FDR and Obama: Striking Parallels

1 post / 0 new
Septimus's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 19 2008
Posts: 200
FDR and Obama: Striking Parallels

I think it may have been on this site that I saw a reference to Garet Garrett's "The Revolution Was", a - to me - mind blowing text written in the late 1930s arguing (successfully), that a silent coup had been already done by FDR and his allies. Garet explains how unconstitutional federal executive branch regulation with the force of law came into being during this time and a lot of other things that most people (including myself) would never hear about at school or anywhere in main stream media.

Here is the first problem for FDR as outlined by Garrett. Note the Democratic Party's 1932 platform that Roosevelt campaigned for. No wonder people voted for him, the platform sounds like something Ron Paul would endorse. Unfortunately, as Garet shows, FDR deliberately lied and had different ends in mind (Obama, on the other hand, was mostly more vague in his promises although the ends seem increasing clear and look to be the logical extension of what FDR accomplished:




was here no choice of means. The use of force was not to be considered.
Therefore, it had to be done by ballot. That being the ease, and
the factor of political discontent running very high, the single
imperative was not to alarm the people.

Taft says that in the presidential campaign of 1932 "the New Deal
was hidden behind a program of economy and state rights."

is true. Nevertheless, a New Dealer might say: "How could we tell
the people what we were going to do when we ourselves did not know?"
And that also may be true — that they did not know what they
were going to do.

the greatest theorist of them all, did not know what he was going
to do after he had got the power. He made up plans as he went along,
changed them if they did not work, even reversed them, but always
of course in a manner consistent with his basic revolutionary thesis.
And so it was with Hitler, who did it by ballot, and with Mussolini,
who did it by force.

was probably no blueprint of the New Deal, nor even a clear drawing.
Such things as the A.A.A. and the Blue Eagle were expedient inventions.
What was concealed from the people was a general revolutionary intention
— the intention, that is, to bring about revolution in the
state, within the form of law. This becomes clear when you set down
what it was the people thought they were voting for in contrast
with what they got. They thought they were voting:

less government, not more;

an end of deficit spending by government, not deficit spending raised
to the plane of a social principle, and,

sound money, not as the New Deal afterward defined it, but as everybody
then understood it, including Senator Glass, formerly Secretary
of the Treasury, who wrote the money plank in the Democratic party
platform and during the campaign earnestly denounced as akin to
treason any suggestion that the New Deal was going to do what it
did forthwith proceed to do, over his dramatic protest.

first three planks of the Democratic Party platform read as follows:


An immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures
by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments
and bureaus and eliminating extravagance, to accomplish a saving
of not lees than 25 per cent in the cost of Federal government.

Maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually

A sound currency to be maintained at all hazards."

Roosevelt pledged himself to be bound by this platform as no President
had ever before been bound by a party document. All during the campaign
he supported it with words that could not possibly be misunderstood.
He said:

accuse the present Administration (Hoover's) of being the greatest
spending Administration in peace time in all American history —
one which piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and
has failed to anticipate the dire needs or reduced earning power
of the people. Bureaus and bureaucrats have been retained at the
expense of the taxpayer.... We are spending altogether too much
money for government services which are neither practical nor necessary.
In addition to this, we are attempting too many functions and we
need a simplification of what the Federal government is giving to
the people."

he said many times.

of the great majority that voted in November, 1932 for less Federal
government and fewer Federal functions could have imagined that
by the middle of the next year the extensions of government and
the multiplication of its functions would have been such as to create
serious administrative confusion in Washington, which the President,
according to his own words, dealt with in the following manner:

July eleventh I constituted the Executive Council for the simple
reason that so many new agencies having been created, a weekly meeting
with the members of the Cabinet in joint session was imperative....
Mr. Frank C. Walker was appointed as Executive Secretary of the

still could have believed that if such a thing did happen it would
be more than temporary, for the duration of the emergency only;
and yet within a year after Mr. Roosevelt had pledged himself, if
elected, to make a 26 per cent cut in Federal government by "eliminating
functions" and by "abolishing many boards and commissions," he was
writing, in a book entitled On Our Way, the following:

spite of the necessary complexity of the group of organizations
whose abbreviated titles have caused some amusement, and through
what has seemed to some a mere reaching out for centralized power
by the Federal government, there has run a very definite, deep and
permanent objective."

of the majority that voted in November 1932 for an end of deficit
spending and a balanced Federal budget could have believed that
the President's second budget message to Congress would shock the
financial reason of the country, or that in that same book, On Our
Way, he would be writing about it in a blithesome manner, saying:
"The next day, I transmitted the Annual Budget Message to the Congress.
It is, of course, filled with figures and accompanied by a huge
volume containing in detail all of the proposed appropriations for
running the government during the fiscal year beginning July 1,
1934 and ending June 30, 1935. Although the facts of previous appropriations
had all been made public, the country, and I think most of the Congress,
did not fully realize the huge sums which would be expended by the
government this year and next year; nor did they realize the great
amount the Treasury would have to borrow."

certainly almost no one who voted in November, 1932 for a sound
gold standard money according to the Glass money plank in the platform
could have believed that less than a year later, in a radio address
reviewing the extraordinary monetary acts of the New Deal, the President
would be saying: "We are thus continuing to move toward a managed

broken party platform, as an object, had a curious end. Instead
of floating away and out of sight as a proper party platform should,
it kept coming back with the tide. Once it came so close that the
President had to notice it. Then all he did was to turn it over,
campaign side down, with the words: "I was able, conscientiously,
to give full assent to this platform and to develop its purpose
in campaign speeches. A campaign, however, is apt to partake so
much of the character of a debate and the discussion of individual
points that the deeper and more permanent philosophy of the whole
plan (where one exists) is often lost."

that the platform sank.

so the first problem was solved. The seat of government was captured
by ballot, according to law.


Looking forward to comments.

The entire text can be found at:




Login or Register to post comments