Roosevelt and Bush

by Kieran Healy on February 3, 2005

In the conclusion to his “state of the union address”:http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/sotu.txt last night, President Bush invoked Franklin Roosevelt’s words from his second inaugural: “each age is a dream
that is dying, or one that is coming to birth.” Here’s a bit more from that speech by FDR:

Instinctively we recognized a deeper need-the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization. Repeated attempts at their solution without the aid of government had left us baffled and bewildered. For, without that aid, we had been unable to create those moral controls over the services of science which are necessary to make science a useful servant instead of a ruthless master of mankind. To do this we knew that we must find practical controls over blind economic forces and blindly selfish men.

We of the Republic sensed the truth that democratic government has innate capacity to protect its people against disasters once considered inevitable, to solve problems once considered unsolvable. We would not admit that we could not find a way to master economic epidemics just as, after centuries of fatalistic suffering, we had found a way to master epidemics of disease. We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster. …

In fact, in these last four years, we have made the exercise of all power more democratic; for we have begun to bring private autocratic powers into their proper subordination to the public’s government. The legend that they were invincible-above and beyond the processes of a democracy-has been shattered. They have been challenged and beaten. …

In that purpose we have been helped by achievements of mind and spirit. Old truths have been relearned; untruths have been unlearned. We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Out of the collapse of a prosperity whose builders boasted their practicality has come the conviction that in the long run economic morality pays. We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.

As they say on the internets, “read the whole thing”:http://www.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00114.html.

{ 31 comments }

1

Jim Henley 02.03.05 at 4:45 pm

Eeeeww!

2

Kramer 02.03.05 at 4:54 pm

Do you think the speech writing folks (and Bush I guess) discussed the larger context before the speech?

Or that the quote was just too good to pass up?

3

Kieran Healy 02.03.05 at 4:55 pm

Eeeeww!

Heh. I love the sound of libertarians wincing in the morning. Don’t blame me. I wasn’t the one who brought FDR up.

4

MQ 02.03.05 at 5:06 pm

I know, Jim. It’s hard to read FDR now knowing what *disastrous* consequences his policies eventually had for the American economy. Why just 110 years or so after that speech, given certain growth assumptions, Social Security might only be able to pay 75% of promised benefits!

But this liberal is still a Jim Henley fan, because at least you could see through the Iraq war. That is my dividing line between good and bad libertarians.

5

P O'Neill 02.03.05 at 5:09 pm

Why does FDR hate Freedom(TM)?

6

Cranky Observer 02.03.05 at 5:09 pm

W and his cronies don’t seem to have any problem with using the power of government to achieve their end, which is to concentrate 99% of the wealth of the nation into the hands of the top 0.25%.

Now, if they have fooled libertarians and classic conservatives into supporting them, all I can say is HA HA HA.

Cranky

7

david 02.03.05 at 5:46 pm

Standards have changed, if I’m supposed to think Bush’s speech was elegant. But I’ll bet Jim Henley said Eeew right before he went to bed too.

8

john c. halasz 02.03.05 at 6:01 pm

But in the original FDR address the quoted snippet is itself in quotes. Does anyone know where that snippet originated from?

9

Amardeep 02.03.05 at 6:04 pm

That is a damn good FDR quote.

They don’t make presidents like that anymore.

10

Kieran Healy 02.03.05 at 6:18 pm

Does anyone know where that snippet originated from?

It’s from “The Music Makers”:http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/idris/Poetry/OShaugnessy.htm, a poem by Arthur O’Shaughnessy. Bit of an old 19th century misty-vistas romantic. The Music Makers is the one that goes “We are the music makers / And we are the dreamers of dreams.” I don’t know if O’Shaugnessy came up with the phrase “movers and shakers”, but it’s in there too. If he did originate it, its meaning as changed quite a bit. His kind of poetry is funny because it oscillates between gestures at romantic grandeur (“One man with a dream, at pleasure / Shall go forth and conquer a crown; /And three with a new song’s measure / Can trample an empire down”) and “McGonagallesque”:http://www.taynet.co.uk/users/mcgon/disaster.htm diction (“With wonderful deathless ditties / We build up with world’s great cities”).

11

George 02.03.05 at 6:36 pm

“We are the music makers / And we are the dreamers of dreams.”

Is that the line Willy Wonka quotes to Veruca Salt? If so, wonder if Roald Dahl had it in the book, or if the filmmakers slipped it in. Either way, excellent allusion.

12

jet 02.03.05 at 7:04 pm

Speaking of those in favor of strong government intervention in the economy, did you see that Germany’s unemployment has reached its highest level since 1933? Well, at least France isn’t doing so bad at 9.9%. Just how does the US, with a much larger more diverse population, keep their unemployment so low? Maybe it is all those FDR programs?

13

Kieran Healy 02.03.05 at 7:14 pm

Just how does the US, with a much larger more diverse population, keep their unemployment so low?

Well, for one thing it keeps a substantial chunk of people who would otherwise be unemployed locked up in prison.

14

jet 02.03.05 at 7:41 pm

Kieran,
My estimates were 6.1 where she got 6.2. You’re blowing smoke up my ass even with that 6.1, because there is every reason to believe that if the actions that put those people in jail were decriminalized they would find work in higher numbers than “1/3”, putting us back below 6, and probably right where we are today. Never mind the additional positive factor of relief from tax burdens from a cheaper penal/judicial system.

Let me qualify this with an “I agree that all the sentences except violent sentences are way to harsh, and several crimes shouldn’t be crimes at all”. But this still leaves tighter controlled ecnomies looking like sad ponces who chose the wrong tarts.

15

Kevin Donoghue 02.03.05 at 7:55 pm

“Just how does the US, with a much larger more diverse population, keep their unemployment so low?”

Well, this is just a guess from someone who hasn’t read up on the economics of the labour market for quite a while, but I think the trick may be to pay lousy unemployment benefits.

Actually, if you abolished benefits altogether, there would be no claimants at all.

16

P O'Neill 02.03.05 at 8:10 pm

In the context of the thread’s sudden lurch towards unemployment, it might be useful to look at actual cross country data and observe that the correlation between sad ponces with the wrong tarts and unemployment levels is not so obvious. Or maybe the Dutch, for example, managed to get the right tarts.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/18595359.pdf

17

jet 02.03.05 at 8:36 pm

p o’neill,

Oh no you didn’t just bring up Denmark. Can you really compare a country of 5 million with a country of 300 million? As long as we are comparing apples to ornges, I’ll bring up Florida (16 million people and 4.9% unemployment) and say “eat that Denmark”. But it is great to hear the Dutch are doing well, it just appears their model doesn’t scale very well.

Kevin,
Would getting rid of unemployment benefits get rid of the unemployed? Or would we just have to find another way to count them?

18

Kevin Donoghue 02.03.05 at 8:57 pm

On a site which includes philosophers in its management, I hesitate to say this, but it depends on what you mean by unemployed. If defined as those claiming benefits then yes, getting rid of benefits gets rid of the unemployed.

The other way to count them is by doing a survey which asks people about their current status. Certainly there will be respondents who describe themselves as unemployed. But with no benefits they have a pretty strong incentive to change that status.

As I pointed out earlier, this comment is not based on any recent study. It certainly isn’t a policy proposal. But I think you will find that the generosity of unemployment benefits is a significant variable in determining unemployment rates.

Other things matter too, of course. For example, the Fed is a much more growth-oriented central bank than the ECB, which is modelled on the starchy old Bundesbank.

19

Kevin Donoghue 02.03.05 at 9:37 pm

Jet,

A bit of Googling appears to confirm my hazy memories of the literature. A point I had not noted is that the duration of unemployment benefits seems to be more important than the level. This PDF file is worth a look:

http://doku.iab.de/topics/2004/topics56.pdf

20

Cranky Observer 02.03.05 at 9:55 pm

> Just how does the US, with a much
> larger more diverse population,
> keep their unemployment so low?

Here is a secret that I am sure the Greenspans of the world know quite well: since about 1965 or so, the Western world has had the capability to provide its entire population with a reasonable standard of living (say US 1955 middle class standard – by historical terms luxurious) using about 1/3 of our total capability (whether you count capability as people, labor hours, resources, factories, whatever).

In other words, we could loaf along on 22 hour workweeks and still live the life of the Cleavers.

But there are social reasons why that may not be desirable. Debatable to be sure, but reasons. So the powers that be have chosen to prevent that from happening. The US and Europe have chosen different paths. Europe uses various social transfer mechanism to keep large numbers of people out of the workforce (long university stays, family leave benefits, unemployement dole). The US uses differential pay incentives and harsh unemployement consequences to keep everyone’s nose to the grindstone at a fairly low average wage.

Both accomplish the same thing (rising output and social stability) but from different directions.

Cranky

21

dk.au 02.04.05 at 12:08 am

Jet I’m not aware of a significant Dutch population in Denmark (I think the Germans in the south of Jutland are recognised though).

The Netherlands public sector is about a third the size of Denmarks, and population about three times as large. Liberal forces are breaking down traditional Socialist tenets in both countries (ie. unions), but the ethnic/cultural homogeneity seems to be keeping it all together in a way Anglo liberal systems can’t/don’t.

22

jet 02.04.05 at 12:09 am

Kevin,
Thanks for the read, that was very interesting stuff. It is one thing to hear that Europeans are much more generous, but it is another thing to see it quantified. Although I would have liked to have seen the average time in each country until someone on unemployment started a new job. The study alluded to it being shorter the worse the benefits, which would seem to endorse the US system, unless you think people should get to chill watching Jerry Springer while someone else goes to work for them.

Cranky,
How many people who chose a career (rather than falling into one) do so because they want to make more money? If we all made the same amount reguardless of what we did, wouldn’t everyone be an ice cream man, rock star, or bar tender? We’d all be fat, deaf, and constantly drunk, but we’d miss our high standard of living. And why is that a secret, if you divide 10 trillion by 300 million, you get quite a bit per person?

23

am 02.04.05 at 2:43 am

heh, 1937. We’ve learned a lot since then, haven’t we?

Well. Some of us have.

24

Jussi 02.04.05 at 12:21 pm

“The Netherlands public sector is about a third the size of Denmarks, and population about three times as large.”

dk, how do you mean that? – are you saying that DK needs nine people where NL need only one, or that DK spends nine times as much money?

Or something completely different?

(Forgive my rough arithmetic, but just for this question I’m assuming GDP per capita for the two countries is about the same – which in reality it isn’t).

25

Cranky Observer 02.04.05 at 1:17 pm

> If we all made the same amount
> reguardless of what we did,
> wouldn’t everyone be an ice cream
> man, rock star, or bar tender? We’d
> all be fat, deaf, and constantly
> drunk, but we’d miss our high
> standard of living.

You may recall that I did say this was an area where argument was appropriate. You have stated one side of the argument succintly: that the lash is necessary to keep man’s nose to the grindstone, that nose to the grindstone is the preferable form of existance, and that maximization of consumption is the greatest goal of mankind. The grindstone portion of this theory reaches its apex in the Amanas, for whom hard work throughout one’s life is a prerequisite to entering heaven.

There are however other ways to look at life. If nothing else, given the world’s population I think there are more than enough Type As and Super Type As to keep everyone else in beer and ice cream even if they were the only ones working. But I think most people enjoy a reasonable amount of work (20-30 hours/week) – which probably goes back to the desire to hunt a zebra every 3 days.

> And why is that
> a secret, if you divide 10
> trillion by 300 million, you get
> quite a bit per person?

Um, because if it were well-understood by the entire population the opportunity for Ken Lay and his ilk to accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples’ money would be greatly reduced?

Cranky

26

abb1 02.04.05 at 2:15 pm

Could it be that German unemployment has something to do with their unification problems, i.e. more political and cultural than economic? The western part seems to be doing just fine.

27

abb1 02.04.05 at 2:19 pm

Cranky, if you get an error and want to make sure your comment has been posted, click the ‘Preview’ button and scroll down – you’ll see all comments including those that got stuck in the plumbing.

Cheers.

28

winna 02.04.05 at 4:34 pm

It also depends on how you define unemployment. The US unemployment numbers are calculated differently than some of those other countries, IIRC. I am trying to find a link for how that number is calculated- does anyone else have one?

29

Jussi 02.05.05 at 5:26 pm

“Could it be that German unemployment has something to do with their unification problems, i.e. more political and cultural than economic? The western part seems to be doing just fine.”

Indeed it does have to do with their unification problems.

The parties in government at the time had been calling for unification for 40 years, and were adamant that the ‘German question’ had not been settled. As it turned out, they were right; but unbelievably they had no plan of what to do, nor even any up-to-date information around which they could have made a plan. It left one breathless with amazement!

What awaited them on the other side was extremely run-down, much as in the other eastern bloc countries. Roads full of potholes, decrepit buildings, no modern phone system, uncompetitive industry, etc etc.

The human infrastructure too was partly unusable. The Stasi (security service) had to be rooted out, and brought to justice, where necessary. Many teachers lost their qualifications, because they were deemed to have been ‘indoctrinated’. The police were suspect. The entire governmental and state apparatus had to be replaced and restaffed.

And of course the legal system had to go too – the west imposed its laws lock, stock and barrel, including the wretched bureaucracy.

Then there were mistakes made by politicians (and others). One notable blunder was committed by Helmut Kohl, who, hoping to win votes in the upcoming elections, allowed the East Germans to exchange their Ostmarks for DM at a rate of 1:1 instead of the more sensible 2:1 or 3:1. The easterners grabbed the money and gleefully went on spending sprees in the west, leaving none of it in the east where it was needed most. (But Kohl got the votes).

There was, and still is, a lot of antagonism between the ‘Ossies’ (east Germans) and ‘Wessies’ (west Germans), which does nothing to help the situation. The stereotype is that Ossies think Wessies are arrogant know-alls, and Wessies think Ossies are lazy good-for-nothings.

At any rate, the west has done a great deal in terms of improving the infrastructure, and has transferred huge sums of money to the east – it must be close to about $1 trillion by now.

But despite all, the east is still economically depressed, and worst of all, plagued with a very stubborn unemployment problem. Thank heaven I don’t have to deal with it.

30

Jussi 02.05.05 at 5:41 pm

“It also depends on how you define unemployment. The US unemployment numbers are calculated differently than some of those other countries, IIRC. I am trying to find a link for how that number is calculated- does anyone else have one?”

There is an ILO definition for unemployment. I don’t have a link, but it is (roughly) that you have to be a) unemployed; b) have looked for work in the last 4 weeks; and c) you must be able to take up a position within 4 weeks. If any of these criteria are not met, you don’t count as unemployed. (A housewife, for example, is not looking for work, and therefore is not unemployed – she is ‘economically inactive’).

This is the statistic one normally sees in international publications, or at least the ones I read.

However, individual countries may also have their own definitions. For example, I believe the UK publishes a statistic called ‘Unemployed and receiving benefit’, which allows the long-term unemployed who don’t qualify for ‘unemployment benefit’ (but for something else instead) to be removed from the domestically published unemployment number. Handy, right?

31

LamontCranston 02.09.05 at 1:43 am

George: “Is that the line Willy Wonka quotes to Veruca Salt? (in the movie)” — Gene Wilder (Willy) filled the script with literary references.
jet: “Would getting rid of unemployment benefits get rid of the unemployed? Or would we just have to find another way to count them?”
yeah another way would have to be found to count them, primarily as homeless and/or dead.

Comments on this entry are closed.