progressive regulatory institutions such as OSHA, SEC, FDA, etc. that are all New Deal spawned. Of course FDR would support these programs, he started them. The author is a lying snake.

[GOPFighter]

15. Whoopsy!

(blush!) Yeah, I meant New Deal. Thanks for doing what two cups of coffee couldn't.