Here’s an absolutely horrifying video of President Franklin Roosevelt promoting a “Second Bill of Rights” based on coercive redistribution.
At first, I was going to post it and contrast it with this superb Reagan video and compare how one President’s policies kept America mired in a depression while the other implemented policies that triggered an American renaissance.
But there’s a much more important question, one that also applies to modern leftists. Do they actually believe this nonsense?
In other words, are people who push for bad policy misguided or malicious?
In the case of FDR, did he really think that the government could guarantee “rights” to jobs, recreation, housing, good health, and security?
If so, he was horribly misguided and blindly ignorant to the realities of economics.
But if he didn’t believe that government magically could provide all these things, then would it be fair to say he was maliciously lying in order to delude people and get their votes?
I don’t know Roosevelt’s motives, Like most politicians, he probably listened to both the angel (however misguided) on one shoulder and the devil on the other shoulder.
But if he was listening to the angel and trying to do what he thought was best, at least FDR had an excuse. Communism had not yet collapsed. Socialism had not yet collapsed. And Greek-style redistributionism had not yet collapsed.
So it was possible seventy years ago for a well-intentioned person to believe that government was some sort of perpetual motion machine of prosperity.
I’m not sure there is a similarly charitable interpretation for the motives of modern-day statists.
International Liberty 
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] separation-of-powers system). But unlike other presidents who oversaw big changes (such as LBJ and FDR), Reagan actually pushed through reforms that were good for the […]
[…] There was a president in the United States who wanted to remake society on the basis of “positive rights.” Fortunately, he did not […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] FDR also wanted an “Economic Bill of Rights” that would have created a far-reaching entitlements to other people’s […]
[…] of a giant new package such as Truman’s 21-Point Program (his version of FDR’s horrible visionof an entitlement […]
[…] P.P.S. With regards to economic policy, FDR was an awful president. And he would have been even worse had he succeeded in pushing through his plan for a 100 percent top tax rate and his proposal for a so-called economic bill of rights. […]
[…] P.P.S. With regards to economic policy, FDR was an awful president. And he would have been even worse had he succeeded in pushing through his plan for a 100 percent top tax rate and his proposal for a so-called economic bill of rights. […]
[…] of a giant new package such as Truman’s 21-Point Program (his version of FDR’s horrible visionof an entitlement […]
[…] of a giant new package such as Truman’s 21-Point Program (his version of FDR’s horrible visionof an entitlement […]
[…] absence of a giant new package such as Truman’s 21-Point Program (his version of FDR’s horrible vision of an entitlement […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] Last but not least, check out this video to understand more about FDR and his malignant views. […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] in part because his policies deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But also because he pushed the idea that people have the right to get all sorts of taxpayer-financed […]
[…] FDR also wanted an “Economic Bill of Rights” that would have created a far-reaching entitlements to other people’s […]
[…] one of his speeches, which I first shared back in […]
[…] Deal. In reality, statism deserves the blame. Bad policy by Hoover helped start the Depression and bad policy by FDR helped extend the […]
[…] be thankful that FDR (and then Truman) didn’t succeed in the plan for an “economic bill of rights” that would have radically expanded the power of […]
[…] his proposed “economic bill of rights” would have made a bad situation even worse. He basically said everyone has a right to lots […]
[…] But that’s still not good enough, at least if Sanders is serious in wanting to resurrect FDR’s infamous second Bill of Rights. […]
[…] And it is bizarre. But it’s not new. It’s the crazy idea of “positive liberty” that was the basis of FDR’s so-called economic bill of rights. […]
[…] And it is bizarre. But it’s not new. It’s the crazy idea of “positive liberty” that was the basis of FDR’s so-called economic bill of rights. […]
[…] Since I’ve referenced the Great Depression, I can’t resist reminding people that FDR was so awful that he actually tried to impose a 100 percent tax rate by executive […]
[…] In other words, Thomas Sowell is right and Franklin Roosevelt was wrong. […]
[…] In other words, Thomas Sowell is right and Franklin Roosevelt was wrong. […]
[…] I guess their idea of freedom means freedom to loot, which is sometimes called – rather perversely – positive liberty. But I shouldn’t laugh too hard because the United States actually had a president with the same twisted mindset. […]
[…] 25 percent to 63 percent!), spending, protectionism, regulation, and intervention. Roosevelt then doubled down on almost all of those bad policies, with further tax rate increases (up to 79 percent, and he even pushed for a 100 percent tax rate […]
[…] President Franklin Roosevelt actually tried to impose a 100 percent tax rate (and that’s not even the worst thing he […]
[…] President Franklin Roosevelt actually tried to impose a 100 percent tax rate (and that’s not even the worst thing he […]
[…] worth, he wasn’t nearly as bad as Nixon. And if I do this same exercise for LBJ, Hoover, and FDR, I expect Obama won’t be as bad as them, […]
[…] Before Bernie, there was FDR, who was also misguided or malicious about the supposed right to other people’s […]
[…] Franklin Roosevelt, who doubled the size of the federal government and wanted radical collectivism. Or Lyndon Johnson, the big spender who gave us Medicare and […]
[…] and the federal reserve. Or Franklin Roosevelt, who doubled the size of the federal government and wanted radical collectivism. Or Lyndon Johnson, the big spender who gave us Medicare and […]
[…] we’re going to look at a new example of FDR’s destructive statism. Something so malicious that he may actually beat Wilson for the prize of being America’s […]
[…] that President Roosevelt was either malicious or ignorant, and given that his policies lengthened and deepened the Great Depression, I’m not exactly […]
[…] Oh, and by the way, the Great Depression wasn’t caused by deregulated markets. The real blame belongs to all the policy mistakes made by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. […]
[…] Oh, and by the way, the Great Depression wasn’t caused by deregulated markets. The real blame belongs to all the policy mistakes made by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. […]
[…] And if you want more information about FDR’s terrible “bill of rights,” click here. […]
[…] we should ask the same policy about her that we asked about FDR: Is she misguided or […]
[…] Wilson almost surely belongs on that list, but it would be tough to narrow down the list because FDR, Obama, Hoover, Carter, and Nixon would provide strong […]
[…] Wilson almost surely belongs on that list, but it would be tough to narrow down the list because FDR, Obama, Hoover, Carter, and Nixon would provide strong […]
[…] mentioned in Ms. vanden Heuvel’s column, today’s effort to redefine freedom is similar to the so-called economic bill of rights peddled in the 1940s by […]
[…] in Ms. vanden Heuvel’s column, today’s effort to redefine freedom is similar to the so-called economic bill of rights peddled in the 1940s by […]
[…] in Ms. vanden Heuvel’s column, today’s effort to redefine freedom is similar to the so-called economic bill of rights peddled in the 1940s by […]
[…] If you want to see an economically illiterate President in action, watch this video and you’ll understand why I think Obama will never be as bad as […]
[…] That certainly was the core message of FDR’s so-called second bill of rights. […]
[…] That certainly was the core message of FDR’s so-called second bill of rights. […]
[…] applause, to be sure. Roosevelt, after all, pursued awful policies that And, as you can see from this video, the “economic bill of rights” that he wanted after WWII was downright […]
[…] applause, to be sure. Roosevelt, after all, pursued awful policies that And, as you can see from this video, the “economic bill of rights” that he wanted after WWII was downright […]
[…] policies that lengthened and deepened the economic misery of the 1930s. And, as you can see from this video, the “economic bill of rights” that he wanted after WWII was downright […]
[…] of Agriculture. And it’s yet another piece of evidence that FDR was either incompetent of malicious on economic […]
Please unsubscribe me.
[…] P.P.S. I still think Margaret Thatcher has the best explanation of why the left is wrong on inequality. And if you want to see a truly disturbing video of a politician with a different perspective, click here. […]
FDR’s response to the Depression was “Do something. Anything. And if that doesn’t work, do something else.”
He obviously didn’t think about the consequences.
The fool.
[…] This means that you have a “right” to things that the government will give you (as explained here by America’s second-worst President). Which means, of course, that the government has an […]
[…] my opinion, Reagan and Coolidge are among the best (with an honorable mention for Bill Clinton) and FDR, Nixon, Wilson, and Hoover are near the […]
[…] Sort of reminds me of the cartoon at the bottom of this post. But not exactly. I think FDR actually was further to the left than Obama. If you don’t believe me, just listen to Roosevelt in his own words. […]
[…] But what about ordinary leftists? Why do they support statist policies. My own personal guess is that they think good intentions make them good people, and they naively assume that spending other people’s money is a way of solving problems (which is the most charitable interpretation of FDR’s policies). […]
[…] Last but not least, check out this video to understand more about FDR and his malignant views. […]
[…] Last but not least, check out this video to understand more about FDR and his malignant views. […]
[…] P.S. If Sunstein’s name sounds familiar, it may be because I have criticized him for endorsing more redistribution based on FDR’s awful Economic Bill of Rights. […]
[…] But that doesn’t mean Obama doesn’t want to be as bad as FDR. Indeed, one of his top advisers seems very happy that the President’s second inaugural address was reminiscent of Roosevelt’s so-called Second Bill of Rights. […]
[…] Obama has never proposed anything as crazy as FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights.” As I pointed out in my article, this “would have created a massive entitlement state—putting […]
[…] Obama has never proposed anything as crazy as FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights.” As I pointed out in my article, this “would have created a massive entitlement […]
It sounds a LOT like the 1936 Soviet constitution.
[…] Last but not least, check out this video to understand more about FDR and his malignant views. […]
[…] the freedom of other people. Not that the United States is immune to such nonsense. Here’s a horrifying video showing President Franklin Roosevelt discussing various “rights” to jobs, housing, healthcare, and […]
[…] leftists who legitimately want to make the world a better place (as opposed to the union thugs, political hacks, grievance mongers, and others who use statism as a racket to achieve wealth and […]
[…] But what about ordinary leftists? Why do they support statist policies. My own personal guess is that they think good intentions make them good people, and they naively assume that spending other people’s money is a way of solving problems (which is the most charitable interpretation of FDR’s policies). […]
Damn good start on the dis-establishment of the socialist movement in this country. Hell yes FDR knew about the loss of freedom inherent in socialism and he cared only that he maintained his hold on the Presidency !! He fired his VP, a dedicated Communist/Socialist named Henry Wallace in fear that he (FDR) would lose the election with such a running mate. Harry S. Truman was the chosen one, and thank God he was so far out of the ruling circle !! Go to the history books and find out for yourself about the corruption of the 30’s !!!!
From Alex Khan’s History Revised chapter leads:
“Post Civil War America awash in fortified spirits, discounted as corrupt and decadent. Belgians demonstrate Europeans will not stop casual policy killing of natives in the Congo. Germans commit genocide in South West Africa. Ottomons commit copy genocide against Armenians. Austria builds Eurasia conquest data base for unlimited expansion. Kiel Canal establishes German military-industrial might. Panama Canal places Germany in a use-it-or-lose-it position. Germany loses WWI because of U S Entry and tanks, but converts Russia to Soviet. Germany inflates currency to reduce effect of Reparations. Inflation triggers expectations of great paper returns on interest and leveraging. Stock market bubble collapses and weakens Democracies. Germany trains army in Soviet Ukraine. Meanwhile, test for drugs in alcohol, and plant purity bonded by tax stamps. FDR elected to change social priorities. Huge engine of u.s. Federal projects converted into an arsenal for Democracies. When war breaks out in Europe, u.s., seeing colonies in Asia suddenly vulnerable, and opposing war in China after nanking massacre, embargoes oil and metal to Japan’s war machine. Stalin separates arms from troops to move Soviet Army to attack Germany. Small German units quickly capture large Soviet forces. Stalin recalled by Politburo, then re-instated. Japan decides to seize Indonesian oil fields, calculates Britain will lose war, calculates that the U. S. Can be disuaded from far Pacific War without a Pacific Fleet. U.S. Atlantic fleet committed to protecting Britain’s supply. Japan needs quinine to protect army from malaria. So it must seize Phillipines. Japan needs to protect its propaganda line “liberating Asia from Europe”, so it must attack before january 1, 1942, unless u.s. sells oil, metal again. U.S. Admiral decides planes are more replaceable than pilots, and pulls carriers out of Pearl Harbor to a landing strip island to the South. Pearl Harbor, U. S. enters WWII, war is won by -“volunteers in occupied lands who perform spontaneous acts of courage”- opinion of Winston Churchill and William Stephenson concerning what was the most deciding element of the war. Pent up pay during war ration period plus war time expansion create pent-up demand and ready made supply to refuel a market system in the U.S., now larger than government injection.”
[…] to Cato’s Dan Mitchell for pointing to the FDR video.) LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); […]
To further elaborate, I have no loyalty to government. I’d prefer less government actually, because most criticisms of it are accurate. I have loyalty to what I believe works. But the fact remains, without government subsidies, particularly in education, people who aren’t born with advantages have very little chance for success.
Also, there are many circumstances where the profit motive causes incentives to not line up correctly. For most things, the profit motive is ideal. But for education, a privatized school system, the for-profit school makes money from the kid attending, not from actually educating him. So for that school, the main goal is to get as many kids to attend as possible.
For a privatized food-inspection service, the company makes more money the more ‘A’ grade meat it certifies, so the incentive becomes let as many meats through the process as possible, not to actually provide good inspections. Yes, there could be competition to keep them in check, but eventually the incentive would be to collude or monopolize. And then there’s no government to break them up.
I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that libertarians believe in ‘natural rights.’ The truth is, there are no natural rights or natural laws. Natural law is no law. The libertarian state of protection of life and property rights is very far from natural law. Life, liberty, and property are man made rights. Sometimes the rights of people infringe on the rights of other people. It is up to societies to decide what rights will be, and there is no easy simple answer.
As a former libertarian who is now a liberal, here is truth in my view.
There is no ideology that works ‘better.’ The goals of the left and right are different. Obviously some politicians are corrupt, but that is separate from their ideologies.
The left wing ideology fully admits that their policies sacrifice economic efficiency in the name of opportunity for those at the bottom. Right wing ideology places economic efficiency as the most important thing. Plain and simple. Neither is ‘malicious,’ because the goal is different.
For those of you that believe that all left wingers are just self interested and looking for power, I can tell you that that is not true. My left wingerism comes from a genuine desire for everyone in this world to have the same opportunities.
He even looked a bit angry. Either he strongly believed in what he said or he strongly wanted it to be implemented.
People who are pro-socialism or pro-big government, do not put their focus on HOW things will be implemented but just what they want get done with respect to their good ‘ideals’.
For politicians, apart from their misguided beliefs, votes are very important too. So he must have listened to to both the misguided angel and the devil on his shoulder.
Sounds a lot like Jesse Jackson on the floor of the House a while ago. All these positive rights just scare me. Truly, socialism shares misery equally, and that’s all.
Malicious, of course. Were it otherwise, and the socialistic paradigm really so desireable and enviable, it would be easy enough for them to merely hop over to one of the places where this travesty of a style of government were already full throttle. But those places only allow the new inductees in on the worker/troll level. And that would still allow the folks here to be rocking along being happy capitalists.
Neither of these outcomes are what is being sought by the socialists here. They have no desire for socialism that does not involve them being on the top. And they certainly couldn’t enjoy themselves leaving this country to run so well on its own as it was under the original Constitution.
Dogs in the manger.
It sure might have been nice if prosperity were created by some Deus Ex Machina. However, in the physical world, as we know it, human prosperity equals exactly the goods and services that humans themselves produce.
Therefore, the best way to ensure unemployment, poor health and poverty for the mid-long term is to make granting those very “rights” mandatory, regardless of one’s productivity. Communism showed the end result of a flat effort reward curve very clearly. Today, for those who already see it, Europe’s current rapid decline (It’s not only Greece, it’s the core of Europe too who has an existential competitiveness problem) provides the same lesson. Already past the event horizon, America will soon follow.
At the time FDR made these preposterous claims, along with some related policies, America’s differential of individual freedom from the rest of the world was still truly vast. Not so today. The three billion people in the emerging world, which the West once left in the ditch for dead, have woken up and under their even if limited newly acquired economic freedom are now capable of serious competition with the West. Meanwhile, in the West, the challenge is being met by relying on Useful Idiots to implement the very same philosophies of mandatory collectivism that once kept the emerging world in economic oblivion. As the West declines, convergence will come soon – much sooner than Americans think.
I think it’s both, actually. It just happens that one dovetails nicely with the other.
In all forms of deception I personally believe that it is possible for many people to be deluded and actually mean well. But I think the people at the top know exactly what they are doing. Statism is sort of like a cult religion…but does anyone believe that L. Ron Hubbard actually believes in Dianetics? Or that Kevin Trudeau really believes his own lies? I think not. Even with FDR there was enough evidence at the time even without the collapse of the Soviet Union for him to know what he was doing. The people who create the lies generally know they are lies. They may deceive a lot of people, but they don’t deceive themselves unless we are to assume that they are also as feeble minded as their followers. This is very unlikely. Feeble minds do not acquire so much power.
In one of my own recent blog posts I spoke from a natural assumption that the left and Obama were opperate from a “misguided” base and the fact that they actually could be that ignorant and believe in their own nonsense. It wasn’t until someone made a comment to my post that even opened my eyes to the possibility that their agenda is coersive and malicious in manner. For some reason I automatically believe in the inherent goodness of others. But with this administration, I am now, with my rose colored glasses properly removed, becoming more and more convinced there is quite the devious agenda behind every step this administration takes. And can I just say, it’s scares me to death.
I am inclined to believe that it was vote-buying pure and simple.
Politicians rarely view the wealth created by others as anything other than loot to be plundered. Why would FDR be any different?