Roosevelt, Obama, and the dark days

By
Elíades Acosta Matos                                                     Read Spanish Version

The
election of Barack Obama as President of the United States amidst a
global crisis of an indeterminate extent and duration has had several
consequences, among them an increased interest in his predecessors,
especially those who led the nation in turbulent times.

These
days, there is a veritable revival in the biographical and political
studies about figures like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
and John F. Kennedy. Their speeches are reread, the measures they
took to get out of difficult situations and face challenges are
studied, and their lives are scrutinized minute by minute. What
journalists and academicians, biographers and sociologists do today
is what the members of the College of Augurs did in ancient Rome:
read the signs of the times to attempt to predict the future and, if
possible, cast influence upon it.

Both
the supporters and the critics of Obama appeal to the past to attempt
to unravel the skein of the present and see through the fog of the
future, which looks especially unclear in these days. With good
reason. Other than study the lessons of history, men have no other
reliable tools to guide them when certainty fades, institutions that
were considered to be eternal crumble, and deep structural flaws are
found in a system believed to be perfect and immutable.

Amid
the avalanche of these analyses, a stream of comparative studies has
emerged (with justifiable force and persistence) about Obama and
Roosevelt, especially about the times of crisis in which both were
called upon to guide the destiny of the nation. It is not a forced
comparison, except that, on the basis of its extent and magnitude,
the current crisis has no equivalent in the past, not even the big
Crash of ’29.

I
recommend the study of the inauguration speeches of Roosevelt’s two
terms, the first on March 4, 1933, the second on Jan. 20, 1937. Of
course, this exercise would not be complete without comparing these
speeches closely with Obama’s inaugural speech. I am sure that
whoever does this will be astounded by the almost-millimetric
coincidences between the terms and concepts used in historical
moments separated by more than 70 years. It cannot be otherwise. We
are looking at a recurrent phenomenon, a disease that every so often
devastates the body social of capitalism and forces us to refer to it
with practically the same words.

Roosevelt
came from an aristocratic family. One of his ancestors, Philippe de
la Noy, arrived in Plymouth on the ship Fortune, which followed the
Mayflower. Educated at Harvard, he was Assistant Secretary of the
Navy at the age of 31, Governor of New York State in 1928, and, five
years later, President of the United States. A recent biography by H.
W. Brands, published by Doubleday, summarizes in its title the
appraisal by some political sectors about his life and two
presidential terms: "Traitor
to His Class: the Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt."
A review of the book, published in The Economist on Oct. 30, 2008,
describes Roosevelt as "the man who saved this country and the
world."

Roosevelt
described the 1933 crisis thus:

"Values
have shrunk to fantastic levels … government of all kinds is faced
by serious curtailment of income … government of all kinds is faced
by serious curtailment of income … a host of unemployed citizens
face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil
with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark
realities of the moment." (1)

This
is how Obama characterized the state of the nation he found in 2009,
when he assumed the presidency:

"That
we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is
at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our
economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and
irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure
to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have
been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too
costly; our schools fail too many … Less measurable but no less
profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear
that America’s decline is inevitable …" (2)

Both
Roosevelt and Obama pointed out that the loss of the nation’s
essential values and the lack of a human ideal of society, based on
work and individual and collective responsibility were decisive for
the decline and the collapse.

"Happiness
lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of
achievement, in the thrill of creative effort," Roosevelt said.
"These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost us if
they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but
to minister to ourselves, to our fellow men." (3)

"The
question before us [is not] whether the market is a force for good or
ill," Obama said. "This crisis has reminded us that without
a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control and that a nation
cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. … For as
much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and
determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.
… But those values upon which our success depends … have been the
quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then
is a return to these truths." (4)

I
am not sure that crises of this magnitude and extent, which recur
cyclically in capitalism, depend more on the values than on the
manner in which the economy is organized and begets the interests
that end up destroying it, through an adventurous and suicidal search
for swift and growing profits, at any price. But there is no mistake
in the call of both statesmen for a reconstruction of the country’s
moral fiber, for a reformulation of the ideals and life projects of
its citizens. At least in this sphere, the nation’s government can
retain some persuasive ability, precisely the authority it has
traditionally lacked to confront the voracious monopolies and
financial speculators.

The
scholars are not the only ones who have noticed the coincidences
between these eras and leaders. On March 11, in an address delivered
after receiving the annual Irving Kristol Award, presented by the
neoconservative emporium called the American Enterprise Institute,
Charles Murray lit into what he called "the European or
social-democratic model" (5) that the present U.S. leaders are
following to palliate the crisis. He called it a "fundamentally
flawed" model, foreign to the nation’s traditions, especially
for its attempts to somehow regulate the market and the economy. And
to attack this anticrisis focus — which, as noted, goes back a long
time — Mr. Murray also appealed to values.

Roosevelt
is history. Obama is beginning to be history. And while the crisis
extends to the rest of the planet, I imagine that some
neoconservative biographer is already dialing H. W. Brands’ telephone
to discuss the panoply of available criticism to disqualify these
bothersome statesmen who dared to restrict, at least symbolically,
the unleashed forces of the system.

It
matters little that the hurricane is coming, threatening to sweep
away everything.

Writer
Elíades Acosta, Ph.D., was chief of the Culture Department of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba.

Notes:

1)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933.
http://www.bartleby.com

2)
Barack Obama: Inaugural speech, Jan. 20, 2009. http://www.cubacine.cu

3)
Roosevelt: Op. cit.

4)
Obama: Op. cit.

5)
Charles Murray: The Happiness of the People, March 11, 2009.
http://aei.org