Do you think that the 1% and the resources that they represent would allow the election of a president that sought to limit their influence and control?
Is FDR modern? If not then no. I don’t think anyone has really taken on the wealthy and powerful like he has.
There are democratic politicians who are the enemy of the 1%. Eliot Spitzer, Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, etc. but not presidents I can think of.
Democrats have to walk a fine line between pretending to want to bring down the wealthy and well connected, but not actually do it enough to piss off the wealthy and well connected. It could cause a schism in the democratic party similar to what happened in the 50s and 60s with civil rights. Maybe people will get tired of the democratic party only pretending to want to address the plutocracy problem and the democratic coalition will break apart. I think a larger and larger chunk will get tired of platitudes, empty gestures and token reforms.
If it did, I don’t know where disaffected democrats would go though.
No leading politician of either party has been an enemy of the super-rich in my lifetime. (I’m 32.) They’ve done particularly well during Obama’s presidency, however:
What if you extend the question to Republicans and think about Eisenhower? While the big increase happened in World War II the top income tax rate was 91% at the $200,000 bracket during his terms.
And of course Eisenhower is famous for his farewell speech mention on the military-industrial complex:
Johnson was an advocate and proponent of the weak and mistreated, but that isn’t the same as an enemy of the rich and powerful. Johnson stood up for the elderly, poor people, non-whites, etc. but to me that isn’t the same thing as what people like FDR or TR did with attempting to stand up to the rich and powerful.
No president since FDR has really stood up against the wealthy/powerful. I don’t know enough about Truman. I know Eisenhower talked about how the US needed to avoid creating a military industrial complex (which is a form of taking on the powerful interests).
Due to generational differences in attitudes about the role of government being reflected in voting demographics in the near future (tea party types dying of old age and being replaced by millennials who have experienced the worst that plutocracy and capitalism has to offer), maybe in the 2020s+ we will get another FDR. But I have no idea.
Enemy? No…none of them. And none of the other Democrat (or Republican) politicians gushed over in this thread has been an enemy of the ‘1%’. It’s hard to believe that anyone thinks they have, or that they should be. This is the kind of thread where you really see how weird left wingers are to even think this would be a good thing.
It’s also ironic that the OP used the phrase ‘pandering to the masses’, since this sort of class warfare enemy of the 1% horseshit is exactly that…pandering, though in this case it’s pandering to loopy left winger types still wondering what happened to their dreams of world wide socialism and looking back wistfully on the glory days of the old USSR. If only we had politicians with REAL guts to become enemies of the 1% we could be living the Stalin/Lenin/Mao dream…
So, you are basically saying being strongly against the 1%, strongly against corporations, strongly anti communist, strongly pro socialist… all lead to Stalinist type Marxism/leftist policies?
What makes you say that? Or did I misunderstand you?
Being strongly against (or, more accurately advocating for reining in the ‘1%’ or advocating for policies that help other groups) does not equate to being an enemy. Saying otherwise pretty much puts you in the same camp as Mao and Stalin, yes…even though they were more equal opportunity enemies of whoever they decided was in the ‘1%’. Which is pretty much the same thing, since folks seem to conveniently forget the various '1%'ers who are on the same side as most lefties who are talking about this like it’s a war and the other side are the ‘enemy’.
Anyone who is actually ‘anti-capitalist’ is probably not worth talking about and it would be hard for me to believe that such an idiot could get elected in the US. I suppose there are probably some out there, though I’d be astonished if they GOT elected, followed through on their rhetoric and voted that way across the board and in all things. Pandering to the folks who want to hear this stuff, sure…but ACTUALLY being anti-capitalism (depending on what that even means)? No, no modern or ancient US Democrats (or Republicans, or Federalists or Whigs) were that, as far as I know. You’d find that sort of person in one of the US Communist parties or maybe one of the other fringe parties at best…probably wearing one of those billboards and easy to spot as they would be the ones folks walk across the street to avoid.
How would you be an enemy of the 1% and govern effectively, anyway?
I agree that FDR wasn’t an enemy of the 1%, but he wasn’t their tool, either. There’s a wide gap between the two positions. I’d say that most of our presidents have laid somewhere in the middle, and none were the enemy of the power players in the country at the time.
Ah, point taken. I understand and agree, at least for the most part. I was looking to put a short term in the title of the post
Do you have the same judgement for the average citizen. I am strongly anti-capitalist, if that is defined by being anti to the general way of doing things in economics and government policy in the USA (relating to economics). I am very pro socialist as per the European and Canadian model. I think American Capitalism is very exploitative and I don’t like it, at all. (IDK if you ever remember talking to me). I am very biased, I admit. But I am not so biased that I won’t listen to other people. And I even change my mind, occasionally, rare but it does happen.