Frankin Delano Roosevelt

Posted by John Crandall Jul 19, 2007

My naming FDR as one of our worst Presidents, is of course, sparking some debate. I feel rather strongly that the government of our country was drastically changed, and not necessarily for the better by FDR and the New Deal. I'll let the economists argue whether mechanized farming and mechanized industry causing mass unemployment of the unskilled (or removing the need for many skills), or the Federal Reserve rather drastically shrinking the money supply, or other factors, or a combination of all of the above was responsible for the Great Depression.

I was taught in school as a youngster that FDR was among our greatest Presidents, and told as much by my Parents and Grandparents, and I used to believe it until I studied the man and the period seriously. I was fresh off a study of the Early Republic and my mind was full of Jeffersonian and Madisonian quotations as well as the words of men like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and I was stricken at how drastically everything that America under FDR did seemed diametrically opposed to the beliefs and reccomendations of the founding period. Not only that, but the warnings as to what would undo the value of our system of government from the founders were often exactly what was being done. Now those are simple enough facts, and can be confirmed by anyone who takes the time to check them, but the usual answer from the modern History Professor is that the world became different and the maxims of the founders no longer held true. I tend to disagree with that point of view on the basis that the whig and republican ideologies of the founding generation were the keys to America's rise to greatness, and that under the current set of beliefs America is in a state of decay and/or decline. The reasons that I believe this are rather simple. America since 1940 has become a strange hybrid social democracy with a few vestiges of the original system to be found here and there. It wasn't just the government structure that changed in the mid-20th Cenury it was the economic system.

The socialist element of a social democracy scares me from my laissez-faire capitalist point of view because it rewards non-producers thus discouraging production which is the direct basis of economic strength. In a totally unregulated free market without what the British call "the dole" these non-producers would be forced to produce something for whatever wage the market would bear. This would automatically set the minimum wage at what an unskilled worker could produce, and the wages of skilled workers would go up from that minimum in a graduated way based on the value of their skills in the market. Under the dole, a semi skilled worker who feels self sufficient enough to not apply to programs he may be technically eligible for is actually producing more, but may be recieving less economic benefit than the unskilled worker who does not work at all. To this worker unemployment is actually a more intelligent choice than employment, and he may discover as much during an ecomonic downturn that puts him out of work. The loss of this production actually reduces the economic strength of the nation while increasing the cost of social programs. Unchecked such a scenario would lead to a spiraling cycle where production on which the government's source of income depends upon is eroded while the burden of its payouts are increased.

I'm trying to make this as clear as possible, FDR and the New Deal didn't just get us out of the Depression (although WWII may be more responsible for that) and change our government's style. They changed the economy from a free market to a subsidized regulated system wherein inequities can easily exist that the free market itself would prevent by its natural mechanisms of supply and demand. Another such inequity is the medical profession. Before 1940 it was not at all unusual for a country doctor or dentist to perform their services on an as needed basis with the understanding that the patient would pay by whatever means they could until the two agreed that the debt was settled. Under such a system there is no need for health insurance, the doctors are more likely to use their skills pro bono in their communities based on observed human needs and a non-mercenary outlook, and prices are locked to what the patients themselves can actually pay. Under the current system the only control on price is what the government and/or insurance companies will pay, doctors are more mercenary, and expect to maintain two or three residences, travel globally, and otherwise enjoy the priviliges of their favored economic staus. The value of the services of the doctor did not change, the laws and regulating forces upon the market in which those skills were employed did change.

After much thought, and for these and many more related reasons, I changed my views on FDR and the New Deal, and I would welcome more discussion of this topic or related topics although it is far ahead chonologically of where the focus of my articles is at this point.