--- On Mon, 8/17/09, farmelantj at juno.com <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
> I am reminded that in the weeks just prior
> to Obama taking office, the news media
> were running stories comparing Obama
> to FDR. But one major difference between
> the conditions that existed when FDR took
> office from those that greeted Obama, was
> that the US was facing civil unrest by
> the time that Roosevelt was sworn into
> office versus the relative quiet that
> greeted Obama. Hence, the differences
> in the actions that the two presidents
> took in their first months in office.
>
[WS:] I do not think that threat of civil unrest was that great, certainly not greater than 1920-21 coal wars - which was a serious armed insurrection in a vital energy sector that could have serious repercussions for the entire economy. Yet the coal wars brought no reforms and the rebellion was crushed by force.
It is likely that the government and its corporate bosses took the same course of action had civil unrest erupted during the Great Depression. Quite frankly, however, I think that the possibility of such an unrest that would rival or surpass the coal wars was rather remote. Coal miners were far more militant and better organized than the general population.
The reason FDR embarked on a _limited_ reform program was that there were other reform attempts at the state level. FDR administration understood that they must do something but they wanted to do as little as possible to avoid upsetting the entrenched business interests and Southern politicians. That is why they opted for a _contributory_ old age insurance (aka social security) as opposed to government aid to the elderly (which existed in many states) and why they chose not to go for a national health care plan.
Social security was marketed as an insurance plan rather than government assistance, and it did not compete with private insurance plans as few such plans existed. It competed mainly with state aid to the elderly. OTOH, medical care was already provided for a profit by doctors and insurers, and AMA staunchly opposed any government "interference." Consequently, national health care would undermine the entrenched business interests, and the FDR administration chose not to pursue it, despite pressures from below (unions, etc.)
To sum it up, FDR enacted reforms not because of pressure from below but to preempt more radical ones, and limited those reforms only to the areas that did not have entrenched business interests. With that in mind it is clear than any reform in the US that upsets entrenched business interests is not possible, save for a revolution which does not seem likely.
Wojtek