![]()
Adam Cohen: "Nothing to Fear" A Vivid Story of the 100 days that Remade America
Adam Cohen’s prose is a rhapsody in fact. A throwback to historians such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. or David Halberstam, in an era that issues forth vague tissues of assertions, or declarations of ideology, his are pages stamped with "In Fact We Trust." In a few short paragraphs he introduces us to future Secretary Perkins, the hotel that is at the nexus of Lincoln escaping assassins, the composition of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic, and a scene of near bedlam as people hungered for a hope that would lift them from the bottom.
In describing the 5 close advisors who would pressure, and be pressured by the President whom Robert H. Jackson would later write about in That Man, he also introduces us to their moment. Of a time when unemployment and under-employment had reached 70% in the state of Pennsylvania. Of a time when people sometimes took home a dime a week in net pay. Of a time when the plush angst of our own recession would have seemed an unimaginable prosperity. If you want to know why there is such a stark difference between that political moment and this one, Cohen gives you a dozen observations that show how far the difference. People were without clothes, communists were selling copies of The Daily Worker openly in Detroit. Desperation wore a human face in that moment, and Cohen captures that look by describing how Perkins, as an industrial commissioner, had visited the Hooverville in New York’s Central Park.
There have been sweeping magisterial landscapes of the Coming of the New Deal or of the man himself. But by focusing on this tight moment, Cohen gives us a work to set beside Ten Days that Shook the World and Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
FDR, Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln each attract different kinds of biographers. The Civil War has been detailed in the number of dead, but seldom in the industrial production which won the war for the Union. Washington’s individual politicking has often been chronicled, but seldom the capitalist revolution that Hamilton engineered. Lincoln, from a Romantic Age, has often attracted a romanticized vocabulary, in fact or fiction. Cohen’s prose is ripped from newspaper writing, such as this example on Page 143:
If Roosevelt had any doubts about whether to abandon the gold standard and embrace inflation, the Wheeler Amendment forced his hand. Farm Belt senators were threatening to vote against the farm bill if it lacked an inflation provision. Roosevelt’s main objection to the Wheeler Amendment was that it was mandatory, which would put Congress, rather than him, in charge of monetary policy. He made clear to the Senate that if the Agricultural Adjustment Act came to him with the amendment, he would not sign it. The administration went to work lobbying individual senators. William Borah of Idaho, who had initially been inclined to support the amendment, committed himself to voting against it and brought others along. When it came to a vote, the Wheeler Amendment got thirty-three votes, up from just eighteen in January. Although the administration won that round, Walter Lippmann reported that at least eleven of the senators who voted no did so "not because they are by conviction opposed to inflation, but because they wished to give the Administration more time to formulate a policy." Senator James Byrnes of South Carolina, a close ally of the administration, warned Moley that the Wheeler Amendment could not be held back much longer. In the end, Moley was convinced, Roosevelt was shaken out of his ambivalence about inflation by a simple "counting of noses in the Senate."
Eventually FDR would accept the Thomas Amendment which authorized action, but did not require specific actions. This portrait of genuine pragmatism, where an executive would read the will of the broad majority of Congress, rather than small groups seeking to block progress and blackmail the nation, is a recurring theme. Roosevelt’s gift, as it emerges in these pages, is to take the symbols that people wanted, and wield them to the policies rooted in fact. He guided his fractious administration, from gold bugs on the right to communists on the left, to a footing that no one had predicted, and whose each step was fraught with drama and danger. Adam Cohen’s book steps forward and recounts not just the details, but the web that connected these actors to their time, and their sense of historical mission – what was on their minds as they made their decisions.
The title says "Nothing to Fear," but the history it paints is how genuine the dangers were and how the interplay of people and politics found a way through a crisis that some saw as the "end of Western Civilization."



96 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Adam, Welcome to the Lake,
Stirling, Thank you for Hosting this Book Salon.
Thanks, Bev. It’s great to be here at FDL.
Greetings everyone, it’s really an honor to have Adam here today. This is a period that everyone has heard about – the 100 days has entered mythology – but many fewer people understand how many acts of political genius were part of putting together this amazing run of legislation and action. FDR and his cabinet reinvented the Presidency, at the same time that a new Congress was overturning virtually 70 years of accumulated habits.
I wanted to start with asking Mr. Cohen what he thought the political nexus was – the original plan had been to pass the banking legislation and then stop. When did the idea of keeping the momentum going take root? How did FDR and his circle get it rolling?
The biggest factor was the incredibly hard times the nation was facing. March 1933 was the depths of the Great Depression — 25 percent unemployment, the stock market down 85 percent. People were really demanding action. Unlike today, congressional Republicans were almost as supportive of the president’s agenda as Democrats.
It was an environment ripe for bold steps.
Welcome to FDL Adam.
Hi Stirling and Bev.
Adam, I have not had a chance to read your book and you may answer this in there (or may not cover it at all) but why do think a patrician such as Roosevelt was able to connect with the voters and bring about such radical change yet current day politicians can’t seem to walk and chew gum at the same time and need to focus group test everything before making a move?
Seconded.
It’s often said that Roosevelt’s polio changed him, and made him compassionate toward the less fortunate. I think that’s true.
I do write a bit about that, and about how Frances Perkins, his extraordinary labor secretary, knew him and didn’t much care for him when he was a young man, and liked him a great deal after he became disabled — and showed a much greater empathy for others.
One of the things that stands out in your book is the way you painted how the facts of the Depression were staring everyone in the face. It is almost as if the Hoover Administration had to have been blind, and that one of the characteristics of the new government was a willingness to say what they saw. This was true in Congress as well as in the executive.
Do you have a favorite story of FDR being frank with the Congress, his cabinet, or the public, that illustrates how he used this willingness to be direct and honest?
That was a partial answer– about the connecting.
He was also an extraordinarily effective communicator. His fireside chats and other sorts of speeches connected with people brilliantly. He also had a tremendous gift for political coalition building — the famous New Deal Coalition. He knew how to make things happen.
We may not have a depression yet but Republicans and a surprising number of Democrats are working on creating one. Any advice in how to get things done for a President who seems to be closer philosophically to Hoover than to FDR?
Technical Note: There is a “Reply” button in the lower right corner of the comments that you can click to identify to whom you are replying.
Stirling, FDR certainly was frank with the American people. And as you say, a lot of it involved just speaking honestly about the crisis and letting the chips fall where they may.
I think his inaugural address embodies this. It was an amazing speech, in large part because it was so honest. FDR — imagine this today — called the bankers “unscrupulous money changes” who “stand indicted in the court of public opinion.” That’s a great way to lay the groundwork for reform!
Adam — I loved this book — absolutely loved it. Thank you so much for all of the work that went into this narrative, because your love of the subject matter just shines throughout the book.
I’m not ready to lump Obama in with Hoover yet. I think FDR, though, would advise bold steps. So, I’m with Paul Krugman on this. We need a really big stimulus package. Lots of money for jobs and to help cities and states. Not a lot of tax cuts. And Obama needs to fight for the right program. If the GOP wants to filibuster — let them.
Wow, Christy. I absolutely love hearing that. :)
Adam, one of the things that struck me most was the sense of unity of purpose behind Roosevelt in the early days of his presidency. You write (on p. 37):
Boy, are we far from that these days. Can you imagine the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal or Fox News saying the same at this point in our history? Was it the dire economic straits of that point or was this simply a function of how politics was conducted at the time that contributed to this unity, do you think?
i went to Hyde Park ,hung out there for many hours,visited their graves…..
Ah, so true. I think the dire economic straits was the biggest factor. There was truly a desperation in the air on inauguration day. Every bank in the country had been closed, for example — and no one knew when they would open up again.
In that environment, everyone looked to FDR as a leader — and as the man who would have to save the country.
If unemployment keeps rising, and the economy continues to tank, I’d like to think FOX News and the others will stop attacking Obama a bit and give him more leeway. Of course, that may be wildly optimistic.
People draw comparisons between FDR and the present, but it’s clear from your book that the situation at that moment was much worse. The anecdote about sewing workers taking home 10 cents a week after expenses hit hard. It’s more like what we would see today in industrial China, where people make two dollars a day for industrial work.
Hyde Park is a terrific place. I did a lot of research for the book there. Anyone who has a chance should go. You really get a feel for FDR as a person.
And there’s a great new Henry Wallace visitors’ center — named after one of the heroes of my book, FDR’s superb agriculture secretary.
Thanks we should either enforce the filibuster rule or change it. We seem to be a nation at once both better educated and more detached than our Depression era relatives. Large scale social and political action seems to have gone by the wayside and exists now here on the web.
Hi Adam, thank you for coming here.
I thought everyone knew we were in a crisis. In Ohio it’s a crisis. Has been for a few years. I’m very disappointed with Obama and with the Senate and House. Crushingly disappointed.
Yes. As bad as things are right now, and they certainly seem bad, it’s hard for us to imagine 1933. I did a book talk in New York a couple of weeks ago, and two elderly women came up afterwards and told me they remembered the Great Depression in New York.
A common sight was families sitting on the sidewalk surrounded by their furniture — they had been evicted, and they had no idea where to go or what to do. There were long breadlines in Times Square, and Hoovervilles in Central Park. Thankfully, things are not that bad today.
Margot, I share your disappointment. But I also think we need to give Obama time. One important thing about FDR’s Hundred Days: they didn’t begin too well either. After getting an emergency bill through to save the banking system, FDR’s second bill, the economy act, cut federal spending 25 percent. Terrible! But at that point, he was still a deficit hawk.
It was only after a month or so that FDR really got rolling — and then he did a tremendous amount of good. So, I’m willing to give Obama some time to do what needs to be done.
Hugh, I think that’s partly right. But think of how it took the draft in the Vietnam War to really get students out there protesting. The more the bad economy hits ordinary Americans — and that is well underway — the more politicized I think they’ll become. That happened in the 1930s — there were “hunger marches,” and other very open displays. We may see that again.
Hi Adam. What was the New Deal Coalition? The fifth estate? Who were in it?
Welcome, Adam Cohen. The first 100 days is a compelling story. One of the key people who is not well known is Harry Hopkins who was appointed administrator of the Civil Works Administration. Within a few months and by January, 1934, Hopkins had put 4 million people back to work!
FDR built an amazing political coalition — that largely lasted until the Reagan Revolution.
The heart of it was working people in the big cities — including the old Democratic machines. He had the solid South, as well, which was thoroughly Democratic (and he had to make some bad compromises on civil rights to keep it). Organized labor was a stalwart — including some unions that had been supporting socialist candidates up until the 1932 election. And crucially, he peeled many farmers away from the Republican Party, by coming up with the sort of sweeping agricultural relief Hoover refused to.
And FDR kept these folks — he won by a bigger landslide in 1936 than in 1932.
One thing that you high light in your book is how fast FDR could turn mistake into benefit. He was being pressured by the Wheeler Amendment to turn monetary policy over to Congress, but he managed to get the Thomas Amendment as a compromise and run with it. The economy act turned into his way of shifting money from what Hoover had been doing, to a wide range of other priorities – Agricultural supports, jobs programs and so on.
Adam, what do you think of the various charges current from the right wing today that FDR actually made the depression worse, not better, with his massive spending programs?
Harry Hopkins is one of my favorites — and one of the 5 people in FDR’s inner circle my book really focuses on.
He grew up in Iowa. As soon as he graduates from college, he moved to the Lower East Side — the densest immigrant neighborhood in the country — to work in a settlement house. He married a Jewish woman who immigrated from Hungary. And he became one of the nation’s leading social workers.
Then, when FDR is elected, Hopkins heads up relief and, yes, public works programs. He was charming, and an articulate champion of the poor. When Republicans said we didn’t need these big programs because the economy would fix itself in the long run, Hopkins liked to point out that poor people don’t eat in the long run — they eat every day!
Yes, FDR was above all a pragmatist, and he had a way of making things work.
That was true even when he was wrong. It’s not well known, but FDR actually opposed federal deposit insurance — one of the great reforms that came out of the Hundred Days. It was Congress that pushed to create the FDIC.
FDR eventually relented, and the FDIC became a major factor in keeping the banking system healthy. FDR’s top aide, Raymond Moley, wrote in his memoirs that deposit insurance worked out so well that FDR probably thought, in retrospect, that he supported it all along.
That’s a huge right-wing talking point right now, and for obvious reasons. I totally disagree. The economic numbers show that FDR’s programs steadily increased employment and the GDP. The only time it faltered was in 1937-38, when FDR thought things were going well enough that he could try to balance the budget. (Big mistake — and it set off a new economic decline.)
The right wing also overlooks a really critical point: FDR’s programs were crucial for keeping Americans alive during the hard times. The WPA may not have ended the Depression — something only WWII finally did — but it allowed millions of families to pay their rent and have food to eat.
My understanding was that Hoover had actually tried to solve the problems for over three years but they kept getting worse. Was Hoover’s major problem for his “blindness” ideological? I recall he tried to institute a number of voluntary and cooperative efforts by banks and others to solve the problems, wanting to avoid government intervention. And didn’t FDR actually suggest some solutions initially that he strongly retreated from later?
i trully fell in love with those crazy REAL Democrats,after my visit
Hoover was well-meaning. He had spent much of his pre-presidential career as a humanitarian. But he was blinded by his ideology — his belief in rugged individualism, and his conviction that big government was bad. So, he opposed the sort of major relief and public works programs FDR put in place.
And yes, he tried some voluntary programs to help the farm belt, but nothing like the ambitious Agricultural Adjustment Act FDR supported.
Hoover might not have been such a terrible president for good times. But his worldview made him the wrong person to have in the White House during the Great Depression.
cant wait to read your book
Welcome Adam. Terrific book. It looks like things are going to have to get a lot worse before Obama will have the mandate to make necessary changes. Are there lessons from FDR’s first 100 days that Obama can use to hold things together in the meantime?
Yeah, Hyde Park is really a shrine to real Democrats. Of course, it was very much Eleanor Roosevelt’s home, too, and you don’t get much more Democratic than her.
I’m going to sound like the Hyde Park Chamber of Commerce here, but anyone who has a chance should really go. You can see the extraordinary home, the hand-operated car that FDR drove, and the grounds are lovely.
I’d also encourage people to visit the Little White House at Warm Springs, Georgia. The exhibits there tell the story of Warm Springs as a polio rehabilitation site, and FDR’s tremendous work there. It’s all very moving.
ironic FDR was a son of privledge,but understood catastrophe
Music to a writer’s ears. :)
Welcome to the Lake. Just curious to know what the arguments Republicans were using in opposition to FDR’s programs? I have a sneaking suspicion they are not that dissimalar from what today’s R’ are saying.
Adam- I’m fascinated by who opposed FDR’s programs. You mention that most of the Republicans in Congress actually supported FDR. But Father Coughlin, the “Father of Hate Radio”, who apparently was once a supporter of FDR, began to oppose him about the time that FDR’s social programs kicked in and he started to support Huey Long. There are also tales of large industrialist and corporate opponents to FDR. Precisely what were the motivations of these people? Didn’t they see the threat of a collapsing economy to their own interests?
I think the biggest lesson is to think boldly — and do everything you can to make those visions happen. It’s hard now to imagine just how radical some of FDR’s Hundred Days ideas were. Offer almost every farmer in the country money not to grow crops, to drive up prices? Take America off the gold standard? (FDR’s own conservative budget director warned that it would be the end of western civilization). Appropriate $3.3 billion for public works jobs — which was roughly the size of the entire 1932 federal budget. These were big, big things. Obama needs to, similarly, think big.
they felt FDR was a traitor to is class,shall we discuss Presscot Bush and the plot to overthrow him,no thats for another day
Great questions, and to follow up, what turned the Republicans against FDR — which programs, and why?
his class
Unfortunately Obama would seem to see the real challenge as how to have bipartanship rather than the challenge being how to save the economy.
I don’t know (well I can guess) Father Coughlin’s motivations, but from what I’ve read, Huey Long didn’t think FDR was going far enough to the left.
one of the main reasons we need to re-nationalize the fed, it is rediculous we are beholdent to a private company for our money
they make their own monetary policy, lend OUR money to our enemies WITHOUT the oversite of congress AND they exact an overhead (the prime) which would become a revenue source rather then an asset drain that turns our entire monetary system into ponzi
Right you are. There was a lot of talk about how big spending programs would undermine Wall Street’s confidence in the federal government, and destroy the government’s credit. Republicans played down the extent of the crisis, and argued that the market would correct itself. They called it a boondoggle to give jobs to destitute people. And yes, they invoked that same S word we’re hearing today — socialism.
FDR didn’t let the Republican criticism deter him from his plans. In 1936, he made that extraordinary statement:
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.
Yeah, FDR didn’t worry whether or not he would be accepted by the elites. As aside, I’m trying to track down a book Republicans published at the height of the Depression to demonstrate their concern for the working classes. It’s a cookbook of recipes for grass soup. If anyone runs across it get back to me at the Lake.
Probably the biggest source of opposition was, not surprisingly, rich people and Wall Street. They did not like the government spending, they did not want their taxes raised, and they did not like FDR taking the nation off the gold standard and increasing inflation — something that helped debtors and hurt lenders.
There were those, though, like Huey Long and Father Couglin, who attacked FDR from the left. They were such demogogues, though, that it’s hard to know what they believed, and what they thought would help them amass power. For Coughlin, a lot of it was always tied up in his anti-Semitism, and his attacks on Jewish bankers.
Adam — after your immersion in this history, to what do you attribute FDR’s success? Was it mainly his leadership/personality? A few brilliant people around him? A few really good ideas among many? Luck? What do we need to be looking for in our Presidents at a time like this?
Today’s Republicans make Marie Antoinette look like Mother Teresa.
A fair point. FDR reached out to Republicans, but most of the Hundred Days bills were drafted by him and his inner circle, and delivered to Congress fully formed. It may have been because FDR had such strong popular support, but he didn’t haggle a lot with the GOP in Congress.
It would appear that FDR did not surround himself with advisors that created the problems whereas Obama has surrounded himself with the same insiders that are responsible for today’s debacle. This does not bode well.
Eleanor? ….hehehehe
That old saw about FDR having a “first rate temperament” is right, I think. He was charming, charismatic, and able to persuade people of things. He had good people around him — and people with different views. He was open-minded, and self-effacing enough to admit he didn’t have all of the answers, and to look to others for good ideas.
Most of all, though, I think it was his genuine concern about the American people. He really spent his time focused on how to help the Great Depression’s victims, and if you are sincere about that, work hard, open to good ideas, and politically skilled, you have a great chance of getting a lot done.
and yet Obama is not only being small, he is entertaining those very same principles of neo-economics that created the problems we face, included in that embrace;
giving guarantees to those same bodies that raped, pillaged and caused the problems we now have to solve, AND adding the overhead of their profit model on top of monetary policy that we simply cannot afford
we’ve shown, bush’s “economic stimulus” was over a trillion dollars when we DIDN’T need jobs, his “stimulus” was tax “cuts”, (which were not cuts they were redistributions of load”
so this stimulus is LESS then bush’s and these economic morons are squawking that it’s too big
then we compare FDR’s dollars to today’s dollars and his “new deal” dwarfed this as well
too small might be worse then nothing, confidence is going to be one of the most important dividends of the recovery, if confidence is lost then even if the next bill is huge, confidence might not allow it to work
as I pointed out downstairs a bit, all money is=confidence, that’s all it represents
Did FDR see the Republicans as primarily culpable and irrelavent?
ps… i think polio helped him to become compassionate with the common man and woman
Yes. She was a gem. We were lucky.
I largely agree, though I don’t know if it’s quite fair to say Obama is being small. I think he is trying to be bipartisan, tacking toward the center, and hoping to come up with a plan everyone will like (or pretty much like). Sometimes you need to be partisan, though — and let’s not forget who won the last election, and by how much.
He said to everyone that if you weren’t part of the solution you were part of the problem. He had Republicans and conservatives in his cabinet, but he almost always took the most active stance towards a problem.
Great answer. Funny how simple, obvious, that all sounds, and yet so elusive in the people we’ve had for President.
I don’t think so. He made a point of including several in his Cabinet, including his Treasury Secretary, William Woodin. And the emergency banking act which kicked off the New Deal was largely drafted by Hoover holdovers in the Treasury Department.
FDR was open to all good ideas. But he didn’t want to compromise for the sake of compromise.
I’m interested in how a president grows/evolves in office, how one learns from mistakes. What do you think FDR learned in his first 100 days, and do you see parallels with today?
Completely true. But I have to put in a plug for one of the heroes of my book, here, Frances Perkins — extraordinarily important, and far too overlooked.
Great question. FDR did evolve a lot in the Hundred Days. He began it believing in cutting federal spending, and he opposed public works. But he was open minded, and in those Hundred Days saw the error of his thinking. It was during this time that the nation really began the sort of deficit spending and large-scale federal programs we associate with the New Deal. And we got those because FDR was willing to think flexibly, and to change his mind.
I don’t think “center” means to you what it means to the republicans
I hate to say it but tracking toward their center in this game the republicans are pulling is the same thing as tracking toward the center in a football game
you are going to lose if you go to the center, you need to go to the goal post and that’s in the oposite direction
here’s the example;
when the democrats “tracked toward the center” and allowed bush his “stimulous” of tax redistribution, that was over a trillion dollars
what kind of “tracking toward the center” is a bill that is not only smaller then the bill that contributed to this problem but adds to it even more loss of revenue?
that’s hardly tracking toward the center that’s more like joining the other team
Yep, I think that’s a fair point. It seems clear that the ideas the GOP is fighting for in the stimulus bill are just the ones that were rejected in the last election. More tax cuts for business? Less spending to create jobs. That seems wildly out of sync with where the electorate was in November and is today.
That’s why it makes sense for Obama to take the issue to congressmembers’ home districts. Make clear to their constituents what’s at stake.
Democrats still don’t seem to have the hang of being in the majority — and making clear what that means.
ah, but the point is that obama is contributing to that democratic liability, he’s actually eccouraging them to deal
me
no
likey
If FDR were alive today, would he push for universal health care?
I think he clearly would. It’s not well known, but Frances Perkins and the other members of the commission FDR set up to create Social Security wanted health care to be part of the Social Security Act. But they got scared off — how familiar does this sound? — by the medical establishment. They feared that if they included health coverage, the medical community would block the entire bill.
Health care is the obvious next step in the New Deal agenda, and if FDR were taking office now I’m sure he’d be trying to push a law through — and quickly, while his electoral mandate is still strong.
Adam, your book looks at five of FDR’s chief advisers, who helped to shape and implement the New Deal.
As you look at the crowd of newly appointed advisers to Obama, who stands out in your mind as the modern-day counterparts to FDR’s Perkins, Hopkins, et al.?
health care should be as important as clean air, I am amazed someone wants to argue that health care should not be part of the commons
from times before man rose to two legs we’ve had universal health care, healthy guarding the young and the sick, providing till providing is impossible, this isn’t a new developement, it’s not a human development it’s a the nature of a pride, the nature of a pack, the nature of all societies
if the only two people on the planet were a man and wife there would still be universal health care
Great question. I think it’s too early to tell, but there are some obvious people to keep an eye on. Rahm Emanuel is likely to have a big role in just about everything that goes on.
I also think that VP Biden is going to be in the room for everything, and to have a major influence — far more so than FDR’s VP Garner, who compared the job to a warm bucket of spit (or an earthier liquid).
Whoever heads HHS could have a major chance to shape history. That will be a very key appointment.
And Hilda Solis could end up being an important voice for workers and the poor, much as Frances Perkins was, if the GOP would ever let her get confirmed.
Agreed. Think of the opposite of universal health care: resolutely refusing to provide medical care to someone in need of it. Sounds pretty barbaric.
Does your book get into the role of the media in the first 100 days?
In Minnesota and Wisconsin, third party governments attacked Roosevelt from the left. Roosevelt was actually grateful for this, because it made it possible for him to seem moderate. He was quite friendly to Minnesota’s Governor Olson even before he became President.
Governor Olson had to deal with people on his left, too, Communists and Trotskyists. If all you have is pragmatist moderates, you don’t even have pragmatist moderates. Someone has to be pushing.
Minnesota’s Farmer Labor Party was not anti-Semitic and had many Jewish leaders. Olson himself was Scandinavian in descent but grew up in a Jewish neighborhood and was fluent in Yiddish.
In general, the populists and isolationists have been horribly smeared, though Southern populists were pretty bad.
Thanks Adam.
Yes, a bit. FDR was a master of handling the media. He created the modern press conference, in which reporters were able to ask impromptu questions. FDR had a gift for charming them.
Not all of the New Dealers did. Perkins hated the press, which she thought were always trying to invade her privacy. (She had a mentally ill husband the nation did not know about.) Her answer was not to provide chairs at press conferences, on the theory that reporters would not stay around as long.
The press was pretty uniformly on FDR’s side during the Hundred Days, though there was some concern expressed that he was taking on the powers of a dictator.
Yes, the existence of a strong left made it easier for FDR to do what needed to be done. Another example: Frances Townsend, who began a national movement for old-age pensions, helped create the climate for the Social Security Act.
FDR sapped some of the energy from these left-wing movements, including the Socialist Party. Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party’s perennial candidate for president, complained that the New Deal was carrying out the Socialist Party platform — “on a stretcher.” Many voters who backed the socialists in 1928 voted Democratic from 1932 on.
Roosevelt there were a lot of progressive Republicans and a lot of reactionary Democrats. Many Al Smith Democrats were reluctant to support Roosevelt. The right-left Republican/Democrat split we see, or wish for, only gradually developed between 1896 and 1932.
As we come to the end of this great Book Salon,
Adam, Thank you for stopping by the Lake this afternoon and discussing your new book and FDR.
Stirling, Thank you for Hosting this great Book Salon.
Everyone, this is a very good book about FDR, if you haven’t bought it yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
How about the corporate side of the press? That is, as FDR pushed for his various New Deal programs, did the media owners help that to happen, did they obstruct it, or did they sit quietly by and let their reporters tell the stories as they saw fit?
True — the party line-up was quite different back then. Many of the most progressive members of Congress, men like William Borah of Idaho, were Republicans — but part of a progressive (largely Western) strand of the party.
And yes, there were a lot of conservative Democrats — including in the South, where they were often very liberal on social issues, but completely hard line on anything involving race.
The New Deal coalition helped create the current understanding of the two parties. Most progressives joined the Democratic Party, and the Republicans became more of a party of opposition to the New Deal and FDR.
It was a blast. Thanks Bev, Stirling, and FDL.
none such exist now, if there had been they would have marched into bush’s office much the same as those who told nixon it’s time to resign
now on the other hand, the democrats have the antithesis in the blue dogs
thanks much to Adam and Stirling.
back then a multitude of concerns owned the media, now that’s it’s consolidated they act more like a bloc for their own corporate interests
I have to say, the media is neither concervative nor liberal, it’s corporate with corporate agenda
right now that corporate agenda is served by the republicans, soon, when they vest themselves with the democratic politicians that agenda will be democratic
power corrupts and more power corrupts more
I know that is a profound statement but I can’t take credit for it though I did add my own touch
agrees, a quite engaging book salon, one of the most enjoyable I’ve attended, thank you much
Thanks for answering so many questions. Very interesting discussion. I wish we had not just an FDR but people of the stature of those who surrounded him.