Beyond the New Deal

AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
edited April 2008 in A Moving Train
'Downsize our military and our presence in the middle east, defying corporate elite, stress upon the importance of civics'....sounds a lot like Nader. ;)

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/beyond-the-new-deal-by-howard-zinn/

Beyond the New Deal By Howard Zinn

By Howard Zinn
04/08/08 “ICH“

We might wonder why no Democratic Party contender for the presidency has invoked the memory of the New Deal and its unprecedented series of laws aimed at helping people in need. The New Deal was tentative, cautious, bold enough to shake the pillars of the system but not to replace them. It created many jobs but left 9 million unemployed. It built public housing but not nearly enough. It helped large commercial farmers but not tenant farmers. Excluded from its programs were the poorest of the poor, especially blacks. As farm laborers, migrants or domestic workers, they didn’t qualify for unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, Social Security or farm subsidies.

Still, in today’s climate of endless war and uncontrolled greed, drawing upon the heritage of the 1930s would be a huge step forward. Perhaps the momentum of such a project could carry the nation past the limits of FDR’s reforms, especially if there were a popular upsurge that demanded it. A candidate who points to the New Deal as a model for innovative legislation would be drawing on the huge reputation Franklin Roosevelt and his policies enjoy in this country, an admiration matched by no President since Lincoln. Imagine the response a Democratic candidate would get from the electorate if he or she spoke as follows:

“Our nation is in crisis, just as it was when Roosevelt took office. At that time, people desperately needed help, they needed jobs, decent housing, protection in old age. They needed to know that the government was for them and not just for the wealthy classes. This is what the American people need today.

“I will do what the New Deal did, to make up for the failure of the market system. It put millions of people to work through the Works Progress Administration, at all kinds of jobs, from building schools, hospitals, playgrounds, to repairing streets and bridges, to writing symphonies and painting murals and putting on plays. We can do that today for workers displaced by closed factories, for professionals downsized by a failed economy, for families needing two or three incomes to survive, for writers and musicians and other artists who struggle for security.

“The New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps at its peak employed 500,000 young people. They lived in camps, planted millions of trees, reclaimed millions of acres of land, built 97,000 miles of fire roads, protected natural habitats, restocked fish and gave emergency help to people threatened by floods.

“We can do that today, by bringing our soldiers home from war and from the military bases we have in 130 countries. We will recruit young people not to fight but to clean up our lakes and rivers, build homes for people in need, make our cities beautiful, be ready to help with disasters like Katrina. The military is having a hard time recruiting young men and women for war, and with good reason. We will have no such problem enlisting the young to build rather than destroy.

“We can learn from the Social Security program and the GI Bill of Rights, which were efficient government programs, doing for older people and for veterans what private enterprise could not do. We can go beyond the New Deal, extending the principle of social security to health security with a totally free government-run health system. We can extend the GI Bill of Rights to a Civilian Bill of Rights, offering free higher education for all.

“We will have trillions of dollars to pay for these programs if we do two things: if we concentrate our taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population, not only their incomes but their accumulated wealth, and if we downsize our gigantic military machine, declaring ourselves a peaceful nation.

“We will not pay attention to those who complain that this is ‘big government.’ We have seen big government used for war and to give benefits to the wealthy. We will use big government for the people.”

How refreshing it would be if a presidential candidate reminded us of the experience of the New Deal and defied the corporate elite as Roosevelt did, on the eve of his 1936 re-election. Referring to the determination of the wealthy classes to defeat him, he told a huge crowd at Madison Square Garden: “They are unanimous in their hatred for me–and I welcome their hatred.” I believe that a candidate who showed such boldness would win a smashing victory at the polls.

The innovations of the New Deal were fueled by the militant demands for change that swept the country as FDR began his presidency: the tenants’ groups; the Unemployed Councils; the millions on strike on the West Coast, in the Midwest and the South; the disruptive actions of desperate people seeking food, housing, jobs–the turmoil threatening the foundations of American capitalism. We will need a similar mobilization of citizens today, to unmoor from corporate control whoever becomes President. To match the New Deal, to go beyond it, is an idea whose time has come.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    'Downsize our military and our presence in the middle east, defying corporate elite, stress upon the importance of civics'....sounds a lot like Nader. ;)

    http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/beyond-the-new-deal-by-howard-zinn/

    Beyond the New Deal By Howard Zinn

    By Howard Zinn
    04/08/08 “ICH“

    We might wonder why no Democratic Party contender for the presidency has invoked the memory of the New Deal and its unprecedented series of laws aimed at helping people in need. The New Deal was tentative, cautious, bold enough to shake the pillars of the system but not to replace them. It created many jobs but left 9 million unemployed. It built public housing but not nearly enough. It helped large commercial farmers but not tenant farmers. Excluded from its programs were the poorest of the poor, especially blacks. As farm laborers, migrants or domestic workers, they didn’t qualify for unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, Social Security or farm subsidies.

    Still, in today’s climate of endless war and uncontrolled greed, drawing upon the heritage of the 1930s would be a huge step forward. Perhaps the momentum of such a project could carry the nation past the limits of FDR’s reforms, especially if there were a popular upsurge that demanded it. A candidate who points to the New Deal as a model for innovative legislation would be drawing on the huge reputation Franklin Roosevelt and his policies enjoy in this country, an admiration matched by no President since Lincoln. Imagine the response a Democratic candidate would get from the electorate if he or she spoke as follows:

    “Our nation is in crisis, just as it was when Roosevelt took office. At that time, people desperately needed help, they needed jobs, decent housing, protection in old age. They needed to know that the government was for them and not just for the wealthy classes. This is what the American people need today.

    “I will do what the New Deal did, to make up for the failure of the market system. It put millions of people to work through the Works Progress Administration, at all kinds of jobs, from building schools, hospitals, playgrounds, to repairing streets and bridges, to writing symphonies and painting murals and putting on plays. We can do that today for workers displaced by closed factories, for professionals downsized by a failed economy, for families needing two or three incomes to survive, for writers and musicians and other artists who struggle for security.

    “The New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps at its peak employed 500,000 young people. They lived in camps, planted millions of trees, reclaimed millions of acres of land, built 97,000 miles of fire roads, protected natural habitats, restocked fish and gave emergency help to people threatened by floods.

    “We can do that today, by bringing our soldiers home from war and from the military bases we have in 130 countries. We will recruit young people not to fight but to clean up our lakes and rivers, build homes for people in need, make our cities beautiful, be ready to help with disasters like Katrina. The military is having a hard time recruiting young men and women for war, and with good reason. We will have no such problem enlisting the young to build rather than destroy.

    “We can learn from the Social Security program and the GI Bill of Rights, which were efficient government programs, doing for older people and for veterans what private enterprise could not do. We can go beyond the New Deal, extending the principle of social security to health security with a totally free government-run health system. We can extend the GI Bill of Rights to a Civilian Bill of Rights, offering free higher education for all.

    “We will have trillions of dollars to pay for these programs if we do two things: if we concentrate our taxes on the richest 1 percent of the population, not only their incomes but their accumulated wealth, and if we downsize our gigantic military machine, declaring ourselves a peaceful nation.

    “We will not pay attention to those who complain that this is ‘big government.’ We have seen big government used for war and to give benefits to the wealthy. We will use big government for the people.”

    How refreshing it would be if a presidential candidate reminded us of the experience of the New Deal and defied the corporate elite as Roosevelt did, on the eve of his 1936 re-election. Referring to the determination of the wealthy classes to defeat him, he told a huge crowd at Madison Square Garden: “They are unanimous in their hatred for me–and I welcome their hatred.” I believe that a candidate who showed such boldness would win a smashing victory at the polls.

    The innovations of the New Deal were fueled by the militant demands for change that swept the country as FDR began his presidency: the tenants’ groups; the Unemployed Councils; the millions on strike on the West Coast, in the Midwest and the South; the disruptive actions of desperate people seeking food, housing, jobs–the turmoil threatening the foundations of American capitalism. We will need a similar mobilization of citizens today, to unmoor from corporate control whoever becomes President. To match the New Deal, to go beyond it, is an idea whose time has come.

    I've thought a lot about this lately myself. Why can't a modern age New Deal work again? Our economy is in the toilet, the value of the dollar is plummeting, many of our big lenders are in serious trouble. There are so many parallels here. No, we haven't quite hit Depression era economic woes yet, but in my perfect world, we bring the troops back, scale back our military presence around the globe, cut military spending, while at the same time providing more funding for veterans and military pay. We do a rollback of the taxes Bush repealed, especially for the top few %. We employ Americans to rebuild America. I think that's something we could all get behind.

    That's it, I'm going to tenclub to buy my Howard Zinn skateboard right now! :)
  • gabers wrote:
    I've thought a lot about this lately myself. Why can't a modern age New Deal work again? Our economy is in the toilet, the value of the dollar is plummeting, many of our big lenders are in serious trouble. There are so many parallels here. No, we haven't quite hit Depression era economic woes yet, but in my perfect world, we bring the troops back, scale back our military presence around the globe, cut military spending, while at the same time providing more funding for veterans and military pay. We do a rollback of the taxes Bush repealed, especially for the top few %. We employ Americans to rebuild America. I think that's something we could all get behind.

    That's it, I'm going to tenclub to buy my Howard Zinn skateboard right now! :)

    Kucinich actually brings up the New Deal quite a lot. But he's that weird, vegan guy and he's short so....:)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • “We will not pay attention to those who complain that this is ‘big government.’ We have seen big government used for war and to give benefits to the wealthy. We will use big government for the people.”

    Hehe....more wars and more benefits to the wealthy it is then.
  • gabers wrote:
    I've thought a lot about this lately myself. Why can't a modern age New Deal work again? Our economy is in the toilet, the value of the dollar is plummeting, many of our big lenders are in serious trouble. There are so many parallels here. No, we haven't quite hit Depression era economic woes yet, but in my perfect world, we bring the troops back, scale back our military presence around the globe, cut military spending, while at the same time providing more funding for veterans and military pay. We do a rollback of the taxes Bush repealed, especially for the top few %. We employ Americans to rebuild America. I think that's something we could all get behind.

    That's it, I'm going to tenclub to buy my Howard Zinn skateboard right now! :)

    Abook,
    you do understand that a "new" "New Deal" is going to come in the form of an absolute loss of civil liberties, property rights, gun rights, and freedom, right?

    I know you think the government can be good (hell i think it CAN be too, but it ain't) but the reality is it is owned by forces not loyal to you or I.

    If and when shit gets so bad that people are begging the government to "do something", what will be done is to enact the already waiting national emergency EOs 12919\12656.

    Read that.

    I understand what you are asking for, but i'm telling you that it won't happen.
    The government is not going to reprioritize a budget made with money it doesn't have to spend on you and I so we can help "rebuild our country".

    No, the much easier, and more "cost effective" way of doing this -- all while maintaining MUCH more control -- is simply to declare an emergency, appropriate all American resources as the centralized authority deems fit, and put the populace to work through EO11000 with any pay being determined by said authority.

    That is the "new" "New Deal" and it has been in waiting since at least the 60's. Some of those EOs go back to the 40s.

    :(
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Hehe....more wars and more benefits to the wealthy it is then.

    So the average person wants wars and benefits the wealthy?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • So the average person wants wars and benefits the wealthy?
    I think you are falling in to the same trap as Commy and, ah whats his face, was it OutofBreath who used to argue with me over World Government not necessarily being bad?

    Anyhow.
    The point here is that the people who say

    "will not pay attention to those who complain that this is ‘big government.’..." and that
    "We will use big government for the people."

    are being wholly ignorant of the sad fact that "WE" are NOT "big government" ... "big government" is a bunch of mindless beaurocrats beholden NOT to "we the people" but to the mandates of those who issue the policy ... and that is NOT "we" ... "we" may "elect" them, but they don't serve us and have not for quite sometime.

    Therefore, why would you believe, even after having admitted in the middle,
    "We have seen big government used for war and to give benefits to the wealthy."
    that this system will suddenly, after being given a vote of agreeance allowing it even MORE unrestricted power and centralized decision making authority ... why would we ever believe that this new, even MORE expansive government would then suddenly turn around and listen to the people?

    I just don't get that logic.
    "Yeah, well, sure we've seen big government subvert the will of the public and wage continual war and perpetuate unending injustice to the masses while furthering the inequity between the rich and the poor ... but I really believe that if we make the government even bigger, it will suddenly use that power to benefit the common good."

    C'mon, abook.
    You know better.
    This isn't defeatist, this is realist.

    We must RESTRICT the power of government.
    Bring it back to something approximating its original constitutional authority,
    or we are all doomed.

    :(
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • I think you are falling in to the same trap as Commy and, ah whats his face, was it OutofBreath who used to argue with me over World Government not necessarily being bad?

    Anyhow.
    The point here is that the people who say

    "will not pay attention to those who complain that this is ‘big government.’..." and that
    "We will use big government for the people."

    are being wholly ignorant of the sad fact that "WE" are NOT "big government" ... "big government" is a bunch of mindless beaurocrats beholden NOT to "we the people" but to the mandates of those who issue the policy ... and that is NOT "we" ... "we" may "elect" them, but they don't serve us and have not for quite sometime.

    Therefore, why would you believe, even after having admitted in the middle,
    "We have seen big government used for war and to give benefits to the wealthy."
    that this system will suddenly, after being given a vote of agreeance allowing it even MORE unrestricted power and centralized decision making authority ... why would we ever believe that this new, even MORE expansive government would then suddenly turn around and listen to the people?

    I just don't get that logic.
    "Yeah, well, sure we've seen big government subvert the will of the public and wage continual war and perpetuate unending injustice to the masses while furthering the inequity between the rich and the poor ... but I really believe that if we make the government even bigger, it will suddenly use that power to benefit the common good."

    C'mon, abook.
    You know better.
    This isn't defeatist, this is realist.

    We must RESTRICT the power of government.
    Bring it back to something approximating its original constitutional authority,
    or we are all doomed.

    :(

    Falling for it? Ever think maybe you're just not getting it? ;)

    just because people have become detached from holding their gov't accountable and aren't taking part in directing policy/ being involved in civics... doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

    You're saying that just because something is not happening now that means it never can.

    If the gov't can benefit the wealthy and wage unnecessary wars then it can also happen that people could elect a gov't that is effective and helps out the citizenry.

    Your logic only allows for one possible outcome and I know other possibilities can exist given the right circumstances.

    and I'm an idealist not a realist. realists think things will always be the way they are...I'm not down with that.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Falling for it? Ever think maybe you're just not getting it? ;)

    just because people have become detached from holding their gov't accountable and aren't taking part in directing policy/ being involved in civics... doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

    You're saying that just because something is not happening now that means it never can.

    If the gov't can benefit the wealthy and wage unnecessary wars then it can also happen that people could elect a gov't that is effective and helps out the citizenry.

    Your logic only allows for one possible outcome and I know other possibilities can exist given the right circumstances.

    and I'm an idealist not a realist. realists think things will always be the way they are...I'm not down with that.

    I don't deny you that change is possible, though it happens more slowly with government than it does even with people.

    However, that being said, the approach offered here is the approach i see being thrown up by liberals all over this board.

    Namely, "the system is broken, people are not holding the system accountable, therefore we must change the system, give it more powers, and then ..."

    ... and then?

    And THEN hold the system accountable?

    Look.
    We can agree or disagree on the merits of turning over central planning authority to the federal government on the grounds that it will benefit the people more than unregulated (or i guess the argument goes, even regulated) market forces ... (and certainly, i disagree) ...

    ... but the fact remains, if you are going to argue that we need to assign more power to the federal government ... AND you acknowledge that the people are at fault for not holding the system accountable ... then you can not possibly think it wise to put cart before horse and vote the system more authority, while simply hoping and praying for the people to begin "holding the system accountable" ex post facto.

    Furthermore, the danger here is that you are giving the "BAD" politicians power, and then hoping that the people wise up quick enough to "hold the system accountable" by voting the people currently in office OUT ... and in short order ...

    the reality is, those people will remain in office for quite sometime, and put the new powers in to effect for worse and not for the better.

    EVEN FURTHER, my contention here is that ultimately the problem IS the people, and that while your ambitions of a noble and beholden government are well intentioned, the current reality is that the people of America want nothing more than a QUICK FIX and have very little desire to begin ACTIVE participation in government.

    And the solution which gives government near totalitarian authority, thus requiring UTMOST participation by the citizens, is therefore destined to fail, because the will of the people is simply not there.

    Now,
    if you want to start with the proposition that the people begin by VOTING THEM ALL OUT ;););) ... and THEN discussing plans to hand over massive government control of the economy ... i may consider agreeing with you ... at least in THEORY, that the idea is sound.

    Of course, you know how i feel about giving socialist power to the government, in reality. But if you want to do so, you must force the people to demonstrate a will to active involvement with politics FIRST, and not AFTER you hand over such authority.

    Am i making sense here at all?
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Kucinich actually brings up the New Deal quite a lot. But he's that weird, vegan guy and he's short so....:)

    Edwards does too, but Kucinich does a better job matching his deeds with his words.
  • Edwards does too, but Kucinich does a better job matching his deeds with his words.


    Yeah, Edwards seems like he could be sincere but then messes that up a lot. I liked him in more in '04.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • I don't deny you that change is possible, though it happens more slowly with government than it does even with people.

    However, that being said, the approach offered here is the approach i see being thrown up by liberals all over this board.

    Namely, "the system is broken, people are not holding the system accountable, therefore we must change the system, give it more powers, and then ..."

    ... and then?

    And THEN hold the system accountable?

    Look.
    We can agree or disagree on the merits of turning over central planning authority to the federal government on the grounds that it will benefit the people more than unregulated (or i guess the argument goes, even regulated) market forces ... (and certainly, i disagree) ...

    ... but the fact remains, if you are going to argue that we need to assign more power to the federal government ... AND you acknowledge that the people are at fault for not holding the system accountable ... then you can not possibly think it wise to put cart before horse and vote the system more authority, while simply hoping and praying for the people to begin "holding the system accountable" ex post facto.

    Furthermore, the danger here is that you are giving the "BAD" politicians power, and then hoping that the people wise up quick enough to "hold the system accountable" by voting the people currently in office OUT ... and in short order ...

    the reality is, those people will remain in office for quite sometime, and put the new powers in to effect for worse and not for the better.

    EVEN FURTHER, my contention here is that ultimately the problem IS the people, and that while your ambitions of a noble and beholden government are well intentioned, the current reality is that the people of America want nothing more than a QUICK FIX and have very little desire to begin ACTIVE participation in government.

    And the solution which gives government near totalitarian authority, thus requiring UTMOST participation by the citizens, is therefore destined to fail, because the will of the people is simply not there.

    Now,
    if you want to start with the proposition that the people begin by VOTING THEM ALL OUT ;););) ... and THEN discussing plans to hand over massive government control of the economy ... i may consider agreeing with you ... at least in THEORY, that the idea is sound.

    Of course, you know how i feel about giving socialist power to the government, in reality. But if you want to do so, you must force the people to demonstrate a will to active involvement with politics FIRST, and not AFTER you hand over such authority.

    Am i making sense here at all?

    I never mentioned an order in which we should go about it and I am all about voting the corrupt and power hungry out. People like Kucinich and Nader have proven they put the needs of the people before their own ambition and personal gains. Those are the types you see me supporting because they have earned my trust based on their body of work. But I still say while the gov't already has this amount of power, why not encourage them to use it in ways which benefit the citizenry instead of the elite and war profiteers? The Dems are not doing this, they stay quiet because they know it's just as much part of their agenda as it is the Reps.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    Yeah, Edwards seems like he could be sincere but then messes that up a lot. I liked him in more in '04.

    you liked the guy that voted for the iraq war, voted for the original patriot act, and did not favor universal health care at the time?


    just sayin ;)
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    what Zinn is talking about is WAY beyond The New Deal... and i agree with him 100%


    to mobilize a movement that large and sweeping, you have to have a charasmatic leader that inspires people that they can change the world and that progress is possible through unity and collective effort...


    ralph nader isnt motiviating people enough to even make a ham and cheese sandwich, let alone change the world
  • my2hands wrote:
    what Zinn is talking about is WAY beyond The New Deal... and i agree with him 100%


    to mobilize a movement that large and sweeping, you have to have a charasmatic leader that inspires people that they can change the world and that progress is possible through unity and collective effort...


    ralph nader isnt motiviating people enough to even make a ham and cheese sandwich, let alone change the world

    Ralph Nader has been referred to by many as inspiring and motivating. He just doesn't have all that corporate funding and time to go on publicity tours. He's out there fighting the good fight. Are you even aware of all that Ralph Nader has changed by motivating people to rally behind him to fight against the odds and corporate influence? Nader's Raiders? You should really read up on that. What change has Obama brought us since being elected into the senate?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • my2hands wrote:
    you liked the guy that voted for the iraq war, voted for the original patriot act, and did not favor universal health care at the time?


    just sayin ;)

    yeah in '04 when I also voted for Kerry...which I have stated numerous times was a 'mistake'.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • my2hands wrote:
    what Zinn is talking about is WAY beyond The New Deal... and i agree with him 100%


    to mobilize a movement that large and sweeping, you have to have a charasmatic leader that inspires people that they can change the world and that progress is possible through unity and collective effort...


    ralph nader isnt motiviating people enough to even make a ham and cheese sandwich, let alone change the world


    Then do you agree with Obama or Zinn about expanding the military vs downsizing it? And about decreasing the military budget and our occupations all over the place like Afghanistan?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • People seem motivated and inspired to me

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fb5DvpHmKA&NR=1
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    bump (watch this shit)
  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117


    nothing new there... nader blaming the democrats for everything like they have been in power the last 8 years :rolleyes:


    give me a holler when he cracks 1% of the vote... then we can start talking about inspiring a movement
Sign In or Register to comment.