Obviously, politicians played a significant role but only after the need of social reforms gained considerable support among professional and technical elites. A fear of Bolshevism spreading to Europe was a significant factor. This is certainly true of Europe and probably of the US, where far more far reaching reforms than those adopted by Roosevelt were proposed.
A similar situation exists today - neoliberalism is considered "common sense" among professional and technical elites and the views of those social strata that are amplified by the media, the academia and pandered to by politicians. I do not know what O's political "principles" (if any) are, but it does not matter. The POTUS is not a dictator but a functionary of a plutocratic state and as such, it must pander to the ideas that the plutocracy espouses. Some politicians do it eagerly, other - grudgingly, but all do it. If the power balance were different, I am pretty sure O or anyone in his shoes would be singing a different song.
It therefore makes more sense to focus on who pays the piper instead of what tune is being played. And it is not enough to point the finger at the 1 percent - as neoliberalism enjoys ample support among large segments of the 99 percent. I find this far more interesting than childish kvetching about the POTUS.
Wojtek
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Keep it in mind that 20th century social protections were not spearheaded
>> by politicians, except perhaps Otto von Bismarck.
>>
>
> LLoyd George
>
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."