11
REICH: FDR 1936, Obama 2012
Robert Reich
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Bob Moon: Just when you thought you might be free of the political soundbite for a while, consider today the unofficial kickoff of 2012 presidential campaign.
Commentator Robert Reich says that poses a big question for President Obama: should he borrow Bill Clinton's olive branch to the GOP in 1996...
Then-President Bill Clinton in 1996: I want us to forge a partnership to produce results for the American people.
...or should he emulate FDR's approach in 1936?
Then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936: They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.
ROBERT REICH: Some people are going to tell President Obama that Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996 because he moved to the center, and Obama should, too. But Clinton was really reelected because by 1996, the economy had come roaring back to life.
President Obama won't have that luxury in 2012. In all likelihood, the economy will still be anemic. It's now growing at the rate of no more than 2 percent a year, not enough to reduce unemployment. And it's doubtful that over the next two years consumers will buy enough to change that.
For the next two years, Republicans will try to paint Obama as a big-government liberal who's responsible for the continuing bad economy. Obama's best hope for reelection will be to reframe the debate, making the central issue the power of big business and Wall Street to gain economic advantage at the expense of the rest of us.
The relevant political lesson isn't Bill Clinton in 1996. It's Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936. By 1936, the Great Depression was entering its eighth year. Roosevelt had already been president for four of them. Yet he won the biggest electoral victory since the start of the two-party system in the 1850s.
How? He shifted the debate from his failure to get the economy moving to the irresponsibility of his opponents. Republicans, he said, stood for "business and financial monopoly, speculation, and reckless banking." And Roosevelt made clear his opponents wanted to stop him from helping ordinary Americans. "Never before have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today," he thundered. "They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."
Hopefully, the 2012 economy won't be as bad as the economy was in 1936. But there's no way it's going to be nearly as good as it was in 1996. For President Obama, 1936 provides the real lesson.
Moon: Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor for President Clinton. His new book is called "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future." We'll hear from conservative commentator David Frum next Wednesday. And as always, your thoughts are welcome.
Pages
Comparing Obama to FDR is nonsense, Mr Reich. FDR was a member of the elite class of his time. Obama is a presumptive joiner. FDR had courage and principles. Obama is a political weakling and an amoral narcissist, worse than Bill Clinton in the latter regard. Though a black-skinned man, he is a Reconstruction black, the sort who held political office as a proxy for northern carpet-baggers who were not local residents. Obama is a proxy for Wall Street, the MIC, the insurance, nuclear and health industries. FDR cared about America's future. Obama cares about no one but Obama.
All discussion of the economy aside, Reich is right on target when it comes to what is likely to be Obama's best political strategy. Unless the Republicans nominate Palin as their 2012 candidate, the President is likely going to have a tough campaign if we don't see any significant improvement in the economy, which we probably won't.
The next two years is going to bring massive gridlock in Washington, and the President needs to capitalize on that fact if he wants to survive another four years. Get nasty Mr. President!
Of course America doesn't get it. As long as the disastrous economy is not linked to reckless spending on unnecessary and pointless wars and lack of corporate oversight then the situation is going to stay the same. If it costs $800 a gallon to deliver gasoline to the troops in Afghanistan and nobody is paying attention or asking who is benefiting from that, then America doesn't get it for sure!
President Obama can begin his much needed 'offensive' by giving the public access to the November joint meeting via all the Media. Although he should certainly extend the offer of a possible compromise, he should question as to why the Republicans think their snarly 'our way or the highway'is a mandate, and with increasing firmness. He will make many likely 2012 supporters happy if he refuses to deviate from that by simply showing a willingness to let the taxcuts expire rather than indulge the well-off.
Mr. Reich--We just finished reading "After Shock," and are wondering how to poise (our personal finances) to best advantage in the coming years in the U.S. We agree with you that America collectively doesn't "get it" and that we may be in for hard times ahead. Do you know characteristics of personal financial advice that would align with your own views for America?
This election was not about people 'choosing' REP over DEM at all. It was simply people showing their frustration for a slow economy and big government spending, including two wars and a financial crisis that the current administration inherited. The REPs want to repeal healthcare reform before it has been shown to be ineffective, yet they seem to be OK with the issues that largely contributed to the current recession, reckless spending on pointless wars and lack of corporate oversight.
Professor Reich's advice would be a wise move for President Obama, if not for the fact that he missed his chance to paint the opposition as standing for "business and financial monopoly, speculation, and reckless banking." Lukewarm legislation which marked his first two years, backed by tepid rhetoric, which contrasts deeply with his campaign rhetoric, has left Pres. Obama feeling the pinch not only from the right, but the left as well.
FDR was also contending with nativist rise in the US. Fascism was attracting a large following (the Berkley yearbook of 1935, the Blue and Gold, was dedicated to Fascism and the glory of Germany, Italy and Japan). Natavism defined Real Americans as white, middle Americans of Norman Rockwell-while "others" were immigrants, Catholics, Jews, were receiving benefits paid for by the taxes of the real Americans.
Sound like the Tea Party?
It's very sad that politician spend so much time and money on hate. When the Republican try to destroy a presidency they are trying to destroy America. Now that they have the house, we will see if they are constructive or ideological. Democracy does not work when it is ill-informed and I'll-at-ease.
Pages
