Sunday, April 26, 2009

First 100 Days

Oh, I was trying to resist the first hundred days of Obama presidency, but here I am succumbing to the temptation. I simply cannot help comparing it to FDR’s first days because that’s when the test of the first “100 days” started. The more I think about 1933 versus 2008 the more I am inclined to wonder if we aren’t comparing onions and bananas, as my old algebra professor would say. 2008 ain’t 1933. No way. Having said that, there still might be some lessons to learn.

FDR was elected at a time when the country was in a deep depression. The unemployment rate was around 25 percent. People were going hungry. There was anger and social unrest all across the country. The most important role was played by a strong, well organized left that was able to give direction to the anger and resentment. That meant that very specific demands were made on the Roosevelt administration.

I remember in March of 1930 the Communist Party launched a nation-wide effort of demonstrations demanding jobs, unemployment insurance and home relief. Millions of people across the country joined in those demonstrations. Of course they were not at all communists, but it was the Party that had the organizing skills to get people out into the streets. I would venture a guess that for every actual party member there were a dozen or more people who would support its activities. That was the secret of its strength. This was what FDR was confronted with by the time he took office in ‘33.

When FDR spoke of “nothing to fear but fear itself,” I often thought he was talking about the ruling class as much as anyone else. What was their fear? The Russian Revolution was just 16 years old and believe me it resonated throughout the capitalist world. That was very much part of the “fear” factor. I do believe that was a real spur in moving FDR to act. And act he did. I also believe that, as a result of his experience with polio, FDR developed a real sense of empathy for the victims of the depression.

In the first 100 days FDR submitted 15 pieces of new legislation to the Congress and got them all passed. They included relief for those who needed it most--the Civilian Conservation Corps, Reconstruction Finance Corporation (mortgage relief), Agricultural Adjustment Act relief for farmers, Tennessee Valley Authority and a host of others. Most interesting was the repeal of Prohibition. That got the beer flowing again, created thousands of jobs in the breweries and had us all beer besotted singing “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Newly emerging unions in the mass production industries were all barking at FDR’s heels. No wonder he had to act.

It is easy to simply dismiss any comparison between FDR’s and Obama’s first 100 days. Obama has not sent any new bills to the Congress. He has made some executive changes such as canceling oil leases in Utah and permitting increased stem cell research, gender income equality and pledging to shut Guantanomo. That’s is all fine and good, but does not address some of our most significant underlying problems, namely the millions who have lost their jobs and their homes. Mortgage relief has gone to the banks, not to the homeowners who are losing their homes at an ever increasing rate. Okay so what’s going on here?

An absolutely fundamental difference between then and now was the presence of a powerful left represented by a newly organized dynamic Labor Movement, a strong Communist Party, the Socialist Party, and a large assortment of smaller left organizations all of whom were really putting the pressure on FDR’s White House to act. And they did.

The present political landscape is dramatically different. Not only that the Russian Revolution is far behind us, but the empire it created is gone. There is little or no significant left in the US. Capitalism really has nothing much to fear from the left. It only has to concern itself with its own self destructive activities like selling lousy mortgage derivatives to banks who don’t seem to know what they are buying. Then one day they wake up and find they bought a lot of worthless stuff because the folks who bought those overpriced homes can’t pay for them. The Europeans who lived much closer to that Soviet revolution have learned how to curb the worst abuses of capitalism. They call it Social Democracy. It was those social democratic regulations that the Bush crowd got rid of that caused the collapse of the financial system. Obama wants to try to put it back together again.

Obama has been a great communicator, but so far his administration has not been able to demonstrate any talent for getting things done. That’s the big difference between his administration and FDR’s. Besides all the hell raising in the streets, FDR had a strong cabinet of people who just worked on moving the Congress. Francis Perkins, the first women cabinet member and Secretary of Labor, drafted the legislation and pestered FDR to move on Social Security, which he did. Harry Hopkins, who learned about Home Relief working for FDR as Governor of NY State, pushed the President to send Home Relief legislation to the Congress. Obama has too many old Washington insiders--Summers, Emanuel, Geithner, et al. Not enough new energy there that just says “lets do it” and gets moving.

I do think that the failure to act early will cost Obama support down the road. Why? Because it is giving the right wing opposition time to get themselves reorganized to fight every good idea that the Obama folks might have for Universal Health Care, Job Creation, Social Security, etc. For an old left wing Geezer like me, I do remember the days when the left had a powerful voice in the affairs of the country. Now there is an amorphous gathering out there. I do hope it can get itself into a cohesive organization that can create some real grass roots support for change that benefits the average working person in the country.

PS. A lead story in today’s New York Times tells us that “Bonuses are back on Wall Street.” There was a song we use to sing, “The banks are made of marble. With a guard at every door. The vaults are stuffed with silver. That the workers suffered for.” Some things don’t change. My best RS

Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.

3 comments:

Jane Gibson said...

I am a professor of management at a large private school in Florida who read your book, 10,000 Working Days, as a doctoral student back in the 80s. I was just telling my MBA students about it today as we discussed what makes someone satisfied on-the-job. Your concept of the schmooze factor has remained with me all these years. I googled your name to find out if the book is still available (I think it is) and found your blog--what a pleasure. I get to tell you how much I have always loved your book! I'm going to point my students at your blog so don't be surprised if you hear from some of them.

Jane Gibson
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
jwgibson1@aol.com

JLinn33 said...

Dr. Schrank,

First of all I love your blogs--you truly are an amazing man! I do have a question regarding your book "10,000 Working Days." This was introduced by my professor Dr. Jane Gibson and I immediately wanted to know where to draw the line. Ok here is my dilema:

I have two employees whose office is located very close to mine. Their schmoozing has become a bit ridiculous with 1-2 hours of time together each day. The flip side is that their productivity has not suffered but actually increased. I do not want to me the over controlling manager, however others within the office have commented to me about the time these two employees spend together. Do I move in and address with the two employees, or do I wait until productivity or something else suffers?

Any words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated.

Jeff Linn
Greenville, PA
jelinn@thiel.edu

Robert Schrank said...

Dear J Linn:
Not sure if this is wisdom. I would talk with the two people involved and simply tell them about your concerns. You are not troubled by their lack of productivity but there is a perception in the office that needs to be addressed. Share your concerns with them and ask them to help you in addressing the issue.