A Radical in the White House

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html?

 

A Radical in the White House

By BOB HERBERT

 

Published: April 18, 2005

 

Last week - April 12, to be exact - was the 60th anniversary of the

death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. " I have a terrific headache, " he

said, before collapsing at the Little White House in Warm Springs, Ga.

He died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on the 83rd day of his fourth

term as president. His hold on the nation was such that most

Americans, stunned by the announcement of his death that spring

afternoon, reacted as though they had lost a close relative.

 

That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of

time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the

egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was " to make a

country in which no one is left out. " That kind of thinking has long

since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age

of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of

big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

 

To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the

politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he

delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944. He was already in

declining health and, suffering from a cold, he gave the speech over

the radio in the form of a fireside chat.

 

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two

fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized

immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the

future of the United States. It was the clearest statement I've ever

seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years

between the end of World War II and now. Roosevelt referred to his

proposals in that speech as " a second Bill of Rights under which a new

basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless

of station, race or creed. "

 

Among these rights, he said, are:

 

" The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops

or farms or mines of the nation.

 

" The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and

recreation.

 

" The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return

which will give him and his family a decent living.

 

" The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an

atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by

monopolies at home or abroad.

 

" The right of every family to a decent home.

 

" The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and

enjoy good health.

 

" The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,

sickness, accident and unemployment.

 

" The right to a good education. "

 

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years

old. She said, " Wow, I can't believe a president would say that. "

 

Roosevelt's vision gave conservatives in both parties apoplexy in 1944

and it would still drive them crazy today. But the truth is that

during the 1950's and 60's the nation made substantial progress toward

his wonderfully admirable goals, before the momentum of liberal

politics slowed with the war in Vietnam and the election in 1968 of

Richard Nixon.

 

It wouldn't be long before Ronald Reagan was, as the historian Robert

Dallek put it, attacking Medicare as " the advance wave of socialism "

and Dick Cheney, from a seat in Congress, was giving the thumbs down

to Head Start. Mr. Cheney says he has since seen the light on Head

Start. But his real idea of a head start is to throw government money

at people who already have more cash than they know what to do with.

He's one of the leaders of the G.O.P. gang (the members should all

wear masks) that has executed a wholesale transfer of wealth via tax

cuts from working people to the very rich.

 

Roosevelt was far from a perfect president, but he gave hope and a

sense of the possible to a nation in dire need. And he famously warned

against giving in to fear.

 

The nation is now in the hands of leaders who are experts at

exploiting fear, and indifferent to the needs and hopes, even the

suffering, of ordinary people.

 

" The test of our progress, " said Roosevelt, " is not whether we add

more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide

enough for those who have too little. "

 

Sixty years after his death we should be raising a toast to F.D.R. and

his progressive ideas. And we should take that opportunity to ask: How

in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here?

 

E-mail: bobherb