OpinioNet Contributed Commentary

Although a highly popular President among Democrats in his own time and since then, FDR has never attracted appeal across a wide political spectrum of patriotic audience, the way George Washington does.

What is needed is not necessarily a campaign to blast FDR; it would suffice for now, simply to assemble broad ranges of presidential ranking efforts, with disparate flavors of panel members. That would only be fair. This has already begun,^[1] but meanwhile any list of "Greatest Presidents," created with some desire for it to be accepted by a nationwide audience, will place FDR in a high position that will make sense only to a liberal Democrat. They’ve co-opted this institution, and co-opted it well. Would Reagan be so highly rated if he’d evacuated and imprisoned, let’s say, Hispanics? Or American Indians? Would George W. Bush make it into the top five slots if he spent two full terms trying to end the recession, and failed while other nations left him eating their dust?

What’s going on here? The truth of the matter is, to offer a list offering FDR’s name at the bottom would be to invite intense discussion and question. It remains politically sensitive, and a move like that would offend a lot of people. Simply put, if you want your list to get some national attention, and you have bigger fish to fry than the demonizing of FDR, you better put him in the top five. If he’s not, very few people are going to notice anything else about what you did.

It’s sad that a move to demote FDR from the top slots, or for that matter any effort to promote the value of constitutional integrity, is looked upon these days as "extreme" and "conservative." But there’s another thing we do that is even more misguided. If you look on the bottom slots of any given "Best President" list, you’ll see all the names you never heard about until you took the initiative and did your own research. Names like Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson come to mind.

This poses two problems. First of all, obscurity is a nebulous and ambiguous charge, so these fellows are left tumbling over each other in the presidential ranking, like socks in a dryer, over a hundred years after their demise. They’re not doing anything good or bad, but their names soar and sink depending on the whim of the person making the list.

Secondly, this promotes an axiom that a do-nothing administration is the worst administration we could possibly have. That’s simply not true, because it would have to rely on a premise that a President can do no real damage. We invest an awesome amount of power in our Presidents. To reflect that, any "Best Presidents" list by rights ought to be relegating the weak, insignificant administrations to somewhere in the middle, with the truly damaging ones at the bottom.

Out of necessity, that would mean disparaging some efforts in our history, and that would invite some criticism and controversy. So what? On many occasions besides EO 9066, some of our influential Presidents have turned out to be very bad Presidents. Simply pointing it out doesn’t make you an extremist.

The timeline you saw above should not be interpreted as an exhaustive indictment of the damage FDR did. It most certainly is not that. If we are going to consider damage in making lists of Presidents, and define the word as some effect detrimental enough to create shock waves reverberating still today - the FDR administrations can supply us with enough of that. Many Americans today don’t realize the Social Security fund is not voluntary. That is to say, you find a good money market and decide to redirect the seven-percent now going into Social Security, the government will have a problem with that and they’ll be coming for you. So our "will I ever see a nickel of it" debate that we see repeated from young conservative libertarians, is a red herring of sorts. The real issue is, the fund is mandatory, and it is lackluster in performance. With those facts on the table, would an advocate of FDR’s name for the top honors really want the Social Security feather to go in his hat? I doubt it.

The Federal Withholding is another example of serious damage. It’s a quagmire; getting in, at the time, was easy,^[2] but we’ll never get out of it. The widespread ignorance of it is shocking; if you asked most full-time employees, quick, how much did the federal government take from your paycheck - most people haven’t got a clue. Which is odd because it’s a serious financial burden, and the bread and butter of our federal budget. Most paychecks are heavily impacted by the federal withholding; if an unexpected expense were to arise, equal to one-twentieth of the federal withholding, whatever budget that associate had drawn up would be in serious trouble.

FDR seems to be the pioneer of the catchphrase we hear all too often today, "Founding Fathers could not have foreseen." By now, that is simply a window-dressing catchphrase, tossed around by people who really should be leaving this country and starting one of their own for whatever agenda they have in mind. Millions of voting, full-fledged citizens today don’t realize there was a definite design when this country was founded - that we’re stronger when we adhere to it and weaker when we depart from it - and they don’t care. A cursory review of written history appears to indicate that this was not the case before FDR, and a repeated habit of characterizing Founding Fathers as a bunch of dolts who didn’t understand some present crisis, has potential to affect this cultural change. I’d call that damage.

FDR’s legacy has been a clear beneficiary of widespread ignorance, our remembrance efforts having been largely dedicated to the indictment of America as a whole, and not of the small party of people who actually brought about the Internment. In the online world that can be verified with the click of a mouse, examples abound of this problem. Remembrance sites^[3], a class syllabus here^[4] and there^[5], and comments in general^[6,7,8] - that tend to assign blame to "the United States" instead of to FDR. Some of them do not mention the names "Roosevelt" or "FDR" as they purport to document the disgrace of Japanese Internment, in any manner designed to get your attention, if indeed these names are mentioned at all.

Guilt is a powerful motivator. As testament to that, it can be safely presumed such "guilt" works would not perpetuate if they were not successful. Yet, they aren’t directed at people who voted for FDR, as a reasonable newcomer might infer they would be. They are directed toward very young people, who weren’t born until well after EO 9066.

If we are to remember Japanese Internment and all that was truly atrocious about it, truly the most important point to remember above all is that the Japanese citizens demonstrated no disloyalty against the United States to merit their internment. Indeed, throughout the entire time the U.S. was at war, 10 people were convicted of espionage,^[9,10] and not one of these 10 was of Japanese descent. When Japanese Internment day is used, intentionally or not, to damage existing feelings of patriotism, surplus damage takes place. This point of history is eclipsed, and even reversed.

The American people were taken for a ride in the 1930’s; the German people were, too. In Hitler’s case, it is important to remember that although he was elected in a democratic republic, there is a limit to how much blame can be placed on the German people as a whole for what happened. Like FDR, Hitler used a powerful personal charisma to get himself elected, and whenever he suspected or discovered public support wouldn’t back his proposals, he sought to have power improperly delegated from other sources onto him. It’s spooky how the same story was developing over here as was developing over there, at roughly the same time.

The uncomfortable fact is, a lot of parallel exists between the Jewish internment camps over there, and the Japanese internment camps over here. FDR himself actually used the term "concentration camps" more than once, and his authorization of the internment was passed with very little attention from the public-at-large.^[11]

February 19 is coming. So is February 18. FDR is about to be named one of our best presidents ever, for one more year, ad nauseum. The best thing anyone can do about this sorry state of affairs is to do some heavy thinking. Don’t take anyone’s word for anything; do your own research.

But also, once you’re satisfied something has been proven, don’t be afraid to communicate it. On Monday, February 18, we should all be getting hold of every newspaper that covers some community of which we are a part - national, regional, and local. Without a doubt, you can find a "Best Presidents" list in these, and the name "Franklin Roosevelt" will appear in the top five slots, in almost all of them. Once you’ve established that, I suggest you write a letter to the editor.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but the following should be taken account before more high honors are bestowed on FDR:

First, if his memory is to be celebrated yet once again because of "what he did for old and retired people" through Social Security, at least ponder the unabashed ageism he showed, in public and in private, during his attempt to pack the Supreme Court. He wanted to appoint "younger blood" to serve in partnership with any justice over 70, to prevent "hardening of the judicial arteries." Much more offensive quotes can be found, straight from his mouth. All you have to do is open your eyes to the information. To be frank about it, it doesn’t look to me like he thought highly of people over seventy.

Second, if he is to be exalted because of "what he did for African-Americans and people of the Jewish faith," first remember that the Hugo Black conspiracy is not relegated to kook clubs to be kicked around with stories of crop circles, Area 51, and Cubans shooting JFK. When FDR nominated a known former KKK member to the High Court, it gave pause to Congress and the public overall. Clearly, it’s not something that could be done today, and there’s a lot of doubt as to whether anyone besides FDR could get away with it back then.

Third, if we’re to hold him up as an example for other presidents because he was elected four times, don’t forget that this was in itself the abrogation of promises he had made during his famous "Now!" speech, March 4, 1937. In this age of a two-term limit for the President, we forget that this rule was a revered tradition before it was actually legislated. Cal Ripkin was approached about the idea of missing a game before he could break Lou Gehrig’s record. With that same sentiment, 30 presidents between Washington and FDR did not want to diminish the respect paid to the Father Of Our Country when he refused to run again in 1796. Furthermore, there were serious questions about whether in 1940, Roosevelt was still in good enough health to run for a third term. By the fourth term, he was under doctor’s orders to work no more than 4 hours per day, including lunch. That’s an ironic condition for a four-term president, who had once so vilified older judges for staying in office "at the very edge of their graves."

Fourth, good old conservative thinking provides a centrist, logical reason why FDR should be stricken from the #3 spot. The message sent with Schlesinger’s original Washington-Lincoln-FDR sequence, is something like this: George put it together, Abraham made us free, FDR fed everyone. Aside from being historically false, the last third of that statement is pure sophistry. FDR’s administration ran counter to the American ideals with such a contrast of which Washington and Lincoln could never have dreamed. Why honor a President who effectively suspended the traditions that made this country great?

And finally, if you think FDR deserves the #3 spot for his "accomplishments," because of his ability to "get things done," to "ram things through," to overcome "opposition," regardless of the grounds for such opposition - look, just don’t participate in making the list, okay? You should do your voting in odd-numbered years. On Wednesdays.

Some measure of this, at least, should be expressed to a pollster if you’re lucky enough to be called to help construct a "people’s best Presidents" list in time for February 18th.

It is a standard practice of sincerity, courtesy and efficiency, that when you tell people not to do something, or report that a problem exists, you should have an alternative or a solution ready for them. If FDR can ever be expunged from the #3 spot, my nomination for the empty space would be the man on the fifty-dollar bill.

If you look up Ulysses Grant’s name on Best Presidents lists created in the past, you’ll see he has often been relegated to the lower positions. Some lists even put him on the bottom! You’d think they would realize some kind of historical revisionism had to have taken place. In a time when few presidents were re-elected for a second term, there was serious talk of nominating Grant for that third term. His face was put on our money. Were he thought by his contemporaries to be a "worst" President, these things would not have happened.

Grant’s traditional ranking toward the bottom, is a grave injustice that purports to respond to scandals that occurred during his administration, and his personal drinking habits. In fairness, the scandals are mostly true. However, it should be recalled that those who emphasize this are quick to exonerate the Clinton administration from its own scandals, one at a time, pushing the envelope of credibility to the breaking point. We seem to have had a referendum on the damage scandals should be allowed to do to an executive legacy, and that in modern times they should be discounted quickly.

If that’s the case when the scandals indicate serious character flaws, as they indisputably do in Clinton’s case, why can the same reprieve not be extended to Grant - in whose case the scandals arose from a simple handicap in judging the character of others? By all accounts, the problems with the Grant administration were caused by subordinates, and the General’s own personal character was unimpeachable.

More important than that, it should be pointed out the legends of General Grant’s drinking are almost entirely false.^[12] He was dry for much of his life, although few people realize that today. The gaping chasm existing between reality and recollection is far too large to be an accident. President’s Day could be used well, if spent on an effort to learn about Ulysses Grant. His writing is superb.^[13] It compares with other writers I admire, e.g., Carolyn Gargarro, George F. Will, Wallace Ohrt and William F. Buckley. His style of thinking stands as an example for others to follow.^[14] If you cried at the end of "Old Yeller," the one-year demise of Grant that mercifully ended in the summer of 1885 will be pretty tough for you to take.^[15,16]

We’re well assured to get through whatever crisis awaits us throughout 2004 if George W. Bush turns out to have half the scruples and integrity of our 18th President.

What then should we do with FDR? As I’ve said, everyone’s entitled to a personal opinion. But if you acknowledge that a "good" or "bad" President should be credited both with the good works he did and the damage he had wrought - and this is only reasonable - the damage FDR did is at least grave enough to receive some kind of high-profile inspection. And if you acknowledge that, it seems logical to infer that the damage we suffered during those twelve years was heavy indeed. It’s bad enough that this apparently paved the way for EO 9066 to be enacted. But the other damage, to this very day, has yet to be repaired.

REJECTED AT THE GATES OF HELL

A stranger stood at the Gates of hell, and the Devil himself answered the bell.
He looked him over from head to toe, and said: My friend, I’d like to know
What you have done in the line of sin, To entitle you to come within?
Then Franklin D, with his usual guile, stepped forth with his toothy smile and said:
"When I took charge in ’33, A nations faith was mine," said he
"I promised them this and I promised them that, and I calmed them down with a fireside chat.
I spent their money on fishing trips, and fished from the decks of their battleships.
I gave them jobs in the WPA, then raised their taxes and took it away.
I raised their wages and closed their shops, I killed their pigs and buried their crops
I double-crossed both old and young, and still the folks my praises sung.
I brought back beer, and what do you think? I taxed it so high they couldn’t drink.
I furnished ’em money with Government loans, When they missed a payment I took their homes.
When I wanted to punish the folks, you know, I’d put my wife on the radio.
I paid them to let their farms lie still, and imported foodstuffs from Brazil.
I curtailed crops when I felt real mean, And shipped in crops from the Argentine.
When they started to worry, stew and fret, I got them to chant the alphabet.
With the AAA and the NLB, The WPA and the CCC.
With these many units I got their goats, and still I crammed it down their throats.
My workers worked with the speed of snails, While the taxpayers chewed their fingernails.
When the organization needed dough, I closed their plants with the CIO.
I ruined jobs, I ruined health, and I put the screws on the rich man’s wealth.
And some who couldn’t stand the gaff, would call on me and how I’d laugh.
When they got too strong on certain things, I’d pack and head for "Ole Warm Springs."
I ruined their country, their homes and then, I placed the blame on "Nine Old Men."
Now Franklin talked both long and loud, And the devil stood and his head he bowed.
At last he said: "Lets make it clear, You’ll have to move, you can’t stay here
For once you mingle with this mob, I’ll have to find myself a job."
Anonymous

Comments and corrections are encouraged and welcome at mkfreeberg@hotmail.com. Letters of praise, complaint, chastisement, horror and outrage are encouraged in direct proportion to the level of intelligence and desire for sincere & constructive discourse implied by their content.

All citations of online material were recorded between January 5-16, 2002, inclusive. Where possible, citations have been provided in the form of an online resource, so that interested readers can investigate this subject in-depth without waiting for a book to arrive, going to the library, or leaving their chairs. Where print media must be used, citations are given with all the publication information available. Where the print sources are redundant with online sources, citations are given for both.