Democrats - Day Late and A Dollar Short As Usual - Historical Precedent
I recently was viewing a Democratic website and encountered an article in which the author was drawing upon a speech made by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, in which he referred to the emergence of an "Economic Royalty" in the country that was preventing the economic opportunities of the small businessman and everyday worker through their monopolistic goals and actions. The author in this article after emphasizing Roosevelt’s stature as one of our greatest Presidents went to great lengths to draw similarities between the current Republican leadership and these 1936 industrialists who stood in the way of FDR’s New Deal.
Skeptical of the broad generalities relied upon by this author but open to examine these viewpoints with an open mind, I followed the provided link. The speech referred to by the writer was Roosevelt’s 1936 Democratic National Convention acceptance speech. http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary
/prezspeeches/roosevelt/fdr_1936_0627.html
As the drums of war were starting to beat in Europe, this was a snapshot in time of our political debate on the eve of the last Presidential Election prior to World War II. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/102
As I read the speech, although seeing a few references which might support the writer’s viewpoint, I was even more surprised by what FDR’s speech did not contain. There was not one single mention of any international issues or concerns involving Germany nor any of the future axis powers even though critical movements were already taking place in the world. I was amazed and dismayed to see one of our finest Presidents so unaware of the perilous times which were fast approaching. Mr. Roosevelt’s sole "war" issue was centered upon his "war on poverty" and the economic recovery of the country following the Great Depression. Deliriously focused inward, America and her sitting President failed to see the tell-tale signs of an enemy who was industrializing and preparing for war at an alarming pace.
Specifically, Adolf Hitler announced on March 16, 1935 that Germany would rearm in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and subsequent Pact of Locarno. The following year on March 7, 1936 (three months before Roosevelt’s speech) Nazi Germany reoccupied the Rhineland also in violation of the Treaty and directly renounced the Locarno Pact. Additionally, the radical militarist Koki Hirota becomes Prime Minister of Japan. Although these events appear significant alone, they take on a more ominous setting when considered with other events that occurred in 1935 including; China’s conceding military control of north-east China to the Japanese, and Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia. It is interesting to note that the Treaty of Versailles specifically entitled the Allies to reoccupy the Rhineland if they unilaterally determined that Germany had breached the Treaty.
Instead France and Britain failed to act as America was blissfully unaware of the significance of these events. The true cost is made clear by the historical entry in Wikipedia,
"Hitler took a risk when he sent his troops to the Rhineland. He told them to 'turn back and not to resist' if they were stopped by the French Army. The French did not try to stop them because they were currently helding (sic.) elections in their country and no president wanted to start a war with Germany."
These events should have concerned the sitting President and been at least a peripheral issue to the United States. Instead FDR’s acceptance speech focused upon issues which would become irrelevant as the war began and the very industrialists who he demonized would become the backbone of the American War effort as they diverted significant resources to the building of America’s tanks, planes and ships.
Admittedly hind-sight is always 20/20 and it is far easier to spot the significance of events when you have the benefit of seeing what the future held. Even the Republican candidate, Alf Landon, http://www.kshs.org/research/topics/politics
/landonspeech1936.htm was inordinately focused in his acceptance speech upon the economic recovery; however, he at least did mention and emphasize America's position as a keeper of peace in the World. In the end, they collectively failed to heed the warnings. In our present day situation, no such excuse exists, the Democrats still are unable to recognize the approaching danger.
Instead our current President who is often derided as being "an idiot" (by democrats) has taken steps to meet these dangers before they reach critical mass with a foresight that obviously Roosevelt lacked. In such a time as this, I am personally grateful that President Bush has this insight because the approaching battle if left unaddressed will likely be borne by our children. Instead we should follow the President’s initiative and take up this battle now.
- Jay
Sorry for the lack of recent posts, I've been researching this one and needed time to collect my thoughts.
posted by Jay @ 4:18 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Worth the wait. Thanks for the heads up Jay. It's interesting, isn't it, how, in President Bush's case, foresight is often considered alarmism, and the high priority he places on addressing the concerns of this war, and acting before we find ourselves in a situation similar to that which finally dragged us (kicking and screaming) into WWII is considered by some as provocation of our enemies, rather than reasonable, preemptive self defense? Yet, if he did take the FDR approach, the same people who now accuse Bush of being a cowboy would be the first to cry dereliction of duty should another 9/11 occur.
Allow me to dwell on a pet issue of mine, addressed by your post--the "Economic Royalty" type of attack drives me nuts. Semi-socialist rantings about the evils of successful capitalists in a capitalist society, especially when spoken by people who themselves are fully funded, are hypocritical and ignore economic realities. You made a point in your post that I thought was particularly astute: "Instead FDR’s acceptance speech focused upon issues which would become irrelevant as the war began and the very industrialists who he demonized would become the backbone of the American War effort as they diverted significant resources to the building of America’s tanks, planes and ships." The "two Americas" kind of Democratic perspective (popularized by political campaigns of recent memory) is one which I really find baffling. The risker of capital, the investor, the employer, is so often condemned for daring to profit off of that investment, as if making money is somehow in bad taste (unless you are a leftist and will make the right "socially responsible" use of it.) How exactly is the population supposed to find employment if there is no one vulgar enough to have amassed the capital to build infrastructure and pay wages? Some people really think that role should be filled by government, but, as mounting evidence confirms almost daily, that's not working out too well for Europe, is it? As you point out, these same evil capitalists were, and are, at the forefront of developing the resources to keep us safe. They are occasionally useful, but heaven forbid they should profit by it!!
I do tend to come here and get on my soap box, don't I? Perhaps that's because you are writing things which I find relevant and mentally stimulating, so that's something of a compliment to you, if also a reflection of my inner pedagogue. Anyway, I enjoyed your post, so thanks.
Thanks Kat for the compliment! Feel free to jump on the soap box at any time!
“In our present day situation, no such excuse exists, the Democrats still are unable to recognize the approaching danger.”
“In our present day situation, no such excuse exists, the Democrats still are unable to recognize the approaching danger.”
Is the approaching danger you refer to terrorist movements like Al Qaeda? That may be an obtuse question, but I want to be clear. I agree that Democrats are incapable of recognizing the approaching danger, maybe only slightly less or more so than Republicans.
What do I mean by that? Well, what I mean is that neither party is particularly intelligent about fighting a “war on terror.” That we even have such an oxy-moronic name for the war makes the point for me. Terrorism is not defined by the form it takes. Terrorism is violence against a civilian population with a political, religious, or economic goal. A war on terror, or any war, is terrorism on a massive scale. That gets to the heart of the problem in Iraq. Our terror is creating more of their terror.
(I dig a little deeper here, http://americancrackpot.blogspot.com/2004/12/why-do-they-hate-us.html)
I would also argue that your analogy to World War II is particularly wrong headed and accomplishes very little other than to reinforce our sense of moral superiority especially within the context of Iraq. The first thing to note is that Al Qaeda in no way resembles a military-industrial powerhouse as Germany was in the 1930s. The second thing is that in Iraq, we were the aggressor state. You may argue that we thought we were forced to attack Iraq because Saddam was going to push the button tomorrow and I might respond that the prewar justifications were bullshit all along, and we could go back and forth marshalling evidence for both positions. But the precedent set in WWII, using your analogy, was very clear about aggression. I am talking now about Nuremburg, the international legal standards we helped write there, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. Jackson stated that international aggression is an unjustified means to settle grievances or altering conditions, no matter how untenable the status quo is to the aggressor. This is a direct repudiation of preemptive war. Jackson went on to define international aggression as the “supreme international crime,” which “contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
That is our precedent in WWII, not the false Chamberlain-Hitler comparisons to Democrats and Bin Laden. We have shredded the very fabric of international law we helped weave in response to Nazi aggression.
Justin,
Thanks for weighing in! Even though we may disagree on some issues, I'm always open to discussing issues in depth and honestly analyzing every angle. You've brought up some interesting things that I'd like to discuss more and respond but I'm under some time constraints to respond quickly. I'll try to post a response in the next day. Thanks for taking a look at my blog!
Best regards,
Jay
Although I indicated that I would be forthcoming with a response to Justin's comments, I realized afterwards that many of the points he makes and the questions I had previously addressed in a prior post. Rather than reiterating those thoughts again, I would direct Justin and any one else with similar questions or viewpoint to that previous article. The piece is located in my 10-8-06 archive and is entitled "A Response to the Liberal Mantra That Bush Lied About the War." In an effort to clear up one critical point, the "approaching danger" I refer to in this piece is the radical Islamic Militant movement of which Al Queda is a small sub-set.
I would like to add the following observations. The heart of Justin's argument is the foundational belief of those who oppose war "for any reason." The large gulf between them and those who "recognize that war is sometimes a necessary action to confront evil" are enormous and there is very little common ground. One is rooted in passivism (which is not always a negative trait) and the other in a sense of moral purpose and responsibility that sometimes requires sacrifice and costs to protect those ideals.
In this context, it doesn't matter whether the reasons set forth by Colin Powell materialized or not, individuals like Justin would still oppose the war under any circumstances.
Also, I wholly disagree with Justin's reliance upon U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson's statements International Law issues. Specifically, I do not agree with the characterization of America's actions in this current conflict as an example of Jackson's statement that "international aggression is the Supreme International Crime." In this particular situation, the initial aggression began when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1989-90. All the events that occured afterwards flowed from that initial aggression. Specifically, the U.N. Resolutions entered following the Gulf War imposed certain restrictions and duties upon Iraq to follow. In the event these conditions were not met, then the international community had a responsibility and duty to force their compliance and/or remove the ruling party in Iraq to re-establish stability in the region.
Also, Justin's analysis as stated and set forward in his article "Why they hate us" fails to recognize or accept that the origins of this conflict are religious in nature and date back to Abraham and the births of Isaac and Ishmael. Hence the long-standing hatred of arabs for the jews, it is a contention of a usurped birthright or inheritance. Second, the hatred of America is rooted in the Imperial expansionist goals of militant Islam, but even more so by the rage over America's alliance and support of Israel.
In the end, as a democracy which holds to the ideals of freedom, it is acceptable and proper for us to ally with the only true democratic country in that region. The Islamic Militant's hatred against us will not be quelled by dialogue or withdrawal of forces in Afghanistan or Iraq. The only acceptable answer in their eyes is the subjugation of America to the religion of Islam or to destroy the democratic principles which allow freedom of religion and expression. In the end their desire for our destruction will remain until either of these two objectives are met.
Against such an enemy passivism will not survive.
Jay,
This is in response to your comments and the article, “A Response to the Liberal Mantra that Bush Lied about the War.” It is plausible that the WMD claims was an example of “group think”, where a sense of righteousness, moral superiority, and a system silencing of dissenting opinions blinded some very smart people from countervailing evidence. I also do not think it matters much whether it was an intentional “mens rea” lie or if it was self-deception.
We cannot know what was in their minds, but we do know some things about their actions. Rather than restate the case, I want to point you to the report by Congressman John Conyers that lays out much of the evidence in detail; [1]The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retributions and Cover-ups in the Iraq War. (And, yes, I know Conyers is a Democrat – but don’t judge him based on his party affiliation, judge him on the weight of the evidence presented. No doubt that there was much genuinely mistaken intelligence, but the argument is not that there wasn’t.) I also refer to several articles I have written. No doubt you will disagree with my conclusions, but, again like the Conyers report, the more important matter is the evidence I cite to reach those conclusions.
http://americancrackpot.blogspot.com/2006/02/iraq-media-and-looking-ahead.html
The section titled “Intelligence” near the end of the article deals specifically with the prewar claims for Iraq. My concluding paragraph for that section states, “It is true that the Bush administration did not fabricate all their claims out of whole cloth, but it is also true that no one has accused them of doing so. [NOTE: I am pretty sure that someone has accused them of this, so “no one” is probably not accurate, but my point was that there is a valid criticism that is discounted in favor of the straw man. This is what happens when you don’t have an editor.] Much of the world did believe Iraq probably had WMDs. But it is clear that the Bush Administration went beyond what was known and misrepresented the evidence in such a way that it would frighten the public and rally support for a war in the wake of September 11, 2001”
In response to your appeals to the British as a reputable authority, I also have two articles that extensively quote from the series of leaked memorandum known as the Downing Street Memos,
[1] http://americancrackpot.blogspot.com/2005/10/big-mystery.html
[2] http://americancrackpot.blogspot.com/2005/06/moneys-on-other-side.html
The memos, among other things, clearly debunk the case that the British thought invasion was necessary. Here is a key paragraph from the second article that discusses the internal assessment of Iraq’s weapons programs in the British government using direct quotes from the memos,
“Pretext 2 (self defense) was discarded for obvious reasons; the case that Iraq seriously threatened the United States or Iraq’s neighbors was too implausible. “The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.” (DSM) … Containment had worked. “Since 1991, the policy of containment has been partially successful: sanctions have effectively frozen Iraq’s nuclear program. Iraq has been prevented from rebuilding its conventional arsenal to pre-Gulf War levels; ballistic missile programs have been severely restricted; biological weapons and chemical weapons programs have been hindered… [and] Saddam has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbors.” But the U.S. was no longer satisfied with containing the threat no matter how effective the policy was at neutralizing the threat; buoyed by “success in Operation Enduring Freedom” and a desire to settle some “unfinished business from 1991” the U.S. demanded regime change. The ‘intelligence misleading the politician’ hypothesis loses more credibility.
Saddam Hussein’s conventional military was weakened as well. The invasion would go smoothly “because Iraqi forces are now considerably weaker” than during the Gulf War. (IOP)
Peter Rickets wrote about the threat posed by Iraq, “the truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs”, which were “frozen” and “severely restricted”, but that the desire for regime change had increased. Peter Rickets asked for more time to “ensure that the figures” in the British Dossier were “consistent with those of the US” because “even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts” The worrisome programs “have not, as far as we know, been stepped up,” but they needed to deal with the “problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq.”
Links to terrorism were also not an option; “U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing.” (RM) Moreover, “there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism. There is therefore no justification for action against Iraq based” in self-defense. (IOP) “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.” (SM) Jack Straw wrote to Tony Blair that it would be extremely difficult to convince the world that “the threat from Iraq” has worsened recently or that there was any “justification for any military action in terms of international law” based on self defense. He continued, “The Iraqi regime plainly poses a most serious threat” but did not “justify military action.” The doctrine of self-defense was therefore unusable.”
I now turn to your comment that I represent those that oppose war for any reason. That is not accurate, and if you read the above articles you will find out fairly quickly that I argue we should follow the international laws we helped draft concerning war. International law allows two justifications for war; 1. Self-defense from armed aggression and 2. The UN Security Council agrees to military intervention. (Some consider a 3rd justification, humanitarian intervention, to be a valid reason for war. I don’t know if I agree with that because it has too many invalid assumptions about the agendas of the intervening nations and much more importantly the effects of said intervention. I’d rather not get into that at the moment.)
Lastly, you raised a point about international aggression. If we take your interpretation of events to their logical conclusion that would mean that every country that ever invaded another country is forever the aggressor in any future war. That would mean Mexico has the right to invade the US in self-defense, that virtually any country in Europe can invadeGermany, that China could invade Japan, etc and all could claim that the country they are attacking are the aggressors because of some previous conflict. It is no doubt true that the events following the first Gulf War were largely a consequence of Saddam’s aggression, but that is always true. Wars alter regional, and often global, history. You also make the argument that the international community had an obligation to intervene militarily when Saddam didn’t comply with inspections. The history is more nuanced than that, but we also know that he largely did comply, as the weapons inspectors Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, et al. claimed they compelled him to do so with vigorous inspections. Regardless, the Security Council voted on whether or not war was necessary and determined that it was not. The US proceeded with invasion, claiming, as you parrot, that it was acting with the true will of the international community. Imagine the same situation with another country: One country invades another claiming it is carrying out the will of the international community after said community explicitly rejected that course of action. It is wholly illogical.
The rest of our disagreements are largely differences in ideology, worldview, and cognitive frameworks. I don’t think that the US is a moral agent operating in the world to spread ideas and freedom. I think our history is much more about military-power and economic self-interest, like every other state. Our foreign policy is directed to those ends; idealistic slogans and such are useful tools to get buy-in for those objectives, but they are also easily discarded when they get in the way. (The latest such example is Bush’s rhetorical proclamations, closely approximated with the ideals you express in your comment, compared to the real world U.S. actions that have little relationship to the rhetoric.) I am guessing that you wholly disagree with me on these points, but these are an entirely new set of issues that I will punt for now.
Cordially yours,
Justin
Justin,
Thanks for the engaging discussion. I can see some of the relevant points you made on several issues, which I intend to explore and review the sources you mentioned, but I think as you noted our differences are likely fueled by differing worldviews and neither are likely to change based upon any argument.
In regard to one of your statements, I did not mean offend or infer that this was your position, only that I think it is a fair assessment of those who are generally opposed to war (for whatever reason whether spiritual or humanitarian)for any reason. I may not have clearly stated that distinction and apologize for any mis-characterization because it was not intended since you really did not give any indication of that in your statements previously. It was an observation which may or may not be accurate but was my humble opinion.
"I now turn to your comment that I represent those that oppose war for any reason. That is not accurate, and if you read the above articles you will find out fairly quickly that I argue we should follow the international laws we helped draft concerning war. International law allows two justifications for war; 1. Self-defense from armed aggression and 2. The UN Security Council agrees to military intervention."
Also in regard to that statement, we are in agreement on the issue of war for humanitarian intervention. However, in the context of the two pre-requisites outlined above, I would disagree on the basis of National Sovereignty and the inference that the United States ceded its right as a sovereign nation to move militarily when its national interests are threatened. Thus needing United Nations approval for any such action. Although Justice Jackson or his contemporaries may have intended such an application, I personally disagree that is the controlling view. (Although to be completely honest, I have not conducted an exhaustive review of the relevant United Nations foundational documents to see if this is a correct represenation and would be very interested to read the specific documents you reference) Even if however, such a review would support the position you set forth, I believe such a concession by the United States would have been a drastic, ill-advised and possibly unconstitutional decision which circumvented the Constitutional safeguards of the vested power in the people of the United States. No such proposition or inference has ever been set forth to the American people ever. I would vigorously argue that any such concession by the President and Congress at that time which as you contend ceded the right to self-defense and subsequent war powers would have been patently invalid and unconstitutional.
I know we also disagree on the primary issue of moral superiority but I would counter that my views on this subject are not merely a parrot of idealistic propaganda but rather a deep seated belief that the American people, upon whom the true power rests, are a peace-loving, moral and principled people.
Although they have and may fall short at times, the fact remains that their charitable giving and disaster relief are without equal in the world which is a demonstrative view of their high ideals and desire. While this does not create an air of superiority that invokes the right to impose their will upon others arbitrarily, it does confirm that such a people (who by their very form of government) will not long tolerate tyranny or oppression in their leaders. Upon these grounds, I contend that their overall objectives are honorable and a very grave departure from the normal political ideals and objectives of most countries which make up the United Nations. Along these lines, I would respectfully disagree with your position but respect it still the same.
In any event, I think it's a testament to this country's greatness that we could even engage in such a public debate of these ideals. I fear such a debate would not be tolerated in most of the member-states of the United Nations. Thanks again for the lively discussion.
Best regards,
Jay
Post a Comment
<< Home