Leaving aside the fact that this is yet another installment of It's 1939 And The Next Hitler Is About To Invade Poland silliness, Grassley's historical revisionism is remarkable.

In fact, the United States in 1939 had a foreign policy under FDR, one that was increasingly at odds with Chuck Grassley's Republican Party. After Hitler invaded Poland, Roosevelt urged Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act embargo provisions. They finally got around to it a couple months later, over the objections of isolationist Republicans.

Shortly after, isolationist Republicans also tried to block FDR's Lend Lease Act, which supplied our future allies in the war. Most Republicans nationally were against Lend Lease.

The American position was to help the British but not enter the war. In early February 1941 a Gallup poll revealed that 54 percent of Americans were unqualifiedly in favor of Lend-Lease. A further 15 percent were in favor with qualifications such as: "If it doesn't get us into war," or "If the British can give us some security for what we give them." Only 22 percent were unqualifiedly against the President's proposal. When poll participants were asked their party affiliation, the poll revealed a sharp political divide: 69 percent of Democrats were unqualifiedly in favor of Lend-Lease, whereas only 38 percent of Republicans favored the bill without qualification. A poll spokesperson also noted that, "approximately twice as many Republicans" gave "qualified answers as ... Democrats."

Opposition to the Lend-Lease bill was strongest among isolationist Republicans in Congress, who feared that the measure would be "the longest single step this nation has yet taken toward direct involvement in the war abroad." When the House of Representatives finally took a roll call vote on February 9, 1941, the 260 to 165 vote fell largely along party lines. Democrats voted 238 to 25 in favor and Republicans 24 in favor and 135 against.

More proof Republicans might want to knock off the "It's 1939 - Hitler!" stuff -- they were on the wrong side of that debate.

(h/t Heather)

So I was watching a CNN panel today and the subject up for debate was something along the lines of, "Is Obama shedding constituents? Critics say he's abandoned Wall Street."

My first reaction was, "Wait, critics are saying this? Are you sure that wasn't what his allies said?" But no -- I actually had to listen to a debate over whether Obama was making a huge political mistake by "abandoning" his bestest pals in the world at the megabanks.* You know, the guys whose greed and irresponsibility caused the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

(*Obama hasn't actually "abandoned" the banks in the least, but that's a story for another post.)

And then I thought, "Why the hell are we the only culture in the whole goldurned world where it's seen as a political risk to abandon the people who are responsible for causing widespread economic hardship?" And all this got me thinking about the super-weird "We-Must-Be-Nice-to-Rich-People" doctrine that has run through our national discourse since the 1980s.

You see, there was a time when American politicians could say things such as "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes" (Andrew Jackson) and "Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth" (Teddy Roosevelt) and "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering... They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred" (FDR) and no one thought anything of it. Indeed, as Simon Johnson and James Kwak show in their excellent book 13 Bankers, hating on financial oligarchs is as American as hating on soccer, dating all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

But starting in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan began popularizing Randroid mythology about how rich people were necessarily our betters because they were the only ones capable of "creating wealth" in the economy.

(For some reason, Big Ron forgot to mention they were also capable of creating multi-trillion-dollar housing bubbles, overpriced Pets.com stock certificates and made-to-fail synthetic interest rate swaps that bankrupt entire counties.)

And ever since then, every Democratic president and politician has had to reassure members of our elite media that he's just as capable of kissing rich-guy keisters as the Republicans. If you want a prime example of this dynamic at work, check out this Washington Post piece (via Harper's) that places giant red warning lights over Paul Krugman's views but that quotes some sleazeball Wall Streeter as though he were a perfectly objective analyst. First, his take on Krugman:

When you read Krugman on economics, you need to read him through a filter. He believes that the $787 billion government stimulus approved last year was not enough to really kick-start the economy and that much more is needed. You can correctly read many of his columns -- including this one -- as arguments for more taxpayer-funded stimulus. So just know that.

And now, the equity strategist:

I started with Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak.

My e-mail was short: "Double-dip or slowdown?"

His response was equally abrupt: "Depends on who wins Nov. elections and what taxes get hiked in 2011."

The tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush expire at the end of this year. President Obama has proposed extending those cuts -- except for families that make more than $250,000 a year. If Republicans win Congress in November, it's a good bet that the wealthiest Americans will keep their tax cuts. If the Democrats hold the Hill, it's unlikely.

"Our fragile economy CANNOT handle any tax hikes whatsoever, particularly on capital and the income of those who invest, save and spend the most," Boockvar wrote, meaning those American families that make more than $250,000 a year. The all-caps are his, but the feeling is shared by many.

Now, I'm of the general mindset that it's daft to raise taxes or cut spending in the middle of a severe economic downturn. But at the same time, note Boockvar's emphasis on whose taxes we should really be opposed to raising: "Those who invest, save and spend the most." In other words, people like Peter Boockvar.

I personally find it highly unlikely that if Mr. Boockvar's taxes were to rise back to the level of the 1990s that he'd suddenly lose all will to work and would instead spend his remaining days sipping Purple Drank outside his local 7-11. People like this are generally addicted to making money and they'd sell penny stocks and junk bonds to special needs children if they thought they could get away with it. What Mr. Boockvar would have written if he were being honest was, "I've already put off buying cocaine and pricey call girls enough during this recession and I CANNOT handle any tax hikes whatsoever."

And that's where we are. Despite the fact that our banking oligarchs destroyed the entire financial system and were only saved from homelessness by the United States government, they still must be treated as "special" people who are "the only ones" capable of creating new jobs for the lesser people. It'd be nice if this particularly insidious piece of mythology were to be sent to the ashcan of history, but methinks it's going to take some time...

The truth may set you free, but not if you're a Republican and the subject is taxes. After all, 95% of American families as promised received a tax cut from the Obama stimulus package. And while three-quarters of Americans support President Obama's proposal to roll back the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 to their Clinton-era levels, it turns out that affluent voters, too, chose Barack Obama over John McCain. Making matters worse, a Gallup poll Monday revealed that Americans' "views of income taxes among most positive since 1956."

So as their furious followers head off to their April 15th orgy of tea-bagging, the leadership of the GOP and its amen corner in the right-wing media have instead turned to tall tales on taxes.

Here, then, are 10 Republican Tax Day lies:

1. President Obama will raise taxes on small businesses.
2. The estate tax devastates small businesses and family farms.
3. 40% of Americans pay no taxes.
4. Tax cuts always increase revenue.
5. The GOP is the party of fiscal discipline.
6. Ronald Reagan was the greatest tax cutter of all time.
7. FDR caused the Great Depression, or at least made it worse.
8. Obama's cap-and-trade plan will cost each American family $3,100 a year.
9. Obama's tax proposals will undermine charitable giving.
10. The rich pay too much in taxes already.

For the details behind each of the GOP's Tax Day deceits, continue reading.

Continue reading »

The Hill asked the other 97 sitting US Senators whether or not they would accept the offer to be #2. Richard Shelby's answer was probably the most, shall we say, colorful:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) ruled himself out because of disinterest and said McCain would look elsewhere anyway.

“Besides, there was a famous quote about the vice presidency from Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president,” Shelby said. “You should look that up.”

Shelby was referring to John Nance Garner, who served under Roosevelt from 1933 to 1941 and described the job as “not worth a bucket of warm piss.”

See what your Senator said here.

The Roosevelt Institution:

One year ago, representatives of progressive college students across America came together at the Roosevelt Policy Expo in DC and at the FDR Home in Hyde Park, NY, to discuss the most pressing issues facing our generation.After setting ourselves three challenges, we returned back to our college and university campuses and performed a year's worth of public policy research. We held conferences, conducted public fora, got small groups together for public policy brainstorming sessions, wrote papers and theses, and met with extracurricular groups. As the year came to a close, we selected the best 25 ideas that we wanted to bring to the public policy discussion.

I spent a couple of hours this afternoon reading through TRI's ideas, and I was very impressed. Given that my Reagan era generation focused on making as much personal money and not a lot on how we could make things better for all of us, it's refreshing to see politically engaged and committed young people thinking bigger picture.

What do you think of their ideas?

Arvin Hill: American jurisprudence gone BUCK-wild!  (Although sometimes it’s nice to hear from a Vogon, as opposed to the usual Krikkiters.) 

Joe Bageant, author of Deer Hunting with Jesus, on losers, leftnecks, and trench liberals: “So the party of Roosevelt begins to dimly understand that now is the opportunity to re-associate itself with populism. The problem is that Democratic Party ‘leadership’ has no notion of what populism means.” 

Then again, asks Alternate Brain, how do you get through to the 60-year-old man who told Michael Moore he’d “rather have no insurance than socialized medicine”?  Badtux the Snarky Penguin has one compelling argument. 

Continue reading »

This post by Austin at Jesus General falls very much in line with my question of the conservative fear of The Other from yesterday.

On January 31st, Amanda Marcotte wrote about how conservative pundit Mike Gallagher actually admitted that terrorism would be a good thing for Republican political ambitions:

Seeing Jane Fonda Saturday was enough to make me wish the unthinkable: it will take another terror attack on American soil in order to render these left-leaning crazies irrelevant again. Remember how quiet they were after 9/11? No one dared take them seriously. It was the United States against the terrorist world, just like it should be.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - but I think he might have been wrong. I think that we should also perhaps fear, or at least be very wary of, those in our society who would use our fears for their own political agendas. Mike Gallagher's comments are not an isolated instance of political insanity - similar thoughts have been expressed to varying degrees by a number of conservatives and Republicans over the past few years. There are many who look fondly on the 9/11 attacks because they provided an excuse to push through domestic and international policies they had long advocated, but could not successfully impose on others because there wasn't enough fear in American society to help.

Billmon: Sound Bites

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Inaugural Address
March 4, 1933

"The only thing we have is fear."

George W. Bush
Radio Address
September 30, 2006

Sometimes you just hit the jackpot.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT (hat tip Intoxination)

Alberto: President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale.

Doug Brinkley: Bush's speech in Jackson Square was a phony

Historian Doug Brinkley, appeared on Scarborough Country and hit the President hard over his apparent abandoning of the people and the region that has been decimated by Hurricane Katrina. The residents are fuming down there because the politicians that talked tough after being embarrassed by the initial response have since not followed up to help the region. In order for confidence to return to the area-the levees must be repaired first and foremost.

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

BRINKLEY: It's about leadership.

When you look at presidents, a Theodore Roosevelt or a Harry Truman or a Ronald Reagan, the great American presidents would not let a region die and suffer. They would have seen this as the bell ringing. This would be the moment that would define their presidency, and it is not too late for President Bush to do that. But he gave a very powerful speech in Jackson Square. The blue lights were behind him, and, if you read that speech, it was wonderful.

But the reality is, the speech is—was phony. And we are not getting the funding. We are not getting the federal attention, and I think that it's tragic. And if President Bush wants to ignore New Orleans, then just say so. Let us know. Let us know not to come back, there are never going to be levees built, that we are not going to be—there isn't going to be a massive public works project.

You know, there are people where I'm at, in Houston, that want to work. They are looking to go back to New Orleans. Why not create a WPA, look at the leadership of somebody like Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression? Let's see a little bit of that out of this president.