What happens when a liberal president cozies up to the banking class in his effort to get out of a world-historical economic crisis?
He was surprised and wounded at the way the upper classes turned on him…. Consider the situation in which he came to office. The economic machinery of the nation had broken down…. People who had anything to lose were frightened; they were willing to accept any way out that would leave them still in possession…. Although he had adopted many novel, perhaps risky expedients, he had avoided vital disturbances to the interests. For example, he had passed by an easy chance to solve the bank crisis by nationalization…. His basic policies for industry and agriculture had been designed after models supplied by great vested-interest groups. Of course, he had adopted several measures of relief and reform, but mainly of the sort that any wise and humane conservative would admit to be necessary….
Nothing that [he] had done warranted the vituperation he soon got in the conservative press or the obscenities that the … maniacs were bruiting about in their clubs and dining-rooms. Quite understandably he began to feel that the people who were castigating him were muddle-headed ingrates.
This is of course Hofstadter on FDR, pp. 434-435—the same passage where he explains, “It has often been said that he betrayed his class; but if by his class one means the whole policy-making, power-wielding stratum, it would be just as true to say his class betrayed him.”
27 comments
March 24, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Cosma
Quite understandably he began to feel that the people who were castigating him were muddle-headed ingrates.
We should be so lucky.
March 24, 2009 at 5:37 pm
eric
We can only wait and see, I guess. In fairness Hofstadter is describing FDR’s sentiment as of around 1936, I think.
March 24, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Cosma
In fairness Hofstadter is describing FDR’s sentiment as of around 1936, I think.
I’m not sure our guy can wait that long to welcome their hatred. But, since we’re being fair, I’ve had “Get disappointed by someone new” on my office door for more than a year now.
March 24, 2009 at 6:03 pm
kid bitzer
more than a year? jeez, cosma.
isn’t it about time for you to get a new “get disappointed by someone new”?
like, i don’t know. krugman. maybe he should be our new disappointment.
March 24, 2009 at 6:06 pm
andrew
FDR was pretty critical of the banks/financiers even in his first inaugural. And there’s a section of the first fireside chat on the banking crisis where he says
But I think Obama has come close to saying things like that.
March 24, 2009 at 6:16 pm
politicalfootball
Kid b, the Krugman re-assessment is on the way. Where his critics used to call him a lefty extremist, now the rap on him is he’s not omniscient.
March 24, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Michael Turner
I’m not sure our guy can wait that long to welcome their hatred.
Surely, the velocity of hatred has been increased by internet technology, and is now speed-matched with the (slowing) velocity of money circulation. This changes everything. But it also makes everything more the same.
So in Geithner Years, it’s already 1936. Some time around July, we’ll get WW III, and a huge economic rebound. Tens of millions will die, but it will only last until late autumn. By the year-end, most of us will be securely employed by large corporations that paternalistically tolerate those 3-martini lunches we take several times a week, because productivity will be zooming skyward like a barnstormer stunt pilot at a county fair.
The bad news: the USSR regroups under a Stalinist leader. If it hasn’t already. (I haven’t checked Google News yet today).
March 24, 2009 at 6:20 pm
kid bitzer
not omniscient?
well that’s it, dammit. i’m disappointed.
but i mostly just pulled his name out of a hat. i would have offered myself, only disappointment requires prior expectations.
hey, i know–how about that young quant guy everyone was so hot on the other year, chablisi, shah who’s its, whatever. maybe we could be disappointed by him? at least he got our hopes up.
March 24, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Michael Turner
Not only does Krugman lack omniscience, “it’s also possible that Krugman is guilty of whatever the opposite of wishful thinking is.”
Which would be either irrational pessimism or realism.
Irrational pessimism is a kind of mental illness, so I think we can rule that one out. Either Krugman’s sane, or he’s not guilty by reason of insanity.
Realism, now–that’s something one can be guilty of. If Krugman’s prison sentences for such infractions ran consecutively, I think we’d see Bernie Madoff released centuries sooner.
March 24, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Jason B.
My brane asplode.
March 24, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Charlieford
The world being what it is, how can any pessimism ever be “irrational”?
March 24, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Cosma
isn’t it about time for you to get a new “get disappointed by someone new”?
But, you see, I hadn’t been disappointed by him yet. Even now I am ready to be persuaded it is all part of a Cunning Plan. (And I was disappointed by that quant guy years ago. Good at making other people sound stupid, not so good at being constructive. Didn’t even keep up the blog.)
March 24, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Cosma
chablisi, shah who’s its, whatever
ObEmerson: Chalabi has a doctorate in math from the University of Chicago (“On the Jacobson Radical of a Group Algebra”, 1970).
March 24, 2009 at 7:59 pm
andrew
The universities were just full of radicalism in the early 70s.
March 24, 2009 at 8:33 pm
kid bitzer
well, chalabi certainly managed to annihilate some right ideals, anyhow.
but who “obemerson”?
March 24, 2009 at 8:54 pm
kid bitzer
and don’t worry about the quant guy, cosma. your graph has been monotonically increasing.
fitzgerald was all wrong when he said there are no second axes in american lives.
March 24, 2009 at 8:56 pm
andrew
There’s a reason freedom from quant is one of the four freedoms.
March 24, 2009 at 9:02 pm
kid bitzer
and there’s a reason that degrees from quant programs are called degrees of freedom.
March 24, 2009 at 9:07 pm
andrew
Turning from puns to analogies — I’ve been wondering, is the newly announced bank plan like Hoover’s plan for agriculture, with bad assets being the thing overproduced?
March 24, 2009 at 10:24 pm
essear
ObEmerson: Chalabi has a doctorate in math from the University of Chicago (”On the Jacobson Radical of a Group Algebra”, 1970).
Is this really Emersonian, or does that require linking commutative algebraists to the downfall of civilization? Was there enough German influence on analytic philosophy to cast suspicion on people who use the word “Nullstellensatz” that much?
I don’t remember what a Jacobson radical is, but I do remember Chalabi’s name coming up in the class at the U of C where I learned about them.
March 24, 2009 at 10:35 pm
andrew
I think it’s a cross between a Jacobite and a Hobsonian anti-imperialist.
March 24, 2009 at 10:56 pm
teofilo
According to Wikipedia:
Sounds about right for Chalabi.
March 25, 2009 at 5:39 am
Cosma
I thought the Emersonian touch was the University of Chicago.
March 25, 2009 at 8:34 am
Geschichte Grad
Surely someone around Obama is reminding him of how this played out for FDR. Someone who knows something about the Great Depression, for instance. Or can economists not be bothered with human interaction outside the cash nexus?
March 25, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Greg
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.”
–Karl Marx, 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
March 25, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Walt
I am moderately well-acquainted with both Jacobsen radicals and group algebras, and have never heard of Chalabi in connection with either.
March 27, 2009 at 1:13 pm
nnyhav
Nice job, polifoot. Hoocoodanode?