The Socialist Bill of Rights, by FDR

[rambone]

This is an excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 State of the Union Address.

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.​

Franklin D. Roosevelt's list has been called the "Economic Bill of Rights," as well as the "Second Bill of Rights." I call it the "Socialist Bill of Rights." He intended to implement these rights through political policy. As freedom loving Americans we recognize that there is only room for one Bill of Rights, and that is the list of God-given, Constitutionally-enumerated rights listed by the Founding Fathers of America. The 2 lists of "rights" cannot coexist.

American "rights" given in the US Constitution are a list of what the Government cannot legally stop citizens from doing. They are not things that the Government will give to citizens. This list ensures liberty to all, and have safeguards against tyranny and centralized Government.

FDR's Socialist "rights" are things that the socialists believe should be done for the citizens, by the Government. This list attempts to ensure "security" to all. The result is a strong growth of Government, and sacrificing liberty of the citizens.

As students of history, we observe that FDR's socialist programs extended the a U.S. recession to last a full decade, now better known as the Great Depression.

And FDR would have been served well to take a lesson from Benjamin Franklin, who said, "Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Security, deserve neither."

 

[Fletch]

This is an excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 State of the Union Address.

And then God said "I've had about enough of this crap" and turned out the lights.

 

[rambone]

FDR was a hardcore socialist and it is not taught to nearly enough young students of history.

One difference between Obama and Roosevelt, is that Obama has the vantage point of being 65 years removed from the FDR presidency, and can look at how socialism has failed in America.

 

[RCB]

I think the list though is fairly well founded. There were a lot of abuses present from the monopolies that reigned the day. The coal industry was the much used example of the problem.

The country was reeling from the depression where people were at their last. When you have a majority of the public unhappy with their situation, it creates an environment ripe for rebellion. When most of your people are crying out about their plight, leaders must pay attention if they wish to retain their position.

Ignoring the plight of the poor is what lead to most of the socialist movement as well as some fascist movements. Many rebellions also started from the same situation.

Now, the new governments didn't necessarily help the poor, but they often promised to, which gave the masses hope. If the french monarchy had invested effort in placating the people of France, it is unlikely the revolt would have happened at all, or if it did, at a much lesser intensity. The same for Russia. Almost all of south east Asia could have benefited from the same general concern.

For that matter, look at our own revolution. Had the English been willing to endow the colonies with more autonomy, it probably would not have resulted in a war and in the end would likely have still resulted in an independent country. The powers that be, were largely able to place blame of conditions directly on the English when addressing the people. Some blame was warranted, some not.

The civil war, although fought over states rights grew to stimulate the masses. Blame of terrible working and living conditions could be placed on the North.

If the New Deal had not gone through, the troubles faced by the US would have been many times more extreme.

It is also important to note that this was prior to the massive swing of the democratic party. At this period in time, Democrats were very, very conservative and were largely tied to the South.

 

[Fletch]

If the New Deal had not gone through, the troubles faced by the US would have been many times more extreme.

Disagree. The New Deal made the Great Depression longer and more intense than it would have been absent the "reforms". The only thing the New Deal accomplished was roping more people into voting Democrat. It was an exercise in political chicanery, not economic recovery.

ETA: the DiLorenzo talk in this thread covers this in some depth.

 

[RCB]

Counterpoint. The New Deal gave a lot of jobs to people who needed them. People had no food, no shelter and no way out. Instead of handing out money directly (and creating inflation) they created jobs.

If the new deal had not come about, communism would have taken a much more significant root. They were already battling it at the time.



The recession dragged on because all the money had been siphoned to the top. Without government incentives to get the wealthy to part with money in the way of starting new companies, they would have simply held on to what they had. There many elderly living in squalid conditions. For many, there wasn't any work to be had. My own relatives would leave for weeks at a time to take advantage of the CCC. They were at the time, in danger of losing the last bit of land they had, after which they would have become vagabonds.

If the people were unable to make money, they wouldn't have been able to spend it to buy things from manufacturers.

Large manufacturers only got by on ... government handouts because the economy was unable to sustain them.

Masses will not simply sit idly while they starve to death and roll around in filth. Someone WILL take advantage of the situation.

To have ignored the situation would have invited the same destiny as Russia, France, and later China, Korea, Vietnam and many others.

I know many here dislike public programs, but they can play a pivotal role in preventing societal collapse.

 

[SavageEagle]

The ONLY good thing to come out of FDR was the TVA and the Social Security Plan as it was ORIGINALLY intended.

The TVA did have a bit of a negitive environmental impact, but it did create jobs and it did boost the economy.

The original Social Security plan was a good one in two ways. It helped people save for retirement if they CHOSE to participate. It also gave us a system to weed out the illegals, but it's not perfect and could be worked on. It wasn't until government dipped into the funds and made it mandatory did it become bad.

Beyond that, FDR was a Socialist and should NEVER have become POTUS.

 

[RCB]

On a side note, there is no law prohibiting a socialist or for that matter almost any person with any ideological/religious/cultural view from becoming President.

Make sure to read about FDR though. He isn't as liberal as you may think. In fact, he was rather conservative. It was that conservative viewpoint that kept us out of the war in Europe as long as we had.

 

[SavageEagle]

On a side note, there is no law prohibiting a socialist or for that matter almost any person with any ideological/religious/cultural view from becoming President.

Make sure to read about FDR though. He isn't as liberal as you may think. In fact, he was rather conservative. It was that conservative viewpoint that kept us out of the war in Europe as long as we had.

No there is no law against it, but there are laws against what they are doing, now, in Washington. It's called the Constitution. Lest you not forget.

As for him being Conservative and keeping us out of war, yea, that was a good thing.

He was in no way a Conservative, he was a Socialist. If ever he was a Conservative, he killed that long before he became POTUS. As for him keeping us out of war, that was the problem. He allowed Pearl Harbor to happen by letting his Washington bueracrats tell us how to keep our ships anchored in harbor and that it was strategically sound. GREAT MOVE.

Had it not been for us entering WWII, we would have never recovered like we did. It wasn't his New Deal that brought us out of the Depression. It was our manufacturing boom and our exports to our allies.

I think you might want to go restudy WWII and the end of the Depression...

 

[Fletch]

I disagree with both of you. What ended the Depression was the massive REDUCTION in the size of government immediately following the war. The federal budget decreased by an unprecedented two thirds of its size by 1947, and took with it a whole lot of the New Deal programs that had utterly destroyed the economy.

 

[Jeremiah]

I disagree with both of you. What ended the Depression was the massive REDUCTION in the size of government immediately following the war. The federal budget decreased by an unprecedented two thirds of its size by 1947, and took with it a whole lot of the New Deal programs that had utterly destroyed the economy.

Isn't that kinda how the '80's got turned around? tax cuts and budget cuts?

 

[Fletch]

Isn't that kinda how the '80's got turned around? tax cuts and budget cuts?

The 1980's is a bit more complicated, because Reagan engaged in the same sort of deficit spending that FDR pioneered. What made a huge difference in the 1980's was the reversal of policy by the Fed that brought interest rates to new lows. People had been getting mortgages at 17%, with other forms of credit similarly expensive. The influx of new money in the form of cheaper credit made it possible for the private sector to expand faster than government (leading to the S&L bailout), even though government was expanding pretty fast on its own. Reagan did oversee some overhauls in the tax code, reducing the top tax brackets, which enabled the rich to invest more, and he also pushed for various forms of "deregulation", though that word almost never holds up to its own definition when government is involved. Reagan also dumped massive wads of cash into the military-industrial complex, which had the secondary effect of "boosting the economy", but once again doing so by spurring malinvestment that in many ways is still with us today.

 

[WabashMX5]

I'm just waiting for Obama to borrow an FDR quote and tell the world, "No damn politiciam will ever dismantle my Obamacare System." And if it passes, I'm afraid he'll be right. There'll be no unringing that bell, and it'll be the death knell for liberty — equality of opportunity sacrificed for equality of outcome, obtained by making everyone equally miserable.

 

[SavageEagle]

I'm just waiting for Obama to borrow an FDR quote and tell the world, "No damn politiciam will ever dismantle my Obamacare System." And if it passes, I'm afraid he'll be right. There'll be no unringing that bell, and it'll be the death knell for liberty — equality of opportunity sacrificed for equality of outcome, obtained by making everyone equally miserable.

That bell can't ring if 100mil Americans don't follow suit.

 

[WabashMX5]

That bell can't ring if 100mil Americans don't follow suit.

I just hope you're right. There is, after all, strength in numbers.

 

[RCB]

During WWII, you had a massive number of unemployed, suddenly employed (for rather meager wages) by the government as soldiers. At the same time, those unfit to serve as soldiers were also employed back here in the US. All the while commodities were rationed, directly controlling a good portion of the economy. During that time a great number of people were not only able to work, but save as well. There was also a concerted effort to donate scrap materials and be as self sufficient as possible.

While the deep cuts to government were essential to continuing government, had it not been for the mobilization of industry for WWII, we wouldn't have pulled out of the depression in such a spectacular fashion. And for that to have occurred, you needed a stable populace, which the New Deal helped provide for.

The return of so many soldiers coupled with a rapid deceleration of industry would spin in the next recession, although short lived.

In the years that followed, standard of living would reach new highs for blue collar workers with better work places, much of which had been set out in FDRs "New Deal."

There were a great number of issues that contributed to the great depression. Much like our recent plunge, too much money was in too few places. The reason why the government needed to step in was because trickle down doesn't work. There wasn't fair pay for fair work, the elderly were not being take care of and the future was looking very shaky. There are so many factors to cover. There are a great number of excellent books.

There are different camps on the depression. I would hate to turn a blind eye on the precipitating factors or why FDR and legislators of the time stepped into the economy.

 

[Fletch]

That is certainly one view about the Depression, its causes and effects. It's the one that the political class favors, to be sure, because it excuses any intervention they care to undertake so long as they claim it's for the poor and downtrodden. Unfortunately it's completely at odds with economic scholarship on the subject, and ignores the fundamental economic laws (not to mention historical counter-examples) that demonstrate why Hoover and FDR's interventions were exactly the wrong thing to do, and made the situation worse, not better.

 

[Fletch]

For example, the pro-interventionist view fails to explain why the Great Depression, a worldwide phenomenon, hit neighboring countries less severely than the United States. Canada started with essentially the same rate of unemployment, but maintained significantly lower unemployment throughout the Great Depression, without instituting a New Deal-style program of intervention:

[FONT=Courier New]Period       U.S. Unemployment       Canadian Unemployment
1923-1929          3.3%                     3.1%
1930               8.9                      9.1
1931              15.9                     11.6
1932              23.6                     17.6
1933              24.9                     19.3
1934              21.7                     14.5
1935              20.1                     14.2
1936              17.0                     12.8
1937              14.3                      9.1
1938              19.0                     11.4
1939              17.2                     11.4
1940              14.6                      9.2
1941               9.9                      4.4
[/FONT]

If you prefer, here it is in pretty picture form:

So in essence, the thesis of the pro-interventionist is this: Canadian and U.S. unemployment rates tracked one another for 7 years. Then as Hoover began the massive interventions and FDR continued them, America was "saved" from the Great Depression by those interventionist policies, while Canada managed to stumble through on blind luck, doing consistently better than America throughout the next 10 years. I submit that the graph and table above is more than enough evidence to trust blind luck (aka the free market) over government intervention.

ETA: statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Statistics Canada, as quoted by Dr. Robert Murphy in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, pg 103

 

[RCB]

I am unable to find tables on Europe in General save for

, but in regards to the end of depressions,

Germany's ended in 1936 due to large scale militarization and public works projects. US's ended in 1941 due to similar reasons.

France had less unemployment due to lack of manpower, having had over a million French die during WWI. Of course it's whole government collapsed in 193? (I think it was 34) They lost almost 5% of their population during WWI.

UK did much better than the US, but had a massive unemployment program come through in 1931 to replace the previous one which was based on previous contributions as opposed to need. Since most were paid so poorly, they had little to get in return. Again, rearmament in the late 30's helped pull their country out of depression.

Belgium too had a significant public works program to help them recover.

Another factor to include was a departure from the gold standard by many industrialized nations.

Personally, I feel that in our current situation we shouldn't have helped any of the institutions and let deflation set in. But, as soon as the bank bailout went through, it destroyed that opportunity to readjust the market. We would have experienced a period of extreme unemployment, but I feel would have recovered in 3-5 years with a much healthier economy. However, it's impossible to say exactly what might have happened with so many factors to consider.

I do not have all numbers, but I would certainly like to hear more. I personally feel that public works projects were instrumental for many countries and their contributions can not be overlooked.

Also, there are many more numbers to look at, particularly GDP, underemployment and inflation/deflation.

 

[Fletch]

Germany's ended in 1936 due to large scale militarization and public works projects. US's ended in 1941 due to similar reasons.

Militarization is just a cozy word for "we sent a large portion of our workforce off to die." I would argue that there is a small difference in the quality of life experienced by a guy who sleeps in a tent with a rifle, waiting for someone to kill him, as opposed to the guy who's working at a more "normal" job and gets to see his family every day. But then, I'm not and have never been a soldier, so perhaps those who are/have been can tell us whether there is any difference. Then again, it's also one thing to choose to work for some business, but another thing to be conscripted without choice into the aforementioned soldier's lifestyle.

Europe is less comparable to the United States than Canada, because the USA and Canada were insulated from the realities of the war for 5 years or so. As you implied, things change rather rapidly when your workforce is being killed and your infrastructure bombed into oblivion -- did those reductions in unemployment come about as the result of Nazis putting a bullet in their heads, or because they actually got a job? The New Deal was a peacetime program, and therefore should only be compared to nations/periods which don't have the added confusion of the Broken Window Fallacy. Some countries in Europe may be comparable up until 1935, but certainly not once the fireworks started going off.

The gold standard is another argument entirely, but it's also one addressed by the Austrian School, and FDR comes out smelling no better than he does in any of the other measures of his "greatness".