Tweet
Seventy one years ago today, Mary ("Molly") Dewson went to speak to the Women’s City Club of Boston MA. Dewson was an industrial economist, who had been chosen in 1937 to be one of the early Social Security Board members. Reading her remarks today, it’s obvious that some wingnut myths have been with us for a long, long time:
Rugged individualism is grand if the odds aren’t insuperable. But in high-powered, mass-production industry, with its great rhythmic fluctuations of employment and unemployment, the odds are insuperable for a staggering number of men and women. Under such conditions rugged individualism is a losing fight unless all of us get together to provide protection and insurance against certain risks.
As Dewson noted, rugged individualism wasn’t all that effective before the Great Depression, either:
Before the great depression, private philanthropy relieved the misfortunes of a few and satisfied the instincts of the good and charitable. But it left the many to endure their hardships as best they might, until in the last extremity the "poor laws" were invoked to preserve the so-called decencies of civilization. The widespread anguish following the economic collapse of 1929 blew away the rosy fog which we had permitted to obscure these unpalatable realities.
You remember the "poor laws," don’t you? Think of Ebenezer Scrooge’s famous remarks about prisons and workhouses — those were the foundation of the poor laws.
Enter Social Security. The program may have changed since 1938, but the basic purpose has not:
All these plans have one common purpose–to enable every man and woman in this country to come to terms with life according to his own initiative and industry and capacity and courage. They represent only a minimum; they do not–and are not intended to–measure up to an abundant life. Their purpose is simply to give the worker a fair chance, with the cards no longer stacked against him in advance. This much security all of us would surely have for each of us.
Yep. And anyone who wants to deal with "entitlement reform" (yes, I’m looking at you, Jim Cooper and your pals at Heritage and Peter Peterson, too) had better keep this purpose in mind.
31 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
But Peterr! Social Security is going broke. Rush told me so and he wouldn’t lie would he? /s
But in high-powered, mass-production industry, with its great rhythmic fluctuations of employment and unemployment, the odds are insuperable for a staggering number of men and women.
Bosh. Ya never heard of bootstraps lady?! Maybe these people are staggering ’cause they’re drunks. Ever think of that?? Huh? Well, no matter. I got mine.
never. ever. not once. not even a white lie. too much integrity he has.
Brilliant Peterr, thanks for sharing!
When I hear Rush’s minions — the self-described “dittoheads” — talking about the glories of individualism, I’m reminded of the scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the hero tells the crowd following him “go away — you’re all individuals, you’ve got to think for yourselves.” They reply, in unison, “Yes — we’re all individuals!”
It burns . . .
I’ve felt for a long time that the myth of the rugged individual was the greatest threat to democracy and the common good in the U.S.. Republicans have played up this myth to their advantage and to the disadvantage of most of the citizens.
The wingnuts have updated over the decades – now apparently even private charity is no good, as evidenced by Rush’s hissy fit over Nicholas Thompson, the Fla. GOP representative who let Henrietta Hughes stay in his spare house.
Absolutely great!
This history needs (and deserves) broad circulation.
Thank you, Peterr.
Dugg! and highly recommended.
DW
Republicans have been trying to turn back the clock since 1933. They’re still at it and will not stop until people like Limbaugh, Hannity et al and their Republican representatives are nothing more than a bitter memory.
I think Merle Streep could play her.
Two weeks ago, the FDL Book Salon chatted with Adam Cohen about his book Nothing To Fear: FDR’s Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Changed America. Cohen tracks five of FDR’s principal advisers, including his Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins — the first woman cabinet officer in US history. If you thought Perkins was something, you need to thank Molly Dewson. Molly got FDR to offer her the job, and pushed Perkins into taking it.
I shall add that, forthwith, to my many appreciations of FDR, Peterr.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Peterr and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Yes indeed, Social Security is gunna prove ta be the undoin’ of the old plutocracy…they didn’t learn in 1937 and they didn’t learn in 2005. The battle to save Social Security, remove the cap and extend Medicare is gunna be the defining fight of this new “new deal” economics…along with the restructuring of the auto industry.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, NOW WE GET DOWN TO IT!!
Thanks, Peterr.
When people like Claire McCaskill start talking about “Social Security Reform” it makes me worry. A lot. My position is, and will remain, workers my age have over paid all of our working lives. Leave my fucking Social Security alone.
And start a ‘list’ of similar appreciations for Molly Dewson, as well.
I missed that salon, but shall look for the book.
Thanks, yet again, Peterr.
;~D
At a time where we should be looking for more benefits in the future for SS (because of the 401k meltdown), we’re going to cut it.
If this isn’t the stupidist idea, I can hardly wait for the next lightbulb that goes off over a Rethuglican head.
How many greeter’s can WalMart hire?
Ben Franklin to the Continental Congress, as they considered the Declaration of Independence:
Social security reform in one easy step. Remove the cap and make the folks who make over 90K continue paying on their wages.
-G
Screwed up the blockquote @ 17.
The “socialist, bootstrap-hating liberal” line was mine, not Franklins.
Preview is my friend . . .
Facts about history (not made up conservative myths) are dear to my heart. Puts a great perspective on nationl universal health-care…in my opinion..big thanx.
Problem no. 1 is getting a handle on health care. As the enormous stresses placed upon the economy by health care costs are reduced other problems will become more manageable.
How much ‘off-shoring’ do you think such ‘restructuring’ should support, allow, or encourage Norske?
Plants may have to be ’shuttered’, but should jobs be ‘outsourced’?
One wonders how ‘management’ might like to have their ‘positions’ sent elsewhere? (The ’sauce’ for the goose being ’sauce’ for them ganderers quite as well …)
Apologies, Peterr, for going so far off the thread.
This should be obvious to every human being (even here, in America) with a functioning brain, not to mention a beating heart, mike.
Health care now. Health insurance never more.
Ronnie Raygun was the antithesis of Ben Franklin. Under his misguidance the national ethos shifted to every man for himself. He was the father of a generation of greed. This greed is personified by the Wall Street and financial activities of the past years. But it is also manifested in the Health care industry.
Absolutely.
Jane is now up.
Speaking of Social Security …
The rugged individualist meme was sold as a rationale for right to work laws. Conservatives essentially appealed to workers’ manhood: You don’t need those dirty old unions taking your money and telling you what to do.
The problem was that most of the rights that workers have came out of the labor movement and by weakening unions workers weakened their own position.
The remarks of Rush Limbaugh skirt very close to incitement to murder. His hate filled diatribes about President Obama are not only repulsive, they are very dangerous.
Opposing Social Security is one thing, opposing economic recovery is entirely another. His words are an incitement to various wing-nuts and unbalanced angry people.
Peterr: Thanks. I read her speech and liked her image of the planks put in place to give workers a sense of basic security. She spoke so clearly about “the universal risks” we all face during our lives and how government is the only agent we have for our “mutual support” to face and overcome these risks.
Thanks again. Keep reading and sending out what you find.
thanks for this. sent it to my local paper, her entire speech from the link you gave. thanks again.