Is Obama the next FDR?

Jennifer Burns is Assistant Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

Is Obama the next FDR?

June 29 2009

I’ve noticed an increased interest in the New Deal among my listeners lately. I’m betting it has to do with some pretty interesting parallels that can easily be drawn between Obama and Roosevelt. It’s far too early to tell, but it’s sure fun to think about, and as an historian, I’m always intrigued by these kinds of echos and rhymes. A few points to consider:

The Great Depression was far worse than where we are now, but in both cases, economic crisis blew open a whole range of political possibilities that didn’t exist before. Obama clearly understands and intends to take advantage of the unique historical moment he inhabits.
Debt and leverage lay at the basis of economic problems in the 1930s and today. In response to the Depression, regulators (including my grandfather, who worked for the SEC), designed a whole host of new institutions to manage risk. Over time, these reforms lost their efficacy. Now, the Obama administration must try to build a better mousetrap.

Differences?

Global crisis: We live in an unstable world, but FDR faced a host of dangers unknown to us, including the rise of fascism in Europe, military rule in Japan, revolution in China, and the development of nuclear weapons.

Realignment: historians talk about Roosevelt as the architect not only of the New Deal, but the “New Deal Coalition” – blocks of voters who began to consistently vote Democratic during Roosevelt’s terms in office. Could Obama create a comparable coalition? In his first election, Obama mobilized young voters and African-Americans in record numbers, and flipped several states from red to blue. If he can do it again in 2012, the comparison to FDR will get stronger. But remember that due to term limits, Obama can’t be elected 4 times, as was FDR. That means to truly create a comparable coalition, he’ll have to build the Democratic Party into an organization with political staying power and raise up a generation of successors on the national and state level to emulate his policies and approach.

It’s a tall order, and I don’t know if it could, or even should, be done. Indeed, the Obama presidency is so young, I can’t offer any verdict on it at all. All I know is that Obama is not part of an American political dynasty, and in that respect his ascent to the presidency marks the health of our democracy. Is he perhaps the founder of a new dynasty? Like you, I’ll be waiting to find out.

Comments (5)

|2009-10-19 09:59:44 KeithCu - More similiarities

Another similarity is thinking that we can spend our way out of this crisis. Also, that big government is the solution.

Obama is part of the Chicago machine is which is a political dynasty of sorts. He is also just the face of the 1960s left: it is Pelosi and Reid and a bunch of people who have been in Congress for decades (Waxman, Rangel) who are writing the legislation while Obama smiles and gives campaign speeches.

I recommend you read The Forgotten Man if you haven't. Maybe you will find more connections.

|2009-10-20 22:37:21 Sam - Never heard of Keynes?

Yes, Keith, the thinking is that. on the whole, the New Deal was a very good idea, and taking a similar course of action would be a good thing. Many have tried to revise history and paint Roosevelt as a failure. Whatever. Ask anyone who lived it. And yes, gov't spending should go up in hard times - it's not socialism, it's just Keynesian economics. Read up on that. It's not so easy to know what action to take in a crisis, but doing nothing will accomplish nothing.

|2009-10-20 22:46:59 Kai - Doing nothing is an option

Sam~ I think you're getting this intentionally wrong. No one is trying to paint FDR as a failure, he was quite successful at doing what he intended to do, namely, to make sure he and the Democratic Party held on to power no matter what. However, if you look outside the cabal of Keynesian adherents, economists are discovering that the New Deal may in fact have prolonged the agony. "Ask anyone who lived it" is nice polemics, but since we will never know what different policy choices might have achieved, we cannot really empirically determine how successful FDR really was. Finally, I submit it's a fallacy to say that doing something is always preferable to doing nothing. On the contrary, activism may make matters worse and/or have unintended consequences, while letting the system return to homeostatic stability may result in less disruption.

|2009-11-09 08:00:05 Alan - The government is not the answer.

In short, NO.
In the context of the actions taken address problems, it is obvious approaches of both men are similar as they intended to keep people busy. Be it the New Deal or the stimulus debacle, these expenditures are meant to keep people busy with make-busy work to placate and appease. I know from my grandfather’s recollections, there was a lot of discontent during the depression where many people were attending communist party meetings with the intent of action in that vein. Obama does not have that external threat now. Rather he now faces a threat from millions of Americans who are against his agenda he brought with him to office. Both men are loosely paralleled but by no means comparable. I find it odd Obama has since the election been compare to FDR, Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman. It seems people are desperate to fill a void with something worthy of recognition. To date, this president has been given any number of opportunities to make a name for himself and he has failed. Es...

|2009-11-09 08:01:53 Alan - The government is not the answer. (continued)

Essentially, his legacy is his to establish. It is not for us to try and shoe horn the stature of past leaders into the suit of the current commander-in-chief. It is up to the man himself to grow-up and mature into the character displayed by the men he is weakly compared to.
While circumstances may seem similar, both men are light years apart in character and personal make-up. It is worth noting Roosevelt’s oratories were without the benefit of the teleprompter technology not invented until the 1950’s where 0bama’s speeches are impossible without the aid of a technology to deliver words to the speaker. Roosevelt’s words were delivered from the person himself. The distinction has been made clear in those circumstances where the teleprompter failed or just no used. Obama is trying to cap the legacy of New Deal and Great Society programs which have asserted the government’s presence in citizen’s daily lives. This is an anti-Constitutional idea and one which has been done dishonestly.