Is Obama Starting to Welcome Their Hatred?

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

 For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

 We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

 They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

 Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

 I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Halloween, October 31st, but except for the decades-old linguistic style couldn't you picture Barack Obama saying that sometime soon, in conjunction with the Occupy Wall Street protests?

I've been liking to draw a parallel between the Barack Obama Presidency and the Presidencies of Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, respectively, in the aftermath of the 2010 midterm elections. My argument, as regular readers (if any exist) may recall, was that Obama should start out sounding like Clinton, wanting to move to the center and compromise, but then anticipate an eventual and necessary shift to a more "Give 'em hell!" Trumanesque strategy once the Republicans refused to compromise. But honestly, for the first time in a few years I'm noticing the parallels between Obama and Franklin Roosevelt. Part of that is because of Obama's new behavior, and part of it is from being reminded about FDR's first time.


An extended period of conservative Republican governance kept itself afloat because of the appearance of economic prosperity, but that prosperity turned out to be more or less an illusion of modern finance. The good times were really only enjoyed by the wealthiest elements of society in the first place, and once the bubble burst the entire nation was plunged into the kind of misery not seen in generations. A young, charismatic Democrat tapped into the anger at the old Republican regime with promises of a new, better kind of government, taking the White House in one of the most impressive performances by a non-incumbent in history. The beginning of his Administration was marked by a flurry of activity designed to stabilize the economy and begin transforming society. While the economy did indeed stabilize, it still wasn't anything you would call 'good.' And as his term wore on the President found his efforts frustrated by the obstruction coming from his ideological adversaries, who controlled just enough of the other branches of government to block his proposals. Even some members of his own party opposed his agenda.


Meanwhile, as the President toiled against the nation's economic woes and his own political opponents, unrest was growing in the populace. To those on the right, the President appeared a socialist threatening traditional liberties. And, in a way, they had a point: the President's proposals would create a more activist government than anything the nation had ever seen. But to those on the left, the President appeared a tremendous disappointment who wasn't even trying to deliver the transformative change he had promised. And, in a way, they had a point: the President's proposals seemed to resemble a kind of progressive Republicanism on steroids, very willing to use the government but unwilling to disturb the established social order very much. And so, as the state of the nation continued in disrepair, both sides of the political spectrum held demonstrations and protests. As they did so, the business elite who had damaged the economy so deeply in the first place and whose economy the President was now trying to save joined those who considered the President an anti-American anti-capitalist class warrior.

And so, after years of trying to cooperate with the business community and with the center-right, the President finally decided that he had had enough. If bending over backwards to include industry in the process of rebuilding the nation wasn't good enough for its leaders, then nothing would be. It was time to embrace the left-wing populism that had at times looked like it might oppose him directly, and thereby threaten his re-election prospects.


Now, obviously, I've told that story in a way that plays up the Obama/FDR similarities. But still, there are a lot of similarities to play up. I'm pretty sure I couldn't tell that good a story about the parallels between Obama and any other President. It's kind of eerie. A few further similarities: the President was known for his ability to unite the African-American and white segments of the electorate, the President's record on civil rights and civil liberties was distinctly mediocre, and the President's (likely) opponent in his re-election effort was a moderate Republican governor of a progressive state. Oh, and the President at one point decided that he had done enough to boost the economy and it was time to balance the deficit, a move which made the economy get worse again. Now, the timing of those factors doesn't necessarily work; FDR pivoted to the deficit after re-election, and his war-powers abuses came after his re-re-election. But still, similarities they are.

Even more obviously, the fact that I can tell this good a story about the parallels between the first Roosevelt Administration and the Obama Administration to date does not mean that the future of the Obama Presidency will resemble the future of the Roosevelt Presidency. For one thing, Obama certainly will not get four terms. For another, hey, Romney could win. Even if Obama is re-elected, there's no guarantee that his second term will involve anything like the Second New Deal. Or the 1937 Roosevelt Recession, though arguably as I mentioned above we're headed toward something like that now. Or the Court-packing plan. (Please, Obama, if you get re-elected, don't imitate the Court-packing plan. But do appoint lots of Justices!) Or twenty years of Democratic rule. Or any of it. But I can imagine how it could happen.

Obama wins re-election, the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House while making their own caucuses more progressive in each House. The Democrats, remembering how awful it feels to let 45 Republicans block everything you try to do, finally end the nonsense of the filibuster, enabling actual Democratic majority governance. We get a second stimulus. We get a price on carbon. We get immigration reform. Maybe we get further financial regulations, or a shiny new public option for health-care reform. We probably get a few things we don't even know to look for yet. The economy recovers, Obama becomes wildly popular, and the Democrats hold the line in the 2014 midterms. In 2016, Andrew Cuomo or some such figure replaces Obama on the ticket, as the Constitution mandates specifically to avoid the second coming of Roosevelt, and wins. Two terms, on the strength of the rising Hispanic vote that still can't stand Republicans and are eternally grateful for Obama's immigration measures. By the end of those sixteen years of Democratic Presidents they have replaced Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia, and Kennedy, leading to a robust six-Justice liberal majority that would repudiate the previous several decades of conservative jurisprudence.

It's a plausible scenario. And if that happens, then I think the Roosevelt administration would be the best comparison for the Obama Presidency. Reading this report about the Obama political team's decision to embrace the Occupy Wall Street message, in no small part because the financial industry has stopped supporting Obama, I had the feeling that Obama is starting to welcome their hatred. Maybe he didn't want to do it, as Roosevelt originally did not, but since the rich and powerful have decided he's not their candidate, Obama has decided not to be their candidate. That had actually started before OWS, it's what the American Jobs Act was all about, but he certainly has stuck with it. The things the Administration has said accusing the Republicans of deliberate economic sabotage for political profit sound a lot like some of the stuff from the Roosevelt passage above. So here's hoping that Obama is able to find his inner populist and to channel the public's anger into another, greater, term in office, just like the greatest President ever.