4 ms·

Unpopular opinion alert! The more I learn about FDR the more he reminds me of Trump. And I say that as a non-fan of Trump. We hear a lot today about how Trum

Unpopular opinion alert! The more I learn about FDR the more he reminds me of Trump. And I say that as a non-fan of Trump. We hear a lot today about how Trump is breaking long-established norms. But FDR was the king of breaking norms: from running for four terms, to trying to pack the Supreme Court and setting off a constitutional crisis, to running the only concentration camps in American History and banning immigration outright from many countries. FDR was a populist bully. He changed the presidency forever. And yet he’s constantly referred to as one of the best presidents.

astrodust 8y ago
If you can't see past superficial similarities, yes, they're identical. They both even had hair!
acconrad 8y ago
Your use of "bully" is a red herring to your argument. Both people break norms, yes. But when you "bully" the fat cats in government, that's called "doing your job." The president is essentially the highest-paid public servant. It is (supposed to be) the president's job to fight for what the people want. Trump is fighting for himself. He's fighting for big business. He's fighting for exactly his own self interest. That is anathema to what FDR did. Thus, Trump is a bully and FDR is not, and that is why your opinion is being downvoted.
- wonder_er 8y ago
  FDR's internment camps was hardly a move "for the people". Should we overlook the internment camps? Seems like FDR was a lot worse than a bully, in light of the camps.
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    No, you shouldn't overlook it. But don't kid yourself in thinking most Americans in the 1940s weren't terribly racist. Check out this Gallup poll from 1942: https://news.gallup.com/vault/195257/gallup-vault-wwii-era-support-japanese-internment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/vault/195257/gallup-vault-wwii-era-s...
- wdewind 8y ago
  > That is anathema to what FDR did. What happens if you reconsider the New Deal from the perspective that the Roosevelt family benefited hugely from increased government power?
ColanR 8y ago
You're downvoted, but I don't really see how you're wrong.
- Latteland 8y ago
  They were both presidents, but after that I'm not sure how they were the same.
ChrisLTD 8y ago
It's not all that helpful to use "norm-breaking" as a rubric to judge politicians because it leaves out important considerations like if the norm itself is bad, or if the outcome is worth the sacrifice of the norm.
smacktoward 8y ago
FDR was nothing like Trump. He broke norms, yes, but he was also held office during two of the most dire existential emergencies in the history of the United States: the Great Depression and World War 2. He did unprecedented things because he lived in unprecedented times. And, crucially, he did them to preserve the Constitutional order, not to overthrow it. Unlike most of his class, he was cognizant of the fact that if the government could not organize an effective solution to such a deep crisis, the people would eventually rise up and replace it with one that could. He wanted to stave that off. He took drastic measures to deny oxygen to those would have taken even more drastic ones. (There is one thing on your list that is universally held to be unjustifiable today, of course: the internment of Japanese-Americans. And I would agree that it was unjustifiable, even under the circumstances, which were grave. But there are decent arguments for the other ones.) A good analogue to FDR's unique situation is Abraham Lincoln, who is really the only other President to have faced similar crises. Lincoln did things under the rubric of the Presidency's war powers that go right up to the red line (and, some would argue, beyond). He locked up political opponents who espoused support for the Confederacy, and denied them their habeus corpus rights so they couldn't get out again. He imposed the first involuntary draft in American history. When Maryland threatened to secede and cut Washington, DC off from the rest of the North, he clamped down martial law there, hard. But he did these things to preserve the Constitutional order, not to wreck it. If you want a character from FDR's era who resembles Trump much more closely, go check out a few books on Huey Long, who was exactly the sort of figure FDR acted in order to head off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long
- wdewind 8y ago
  > Unlike most of his class, he was cognizant of the fact that if the government could not organize an effective solution to such a deep crisis, the people would eventually rise up and replace it with one that could. Would this have been such a bad thing?
  - MaysonL 8y ago
    >Would this have been such a bad thing? It could well have been: see the French and Russian Revolutions, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot. There were both Nazis and Communists busy in the US in the '30s, and either taking power would have been really bad.
the_gastropod 8y ago
FDR and Trump were/are both demagogues, bombastic. They both pushed/are pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with. There, I agree. But I think there are some very important differences that make one less tolerable than the other: 1. FDR was clearly an intelligent person. He was fluent in at least 3 languages, wrote his own speeches, etc. Trump speaks at a 4th grade reading level, and rarely speaks in coherent sentences (unless he's reading a speech someone else wrote for him). 2. FDR actually won the popular election. And by a pretty substantial margin. Of these two presidents, FDR could argue he had a mandate to push his agenda. Trump lost the popular election, and is still pushing his partisan policies hard.

astrodust 8y ago

If you can't see past superficial similarities, yes, they're identical. They both even had hair!

acconrad 8y ago

Your use of "bully" is a red herring to your argument. Both people break norms, yes. But when you "bully" the fat cats in government, that's called "doing your job." The president is essentially the highest-paid public servant. It is (supposed to be) the president's job to fight for what the people want. Trump is fighting for himself. He's fighting for big business. He's fighting for exactly his own self interest. That is anathema to what FDR did. Thus, Trump is a bully and FDR is not, and that is why your opinion is being downvoted.

wonder_er 8y ago
FDR's internment camps was hardly a move "for the people". Should we overlook the internment camps? Seems like FDR was a lot worse than a bully, in light of the camps.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  No, you shouldn't overlook it. But don't kid yourself in thinking most Americans in the 1940s weren't terribly racist. Check out this Gallup poll from 1942: https://news.gallup.com/vault/195257/gallup-vault-wwii-era-support-japanese-internment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/vault/195257/gallup-vault-wwii-era-s...
wdewind 8y ago
> That is anathema to what FDR did. What happens if you reconsider the New Deal from the perspective that the Roosevelt family benefited hugely from increased government power?

ColanR 8y ago

You're downvoted, but I don't really see how you're wrong.

Latteland 8y ago
They were both presidents, but after that I'm not sure how they were the same.

ChrisLTD 8y ago

It's not all that helpful to use "norm-breaking" as a rubric to judge politicians because it leaves out important considerations like if the norm itself is bad, or if the outcome is worth the sacrifice of the norm.

smacktoward 8y ago

FDR was nothing like Trump. He broke norms, yes, but he was also held office during two of the most dire existential emergencies in the history of the United States: the Great Depression and World War 2. He did unprecedented things because he lived in unprecedented times. And, crucially, he did them to preserve the Constitutional order, not to overthrow it. Unlike most of his class, he was cognizant of the fact that if the government could not organize an effective solution to such a deep crisis, the people would eventually rise up and replace it with one that could. He wanted to stave that off. He took drastic measures to deny oxygen to those would have taken even more drastic ones. (There is one thing on your list that is universally held to be unjustifiable today, of course: the internment of Japanese-Americans. And I would agree that it was unjustifiable, even under the circumstances, which were grave. But there are decent arguments for the other ones.) A good analogue to FDR's unique situation is Abraham Lincoln, who is really the only other President to have faced similar crises. Lincoln did things under the rubric of the Presidency's war powers that go right up to the red line (and, some would argue, beyond). He locked up political opponents who espoused support for the Confederacy, and denied them their habeus corpus rights so they couldn't get out again. He imposed the first involuntary draft in American history. When Maryland threatened to secede and cut Washington, DC off from the rest of the North, he clamped down martial law there, hard. But he did these things to preserve the Constitutional order, not to wreck it. If you want a character from FDR's era who resembles Trump much more closely, go check out a few books on Huey Long, who was exactly the sort of figure FDR acted in order to head off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

wdewind 8y ago
> Unlike most of his class, he was cognizant of the fact that if the government could not organize an effective solution to such a deep crisis, the people would eventually rise up and replace it with one that could. Would this have been such a bad thing?
- MaysonL 8y ago
  >Would this have been such a bad thing? It could well have been: see the French and Russian Revolutions, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot. There were both Nazis and Communists busy in the US in the '30s, and either taking power would have been really bad.

the_gastropod 8y ago

FDR and Trump were/are both demagogues, bombastic. They both pushed/are pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with. There, I agree. But I think there are some very important differences that make one less tolerable than the other: 1. FDR was clearly an intelligent person. He was fluent in at least 3 languages, wrote his own speeches, etc. Trump speaks at a 4th grade reading level, and rarely speaks in coherent sentences (unless he's reading a speech someone else wrote for him). 2. FDR actually won the popular election. And by a pretty substantial margin. Of these two presidents, FDR could argue he had a mandate to push his agenda. Trump lost the popular election, and is still pushing his partisan policies hard.