FDR's major lasting accomplishments that people praise him for were through legislation. Even things like the threat to pack the court would have happened through legislation.
There are some highly visible examples of direct executive action that I hope everyone today sees as authoritarian (japanese internment being the really big one). But FDR's expansion of the executive is the opposite of what Trump is doing. Trump is acting in opposition to the legislation that directs the executive to have its finger in more pies.
The long and the short of it is that FDR did (mostly) well-intentioned things with (mostly) good outcomes that were (mostly) widely distributed. That and winning WW2 secured his place in the historical record. But it was definitely a "move fast and break things" approach. The one that conservatives are still very mad about is gold confiscation, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn is a wild over-interpretation of the law to consolidate Federal power.
A lot of very important American freedoms were secured against the public opinion by court cases. That makes them brittle.
I believe that there is a huge difference between executive authoritarianism and consolidating power within the federal government instead of the states. While this was indeed a huge expansion of federal power through the commerce clause, it expands congress' power, not the president's.
The internment of the Japanese cannot be brushed off. That was a gross violation of power that, if Trump were to do something similar, would tear this country apart. On top of that, one of the side effects of the internment is that it's sowed a deep distrust in the federal government and the Census that continues to harm representation to this day.
They used Census data to round people up. It doesn't get much worse than that.
Of course. It is one of the most evil things the US government has ever done and was driven largely by the executive. I personally think that this is a big enough black mark on FDR's legacy that he shouldn't be held in such high regard by liberals.
But is also undeniable that when liberals praise FDR they are talking about things like new deal legislation which ultimately originated from congress during his presidency, which makes the "well you guys like FDR so why do you hate Trump" argument just miss completely.
> Trump is acting in opposition to the legislation that directs the executive to have its finger in more pies.
is that so true? i don't doubt that in probably 10-20% of the cases this is so, but i would bet that in the vast majority of cases the legislation as written is flexible enough that picking an amount of action that is zero is within the bounds of the law.
i am watching trump carefully for the moment when he turns some dark corners (the abrego garcia case being one) but i am unswayed by the argument that the government reducing its own power is somehow more authoritarian in contrast to an administration that convinced congress to create authority for itself out of whole cloth, which quite clearly goes against the 10th amendment.
I'm unswayed by that argument too, but I don't think it's an accurate characterization of what's happening. A government that arbitrarily withholds funds based on political favoritism is increasing its power, even if aggregate spending goes down because too many people weren't willing to do favors.
We need to acknowledge other authoritarian or authoritarian-lite practices that have gone under the radar for decades, like funding elite colleges (is that political favoritism?), or political influence through NGOs, or even "doing things for the greater good" through unaccountable NGOs like "broadband equity", where there is no explicit charter for the government to do such things.
Why do we need to? It seems to me that many of these efforts to “acknowledge” other controversies in the past are in fact distraction tactics to sneak in controversial premises about the current ones. Funding research grants is absolutely not political favoritism.
> Funding research grants is absolutely not political favoritism.
It's political favoritism in the same way that giving LMH or BA contracts is political favoritism. There's nothing magically "special" about science. And having been there, its just as corrupt, just as wasteful, and generally not in the public interest. It's mostly in the interest of professors that want to fuck around on their pet topics. look up leo paquette and homme hellinga, if you doubt my insider knowledge on this matter (they are just the tip of the iceberg and easily verified in terms of what I've seen). that's not even getting into more touchy subjects like the maze of conflicts of interest in an actually "politics-al" topic like lab leak investigation. whether or not you believe in the lab leak hypothesis you HAVE to acknowledge that the gatekeepers in the investigation are so entangled that it makes good faith truthseeking basically impossible.
> vast majority of cases the legislation as written is flexible enough that picking an amount of action that is zero is within the bounds of the law.
While that may be true; is that actually within the spirit of their respective laws? Passing legislation that directs the executive to do something, but then letting the executive just slow-walk it until it's moot seems counter productive.
if it incentivises congress to be more specific and reduces executive free reign style legislation in the future I'm not too terribly bothered (oh shit do we not want to give the president the authority to change tariffs in an "emergency" without defining the scope of an emergency?? yeah let's pass non stupid laws). there's lots of other stuff in this administration to be critical about.
There are some highly visible examples of direct executive action that I hope everyone today sees as authoritarian (japanese internment being the really big one). But FDR's expansion of the executive is the opposite of what Trump is doing. Trump is acting in opposition to the legislation that directs the executive to have its finger in more pies.