PDA

View Full Version : What if we had the internet during FDR's Presidency?


Chiefs Express
04-14-2006, 10:06 PM
Just thinking about the speed of communications in today's society, what would have happened if the communication was then what it is today?

Think about how history would have been changed and ask yourself if the U.S.A. would have survived to today. Dring the late 30's and through the end of FDR's presidency there were many people that detested FDR for the way he ran the country much like Bush is now hated because of the way he is running the country.

Think about FDR and then consider every president since then and how the speed of communications sends news around the world in a flash, whether it is right or not.

It brings up some pretty interesting tidbits from time to time.

What would have been done when JFK was porking Marilyn Monroe.

What would have been done when Nixon was wiretapping the Watergate?

What would have been the situation created by Harry Truman when he dropped the Atomic bombs in Japan?

With the dissent during FDR's presidency, would he have even been re-elected more than once or twice?

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 12:04 AM
With the dissent during FDR's presidency, would he have even been re-elected more than once or twice?


Of course there were plenty of people that considered FDR just to the left of Vladimir Illych. There's really been nothing said about Clinton or Bush (or Nixon for that matter) that wasn't said about FDR. Frequently as "news" instead of opinion on the various partisan newspapers and radio announcers like "Father" Coughlin.

Ever heard of the "Liberty League"? They, with Wall Street allies and members of the American Legion tried to put togther the first Putsch since Washington put down one and formed the Order of Cinncinatus. Thankfully, the Republic was saved because the General they attempted to recruit to run the putsch was more of a patriot than they bargained for. For that, I've always been very grateful to <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/business-plot">General Smedley Butler, USMC Ret.</a>

Would he have been re-elected? IMO, quite probably.

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 09:57 AM
My point is basically that the country is going to survive regardless of all of the bantering on the board regarding the job that President Bush is doing, good or bad.

There are quite a few items that are better now than in years and some things that are worse.

The attacks in NY and DC might have been able to been ferreted out, but at the time they were pulled off it was pretty much unprecidented.

I see that both sides of the arguments currently raging are overlooking facts that would not support their arguments.

I just find it sad that we cannot all work together.

Lake
04-15-2006, 12:27 PM
I do not remember anyone strong running against FDR. It is much like it is today when it comes to decent choices. Clinton did not have much opposition in 1996. 2000 was a coin toss. 2004 was the same as the last few elections. I do remember that in one of his tries to become elected again that his opponent actually had some damaging information on FDR or his Administration. FDR or one of his people asked them not to use it because of the war and the shape of the Country at the time. They agreed not to use it out of respect. How times have changed. With the internet it would have circulated around the world after one could inhale and before they could have exhaled. It may have changed history. I wish that I could remember what exactly it was. You never know though. Dewey did defeat Truman.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 01:46 PM
You never know though. Dewey did defeat Truman.

Definitely a great historical moment for Right-Wing journalism! ;)

Chiefs Express
04-15-2006, 08:54 PM
Definitely a great historical moment for Right-Wing journalism! ;)

Was it considered right-wing back then? I think politics were just cleaner back then, at least in the labeling department. It seems like it was just Republicans, Democrats, and the others.

Lake
04-15-2006, 09:07 PM
You are correct. It was the Big Business Republicans and the Democrats.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 09:16 PM
Was it considered right-wing back then? I think politics were just cleaner back then, at least in the labeling department. It seems like it was just Republicans, Democrats, and the others.

Sadly, yes. The RW/LW labels were pretty strong then as well, aggrevated by the depression. The Chicago Tribune's editor was strongly RW, and was pretty much to FDR as Air America is to Bush, or Rush Limbaugh was to Clinton. Father Couglin, a radio announcer, was in a similar vein.

I think we tend to idealize the past, but politics has always been a dirty game in this country, especially since the late 19th and early 20th century and the birth of mass media ("Yellow" Journalism, Radio, then TV, and now the Internet). Newspapers used to be the main method of expression and propaganda for political parties. Plenty of mud-flinging to go around, from both sides.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'd guess Politics has been a dirty game since mankind first formed tribes, and someone else wanted to be chief. It was certainly cutthroat (and not just figuratively) in ancient Greece and Rome.

banyon
04-15-2006, 09:26 PM
I think we tend to idealize the past, but politics has always been a dirty game in this country, especially since the late 19th and early 20th century and the birth of mass media ("Yellow" Journalism, Radio, then TV, and now the Internet). Newspapers used to be the main method of expression and propaganda for political parties. Plenty of mud-flinging to go around, from both sides.
.

Reminds me of the History Channel "The Presidents" episode I saw of John Quincy Adams/Andrew Jackson. Several historians they interviewed believed that it was the dirtiest election we've ever had.

Supposedly, Adams supporters charged Jackson with being an immoral "Bigamist" because he was seeing his wife Rachel before she was officially divorced from her previous husband. Of course they called her a "whore", or other euphemisms for the same.

Jackson supporters in turn, charged that Adams was "whoring" out his virgin daughter to the Czar of Russia. (ther was some sort of arranged marriage set up).

Jackson also accused Adams of corrupting the election process in the previous election when Adams had defeated him when the election ws thrown to the House and Henry Clay, who had also run for president and lost, helped guide the House in Adams' favor. He ws rewarded with the position of Secretary of State (I think).

After Jackson won, his wife Rachel died. He said in a speech that he would forgive those who had personally attacked him, but he would never forgive those who attacked Rachel. He swore revenge and he pretty much got it by destroying all of those people's careers through various methods.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 09:58 PM
Reminds me of the History Channel "The Presidents" episode I saw of John Quincy Adams/Andrew Jackson. Several historians they interviewed believed that it was the dirtiest election we've ever had.

Supposedly, Adams supporters charged Jackson with being an immoral "Bigamist" because he was seeing his wife Rachel before she was officially divorced from her previous husband. Of course they called her a "whore", or other euphemisms for the same.

Jackson supporters in turn, charged that Adams was "whoring" out his virgin daughter to the Czar of Russia. (ther was some sort of arranged marriage set up).

Jackson also accused Adams of corrupting the election process in the previous election when Adams had defeated him when the election ws thrown to the House and Henry Clay, who had also run for president and lost, helped guide the House in Adams' favor. He ws rewarded with the position of Secretary of State (I think).


After Jackson won, his wife Rachel died. He said in a speech that he would forgive those who had personally attacked him, but he would never forgive those who attacked Rachel. He swore revenge and he pretty much got it by destroying all of those people's careers through various methods.



I've seen it. Good show. I also recommend "The Making of the President, 1789" by Marvin Kitman. It's an excellently researched (and quite funny) account of post-war George Washington leading up to his Inaguration, written in the modern "Campaign tell-all" style. Back then, believe it or not, there were plenty willing to fling mud at the father of our country.

Pitt Gorilla
04-15-2006, 10:19 PM
Was it considered right-wing back then? I think politics were just cleaner back then, at least in the labeling department. It seems like it was just Republicans, Democrats, and the others.Are you kidding?

Chiefs Express
04-16-2006, 08:04 AM
Are you kidding?

:rolleyes:

I don't remember anyone ringing your chimes. Why don't you let the adults continue the conversation?

WoodDraw
04-16-2006, 01:34 PM
People love to call for bipartisanship, or better yet nonpartisanship, but what they really want is for people to stop trashing their ideas and leaders. Bipartisanship is great, as long as everyone is bipartisan on my side.

Politics has been and will be for some time dirty partisanship. That may be annoying, but it'd be less of a problem if both sides would stop tolerating mediocrity.

Chiefs Express
04-18-2006, 11:51 PM
People love to call for bipartisanship, or better yet nonpartisanship, but what they really want is for people to stop trashing their ideas and leaders. Bipartisanship is great, as long as everyone is bipartisan on my side.

Politics has been and will be for some time dirty partisanship. That may be annoying, but it'd be less of a problem if both sides would stop tolerating mediocrity.

In today's society there isn't anyone willing to run for office that has any, and I mean ANY, dirty laundry. Hell, you don't even have to have dirty laundry for the opposing side to start with the mud slinging.

Pitt Gorilla
04-19-2006, 12:00 AM
In today's society there isn't anyone willing to run for office that has any, and I mean ANY, dirty laundry. Hell, you don't even have to have dirty laundry for the opposing side to start with the mud slinging.See Rove (2000).

Chiefs Express
04-19-2006, 05:46 AM
See Rove (2000).

You are really dense. Try checking out any politician from say 1776 forward.

WoodDraw
04-19-2006, 10:20 PM
In today's society there isn't anyone willing to run for office that has any, and I mean ANY, dirty laundry. Hell, you don't even have to have dirty laundry for the opposing side to start with the mud slinging.

I don't think so. Bush has plenty of dirty laundry; he has just done a good job convincing the public it is irrelavent. There are plenty of people with shady pasts still running, and many times they are the worst offenders in the mud slinging department.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-19-2006, 10:24 PM
FDR would have never been elected b/c the public would not elect a President who is crippled, and there is no way the public would not have found out about it. Many people think Nixon lost the 60 election b/c he looked too pale during the debate w/ Kennedy. The look plays into it as well.

WoodDraw
04-20-2006, 11:30 PM
And to clear up my previous post, I don't mean to infer that Republicans - and the Bush group specificly - are the only culprits of this, although they certainly are culprits. It happens on both sides of the isle. A big part of campaigns today seems to be throwing a whole bunch of shit at the wall hoping that either some of it sticks, and/or people become immune to the sight of shit flying in front of them. The whole "Sure I've done bad things in my past, by so has my opponent so who really cares?" thing.

It is also important to distinguish between partisanship on issues, which isn't always a bad thing, and blatantly untruthful campaigning.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 08:12 AM
FDR would have never been elected b/c the public would not elect a President who is crippled, and there is no way the public would not have found out about it. Many people think Nixon lost the 60 election b/c he looked too pale during the debate w/ Kennedy. The look plays into it as well.

Your opinion is not valid due to the fact that you didn't live during those days and could not have had any concept of what was going on. At the time FDR was elected there were about 13,000,000 unemployed, there were virtually no banks open. Times were bad and the American public was looking for a way out. FDR presented the best course of recovery.

If you would like to verify the numbers above try www.whitehouse.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov) Look in the history section.

Chiefs Express
04-21-2006, 08:18 AM
And to clear up my previous post, I don't mean to infer that Republicans - and the Bush group specificly - are the only culprits of this, although they certainly are culprits. It happens on both sides of the isle. A big part of campaigns today seems to be throwing a whole bunch of shit at the wall hoping that either some of it sticks, and/or people become immune to the sight of shit flying in front of them. The whole "Sure I've done bad things in my past, by so has my opponent so who really cares?" thing.

It is also important to distinguish between partisanship on issues, which isn't always a bad thing, and blatantly untruthful campaigning.

I can't disagree, but to demonize Bush for doing what they all are doing is ludicrious.