« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Book Notes: Character of the President

I thought chapter 14 of this weeks reading was very interesting.  In it, Mr. Folsom chronicles many of the lies FDR told to the public and to members of his own party while in office.

FDR was guilty of using the same lies that we hear politicians use today.  For example, in 1932, Roosevelt promised to balance the budget.  He even made balancing the budget the centerpiece of a speech two weeks before the election.  Roosevelt said, “I shall approach the problem of carrying out the plain percept of our Party, which is to reduce the cost of current Federal Government operations by 25 percent.”  One could even believe these promises were on the minds of voters as they headed to the both.

However, once in office, FDR didn’t even attempt to pass a balanced budget. Instead he launched on his “First 100 days” and the New Deal.  These programs were almost impossible to implement under a balanced budget.  However, the lies wouldn’t stop with his election.  Folsom spends much of chapter 14 chronicling the list of lies that FDR told his staff and supporters. They are too numerous to recount here.  I would encourage you to spend a few minutes reading chapter 14 if you haven’t already.

What’s incredible about FDR’s lies is how well it’s been covered up since day one of his administration.  In FDR’s time, the press would hide everything from his disability, his affairs with other women (numerous women), and his lies to the press themselves.  In today’s world, FDR’s lying is rarely ever mentioned.  I know neither it nor the extra marital affairs where in any text book I read in school.  Because Roosevelt was widely known to lie to the press and to his own administration, he may have changed the very nature of the office of the presidency in one other role:  it’s need for men of character.  Folsom closes this chapter with the following passage:

In the 1790′s, George Washington had argued that morality, especially among leaders, was indispensable to the survival of the American republic.  Even before Roosevelt, of course, some presidents had fallen short of Washington’s high standard.  But during the 1930′s, the increased role of government made Washington’s pledge of morality seem antiquated.  Roosevelt, by centralizing power in the executive, by providing subsidies for votes, and by his charismatic radio addresses, took attention away form his character and focused it on his intentions in his dramatic New Deal.  After Roosevelt, fewer presidents would be bound by public promises, by constitutional restraints, or by providing exemplary conduct in their personal lives.

Perhaps the lack of  character in politicians is FDR’s true legacy.

For Next Week:  I plan on covering Chapters 15 and 16.  Have a great Memorial Day.

COMMENTS

  • ntrepid

    As discussed once upon a time (on Tacitus), if the term legacy is intended in a positive light then the FDR legacy in the purest sense probably starts and stops with one entry

  • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

    …is a BAD legacy now.

    See:

      http://georgialife.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/march-of-dimes-friend-or-foe-to-the-babies/
      http://www.pregnantpause.org/people/mod3.htm
      http://www.catholictradition.org/Life/march-dimes.htm

    Once polio was pretty much eradicated, the MOD was an organization without a cause. Since the first law of organizations is that they must STAY in existence no matter what — which is just as true of non-profit organizations as it is of government bureaucracies — they took up birth defects. Which was great — for a while. Unfortunately, the modus operandi has warped into preventing birth defects by killing the affected babies before birth. MOD provided the lion’s share of the research funding for the development of amniocentesis, a screening procedure that is now urged on virtually all pregnant woman in order to determine if their baby has Down syndrome or other defects; if the test shows problems, the baby is usually aborted. So amnio has essentially become a “search-and-destroy” practice.

    MOD is also a bad investment in more banal ways. In my own neck of the woods, the job of the full-time MOD coordinator is to organize fundraisers — in order to raise money for MOD, so they can pay the salary of the self-same MOD coordinator, so that she can organize fundraisers to …. round and round and round, just a big money-laundering scheme. (Sort of like the public-sector unions and the Democrat party.)

    It’s ironic that one of the popular local MOD fundraisers is auctioning off nights with eligible area bachelors, and I do mean the nights, not just evenings, if you catch my drift. So it’s all about raising money from rich sl*ts. I guess if their gigolo purchase ends up getting them “in a family way,” they can always get an amnio, courtesy of MOD, and get rid of the kid if it’s not genetically perfect.

    I know I’m off topic, but the March of Dimes is one of those evil institutions that seems to be everywhere, propped up by people’s ignorance of what the organization really is. They need to be exposed at every opportunity.

  • ntrepid

    I have often taken jabs at PETA as one of those entities

  • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

    …about people. I never thought through the process of how those groups get that way, and I think you absolutely nailed it with that last paragraph!