I am currently reading Franklin and Eleanor: An Extraordinary Marriage by Hazel Rowley. It’s a very well-written account of Franklin D and Eleanor Roosevelt’s marriage, which cannot be described as conservative in any sense of the word. The backdrop for a good portion of their marriage is of course a major era in American history. FDR was an ambitious man, and set his sights on the governorship of NY State and on the presidency of the USA (with tremendous support from Eleanor, loyal employees and friends) at a time in the USA when the Great Depression had just about decimated society and normal living as the country had known them up to that point. The stock market crash in 1929 led to the collapse of banks. People lost their savings and homes, jobs were scarce, unemployment high, and there was widespread poverty. His weaknesses as a husband do not detract from his strengths as president--strong leader with excellent ideas for how to renew America. But I imagine he would have been an impossible man to live with--huge ego, very ambitious, wilful, jovial, charming, used to getting his way, aided and abetted by a mother who interfered royally in his marriage to Eleanor. Eleanor was also headstrong, but her obstinacy evolved out of the disappointments that she faced living with a man who mostly put himself and his needs first, even more so after he developed polio. She liked people, as did FDR, and surrounded herself with them. Many of their employees and friends lived in the same house as the Roosevelts for shorter or longer periods; 'they both enjoyed communal living' as Rowley writes. FDR lived his life as he saw fit, and extended the same courtesy to Eleanor, who did live her life as she wished once her children were mature. But I leave that to you to discover when you read the book. Suffice it to say that theirs was an open marriage in the true sense of the word. At the same time, they had a lot of respect for each other, were good companions, and were supportive of each other’s ambitions and professional desires. Theirs was a modern marriage that most of us would never opt for, even in these modern times, likely because divorce is more acceptable in our era than it was in theirs. But money also helped smooth their life together; they lacked for nothing. If they wanted to purchase a new house or a cottage, lack of money was no hindrance. Yet, they were very empathetic to the plight of Depression America and to the poor, and their legacy bears that out.
Herbert Hoover was the president before FDR. He believed in raw capitalism without any government intervention whatsoever. At that time, there
was no bank deposit insurance as we have today (the FDIC--thanks to FDR), no
federal welfare, and no unemployment relief. Hoover was adamantly opposed to
these types of ‘socialist’ programs that would weaken/destroy American individualism
and self-sufficiency. Hoover felt strongly that FDR’s ‘socialist’ agenda (minimum
wage, old-age pensions, farm relief, unemployment relief through public works,
bank deposit insurance) would destroy the country and warned the public that
America under FDR would lead to the USA embracing Communism. FDR believed the
opposite, and set about remaking America under his New Deal, instituting the
National Recovery Administration (minimum wages, maximum weekly hours of work),
the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (aid to the poor), the Public Works
Administration (building of bridges, roads, schools), the Tennessee Valley
Authority (building dams), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (planting trees,
digging reservoirs). We can thank FDR for many of the ‘socialist’ benefits that
we enjoy today. FDR knew that some people, despite their best efforts, simply don’t
make it, and his point was that it was the duty of government to help them. This
attitude is, dare I say it, almost Christian.
The USA did not become Communist under FDR. It strikes me
that many of the current arguments used against President Biden at present are
similar in tone to those used against FDR. The Trump supporters I know are constantly
screaming about how the USA will become a socialist country under Biden. And I
have to ask--how will that happen? What does he stand for that is so ‘socialist’?
Increasing the minimum wage? About time, if you ask me. Basic healthcare for
all citizens? About time, if you ask me. Cheaper college education? About time,
if you ask me. At present, the only people really doing exceptionally well in
America are the exceptionally rich--who have no problems buying homes, owning
property, buying planes or cars or boats, traveling, educating their children,
or buying the best medical and legal care they can find. The middle class, which
most people in my parents’ generation belonged to, has changed dramatically. It’s
hard to know where most people fit these days. Most people I know own their own
homes or apartments, can afford to travel, can afford to eat out, and can
afford basic medical care. But exorbitant medical costs due to medical emergencies
(e.g. expensive cancer treatments) might wipe them out, likewise outrageous legal
fees in connection with a lawsuit. Most of the people I know have good medical
insurance, but they still watch their expenses (do they need that dental appointment
or MRI now or can they wait?). The children of some of them attended college on
scholarships, as I did when I went to college and graduate school. I
additionally received tuition assistance (TAP) from NY State because my father
was unemployed at the time I started college. Thank God for that socialist
program. Without such programs, many of us might not have gotten the educations
that we received. Yes, God helps those who help themselves. Everybody knows
that, and most people want to work and make a life for themselves and their
families. But God forbid your father or mother or both became sick or died, when
you were about to start college. In Hoover’s time, most people would have said
to you ‘tough luck, you’re on your own. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and
stop feeling entitled’. And you probably would not have attended college,
because only the rich could afford it. Nowadays, you can afford college thanks
to the social programs that are in place to help you. I think it’s much better
to live in a country with ‘socialist’ programs than to live in one run by
someone like Hoover. That’s just my opinion. But before you disagree with me, think about some of the benefits you've enjoyed courtesy of 'socialist' programs. And then I'll be willing to talk to you.
