By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Contrary to assertions comparing Donald Trump’s presidency to a reversed Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, substantial policy differences exist. Roosevelt, working with Congress, enacted the New Deal, expanding government programs with public support, while Trump’s actions, often relying on executive power, dismantle existing agencies and reduce public spending. Furthermore, Roosevelt forged a lasting political coalition, unlike Trump’s seemingly more personal popularity. Finally, while both presidents engaged in direct communication with the public, the methods and resulting impact differ significantly.
Read the original article here
The dismantling of the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt appears to be a central, albeit unspoken, goal of certain political movements. FDR, a president widely considered one of the nation’s greatest, implemented policies that fundamentally reshaped the American landscape, creating a social safety net and expanding the role of government in the lives of its citizens. These programs, born from the ashes of the Great Depression, aimed to alleviate poverty, provide economic security, and strengthen the nation’s infrastructure.
The very existence of these programs, however, seems to be viewed as anathema to a specific political ideology. There’s a persistent desire to return to a pre-FDR era, a time when the government’s role was significantly smaller, and the economic power was concentrated in fewer hands. This desire isn’t new; it’s been a simmering undercurrent in American politics for decades, with various figures and groups advocating for a rollback of New Deal policies. Now, this sentiment appears to have found a powerful, albeit controversial, voice.
The argument that dismantling FDR’s legacy is an active and intentional project hinges on the observation that many of the policies and institutions he established are currently under attack. This includes not only specific programs but also the very principles upon which they were founded: the idea that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from economic hardship and to invest in the nation’s future. It’s a subtle but significant shift – not simply tweaking existing programs, but actively challenging the underlying philosophy of government intervention and social responsibility.
The long-term consequences of this apparent dismantling are a significant cause for concern. The potential erosion of social security, the weakening of labor protections, and the reduction in government investment in infrastructure could have profound and far-reaching effects. These measures created a foundation upon which many Americans built their lives, fostering stability and opportunity across generations. Their potential removal throws into question the very fabric of the social contract.
A key argument against this dismantling focuses on the inherent contradiction of rejecting the economic principles that have underpinned American prosperity for decades. The success of FDR’s policies in pulling the nation out of the Great Depression stands as a testament to the effectiveness of government intervention. To disregard this success in favor of a more laissez-faire approach ignores a wealth of historical evidence about the positive impacts of investing in the public good.
Furthermore, this rejection of FDR’s legacy runs counter to the historical consensus regarding his achievements. He’s often cited as one of the best presidents in American history, not solely for his economic policies but also for his leadership during a time of profound national crisis and his commitment to democratic ideals. To actively work against his legacy seems to indicate a disregard for not only economic policy but also for broader historical understanding. This rejection is especially poignant when considering the vast public support FDR enjoyed during his time, a stark contrast to the current political climate.
The claim of a concerted effort to return America to a pre-FDR state is further bolstered by the observation that the dismantling appears coordinated and strategic. It’s not simply a matter of individual policy disagreements; there seems to be a deliberate, sustained effort to undermine institutions and principles that have been established over decades. This suggests a long-term political strategy aiming to fundamentally reshape the relationship between the government and its citizens, a strategy that prioritizes the interests of a select few over the well-being of the broader population.
The motivations behind this apparent crusade against FDR’s legacy are complex and potentially multifaceted. Some point to a deeply entrenched ideological opposition to government intervention in the economy, while others suggest a more cynical motive: enriching the already wealthy at the expense of the broader population. Regardless of the underlying reasons, the consequences of this approach could be devastating, potentially leading to increased inequality, social unrest, and a significant rollback of hard-won social progress.
In conclusion, the idea that the current political climate represents a deliberate effort to unravel the achievements of the New Deal era is far from baseless. The erosion of crucial social programs, the weakening of regulatory bodies, and the general shift toward policies favoring the wealthy all suggest a concerted effort to return to an economic model that many argue proved disastrous in the past. The consequences of such a reversal could be catastrophic, underlining the importance of a critical examination of the underlying motives and potential impacts of these policy shifts.