Posted on 09/15/2014 11:42:18 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Your post sounds almost like a book review for Amity Shlaes’ great book “The Forgotten Man”. If you haven’t already read it, you should. It backs up all your points and more.
I saw a documentary on PBS yesterday that talked about the Constitution by actually addressing what’s in the Constitution and laid out the Wickard decision for the absurdity it is. I was floored. Then they trotted out some androgynous drone to explain how regulated water flow in toilets is a public good and shut up, everything’s fine. Then the host talked about how we have no tradition, despite what happens to be written in the Constitution, but the tradition of arguing about what’s traditional. Yet somehow, the side that argues for more centralized power and ignores what’s in the Constitution always wins the argument. We argue nevertheless, which in itself is supposed, I guess, to mean the arguing is meaningful, even though it has no effect on the longterm victory march of one side against tge other. The ultimate argument put forth in this show was: we’re not some third world country with no sewage system, so we must be doing something right, therefore the Constitution works even as we ignore it.
I expect Ken Burke’s work to be more entertaining and as enlightening. However, while the Constitution thing could gloss over grosser abuses in favor of plumbing, I can’t imagine talking about FDR without at least peaking into the depths of earthly evil. Most likely it’ll be brushed aside with a “Hitler’s worse,” and a quick tour of the suffering of women, children, laborers, (non-German) ethnic minorities, and whomever else they selectively care about.
“I can say that because he only EVER does documentaries sanitizing Liberal creeps who have sullied the WH and American culture generally.”
Wasn’t he the one who did a series on The Blues? If so, that one was pretty good. I enjoyed the section with Eastwood on Blues and Boogie Woogie piano.
I think you're thinking of the one he did on Jazz. He also did the series on baseball which was apolitical.
Leftists hate when I bring up the fact that FDR ran racial interment camps. It hurts their brain.
Bookmarked. I need to get that book.
That was a funny documentary. And not racist. It was just funny.
Burns has Z-E-R-O credibility as a historian. He is a liberal political propagandist for the left.
************
Agree. His purpose is to lionize them.
I completely agree with all criticism of Ken Burns. I was enthralled with his doc on the The Dust Bowl... granted it’s big fat old message at the end was that our dear gubmint saved us from ourselves and cured the problem and saved the farmer.
It was still an amazing show... but you have always get ready for his little agenda message at the end, which takes all he was told you in the doc, and gives you the lesson you are supposed to have learned, much as the show “60 minutes” does.
so it’s largely propaganda... I see it for what it is, and refuse to draw his conclusions.
Murrow’s real name was Egbert!
You may be onto something, there, though not the way you put it. We must drop forever this notion of FDR as traitor to his class, or the New Deal being revenge against “the malefactors of greet wealth” and “economic royalists.” FDR’s people were political capitalists. There’s no war between the rich and the socialists. Rich kids are socialists more often than not, probably, at least in “late capitalism,” as they call it.
There were a few gangs controlling things since the parties disallowed any truly anti-Washington policies, except in rogue members, along them Morgan boys and Rockefeller boys. FDR represented gangs outside this mainstream, but not wide-eyed hippies, or anything, just alternative Big Business. Republicans ruled from the Civil War to Wilson, and the decade after Wilson, and appeared to have run things into the ground. But there hadn’t been an anti-Washington party since the 1890s, and the Democrats of ‘32 certainly didn’t fit that bill, despite talk of balancing the budget, repealing prohibition, etc. They were merely another capitalist gang, come to run things their way.
The New Deal amounted to, for lack of a less abused term, fascism. And as communists never tire of reminding us, fascism and Big Business are friends. Wall Street funded the Bolsheviks as well as Hitler, of course, and the only real difference is that the Reds bit back faster on account of their greater insanity. Anyway, the point is the New Deal being an attack on free enterprise and the Republican party in no way makes it an attack on “the rich.” It was the rich, abetted by their egghead airforce and flotillas of the unwashed, attacking the rich. New Dealism was as Big Businessy as the Progressive Movement.
In 1934, 35 & 36 (think it was those 3 years) more than 50% of the Treasury's total revenue intake was from excise taxes. Translation: The Kindly FDR had to screw the poor and then return some of it to them to make himself look good.
Sounds like someone is being a copy cat today. Watch your gold folks!
He is living off the success of Civil War, which was OK and not as blatantly “I Hate America” as everything he has done since.
Or You Tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xJzAYYrX8
Probably one of the funniest "documentaries" out there.
Keyens’ idea and probably others as well at the time was high prices caused prosperity. Not that prosperity caused high prices. The Hoover and FDR bunches really had no idea.
The legacy of lies is endless with the Murrow-Friendly duo. Among them:
The fellow with the New York Times from seventy years ago has the answer. FDR believed and got the public to believe that only he could keep the alliance together for a successful conclusion. He was completely convinced that only he could keep Stalin from making a separate peace with Hitler. FDR was also concerned that someone else would take to long to get to know Chruchill.
It was also FDR who issued an Executive Order authorizing the government to confiscate the property of thousands of Japanese Americans, round them up, and ship them off to “Relocation Camps.” The left never mentions this when they speak about FDR’s “accomplishments” in the area of civil rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.