"A final difference: After the 1929 crash, the nation had to wait more than three years for a president who simply wasn't up to the job to leave the scene. This time, we've got to wait only two more months." Golden.
Guess which President was the first to decide that a program of massive aid, make-work, and bailouts would be the best way to end a recession (hint: his initials were not FDR). Guess which recession was the first to which the US responded with such policies! Guess which recession was longer and more severe than any before it!
As to whether he did a good job or not, the fact that he was reelected three times seems to indicate that he didn't do too badly.
1972. 2004. Do you have actual political beliefs, or do you just assume that the average voter defines the morally correct view? Since the FDR who ran for office in 1932 has basically nothing to do with the FDR who rant the country thereafter, you have a lot of 'splainin to do. Somehow, the voters were right to 1) vote for the guy who promised to reverse Hoover's policies, and 2) vote for the guy who then changed his mind and continued them. Meanwhile, FDR was right to 1) do exactly what Hoover didn't, and then 2) do exactly what Hoover did.
I don't think there's even a name for beliefs this ludicrous.
Why on Earth do you think I would need to rationalize supporting everything president Roosevelt did? I wasn't even born then.
Do you have actual political beliefs, or do you just assume that the average voter defines the morally correct view?
I don't particularly care about the "morally correct" view, I do assume however that voters have some sense of their own well being, and if they feel things are getting worse they will more likely vote for change. That's why democracy works.
I do assume however that voters have some sense of their own well being, and if they feel things are getting worse they will more likely vote for change.
Why would you trust voters to elect the right person? Do you really think that the people in office are the best for the job, rather than the best at manipulating others into giving them the job?
That's why democracy works.
Democracy sucks. Name one company that would would be better managed as a democracy than as a shareholder-oligarchy. Can you seriously imagine a company that had a monopoly on taxing all of the wealth produced in the United States, and still managed to operate at a $500 billion annual loss? Be serious.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prol...
Then again, Joe Biden thought that FDR gave a presidential address by TV in 29 to reassure the country.