Barack Obama, the modern Franklin D. Roosevelt?

In March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected President of the United States; he was elected during the Great Depression. In November 4, 2008, Barack Obama was elected as president. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Barack Obama are similar in that they were both chosen as Democratic Party candidates, were elected in times of economic crises, succeeded discredited Republican presidents, and promised to bring relief to the people through new policies.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, as mentioned above, was chosen in 1932 to be the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency. He was elected during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Roosevelt succeeded Herbert Hoover, a Republican president, who had lost popularity with the people, due to his inadequate approach to the depression. Roosevelt won the Democratic presidential candidacy, greatly due to his “New Deal” policy proposition. It appealed to the majority of people who were suffering economically during the depression (Voice 1). His “New Deal,” consisted of providing jobs to the unemployed, restoring prosperity and endorsing federal programs and agencies; and his ability to be convincing in his plan. These restored popular confidence to the people, who were facing bank failures (Brands et al).

Obama was similar to FDR in the following respects: Obama, like FDR, was elected as the Democratic Party Presidential candidate in 2008. He was elected during an economic crisis, and what by many, is called a recession (Mauldin 1). Obama succeeded George W. Bush, a republican president who by the second term had lost popularity due to the Iraqi War, and due to his approach to the economic crisis (CNN 1). Obama’s slogan for his presidential campaign was “Change we can believe in”; he managed to convince people that he had a plan for the future. He never really specified on what he would change, nor what changes the people should’ve expected, but the slogan was still effective (WikiAnswers 1).

One can see how Barack Obama has similarities with Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both presidents were elected during times of economic crisis. These two Democratic presidents succeeded Republican presidents who were not taking direct approaches to aid the economy. Both possessed the ability to persuade masses and convince people to vote for them, because they had plans to improve the economy and relieve the suffering of the people. FDR won people over by promising them a New Deal, a more direct measure to the Great Depression. Obama was elected due to his ability to be convincing in his promise of change for the country. Change that would differ to the last term George W. Bush had offered.

These two presidents, when elected had great problems awaiting them. They had an economic crisis, a country desperate for change and a new agenda, promising immediate relief. Both, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the thirty-second president and Barack Obama, the forty-seventh president of the United States, succeeded an unstable presidency with a fresh start, a new term, and new plans to amend the economy.

_________________
That is not dead which can eternal lie // And with strange aeons even death may die.

hi, are these your school reports?

These two have been assigned by my history teacher. I hope I didn't do too bad.

_________________
That is not dead which can eternal lie // And with strange aeons even death may die.

well I only got a C in history, mainly because my teacher looked like chewbacca and there was a rumour going around that his wife had a wooden-tit.

though I eventually found out that was just a hoax; when i asked him about it.

but yeah, keep them coming.

Great post, Maria. I also saw similar parallels between these two situations/men. I look forward to reading more of your posts and I'll get around to some more in-depth replies when I finish relocating here.

Pleasure to have you on the forum.

_________________

I've thought along the same lines myself, however, the dynamics of the economy that this President faces and obstacles/extreme partisan nature of politics seen today, will likely prevent him from achieving anywhere near the success of FDR.

I do think there is capability there. Its just a huge undertaking and there isn't quite the vast resource available now as there was then.

To be a bit sappy and poetic, those fields and waves of amber grain have went fallow, and tilling the ground anew can't bring back the color we need, as soon as we need it, nor as much.

In my opinion, we are just a crisis or two, maybe three, from whats going on in the Middle East right now. Just think, 30 million adults (thereabouts) are without work, with no real break in the foreseeable future. Now factor the additional numbers of teens, children, and the pressures that presents for families. Plus those unaccounted for. It wouldn't surprise me to think that as much as 40 million+ people are at risk right now. Easily.
A wikipedia reference works here, inasmuch as the figures are all thats pertinent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depr ... ted_States
We've not reached this stage, but it isn't too far.

My Grandfather and Grandmother were born in 1892 and 1910 on my fathers side. Grandfather and Grandmother on my mothers side in 1911 and 1920 on my mothers side, respectively.
My Grandfather's and Grandmother's both, commented there is no telling how many people were killed, killed during the Great Depression by other people who were in dire need of a job, or simply food, and took opportunity when it presented itself. One Grandfather worked in the Civilian Corps, and said there were more than a few times that a new man, unaware of the dangers and too headstrong to heed the warnings of those around him to stay in a semi group, or pal up, would be seen heading off to a stream for a bath or a bit of quiet time. Never to be seen again. The position filled by a man waiting the next morning for work. And no one said a word. For about $30.00 dollars a month, of which around $25.00 was sent home to families.

Just one of many stories/memories of the time they passed along. None of them ever lost that fear or inherent drive of the chance of disaster or possible hard times just around the corner.
Nothing was ever certain to them.

Terrible, if it comes to that.

Comparatively, this President has a much larger task. If he can pull it off, he'll quite likely be seen as one of our greater Presidents, and I'm not one to place much confidence in the notion that a singular person, a President, can bring about that sort of change.

But I do see some glimmers. Some that I've never seen in a President before. And I guess thats what brings to mind FDR. It'd be cool to see that sort of thing occur, and not just read about it, or see it in old documentaries or reels. I've become tired of this particular form of America. And we've not seen hard times.

Yet.

Its interesting to note that President Hoover, was a proponent of, quoting:"the concept that public-private cooperation was the way to achieve high long-term growth. Hoover feared that too much intervention or coercion by the government would destroy individuality and self-reliance, which he considered to be important American values" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Ho ... Depression

Imagine that. Sounds too familiar.

I don't think that there is anything that can destroy a man or womans individuality or self-reliance much more than the inability to provide for their family when, by no fault of their own, can't.
Our previous President didn't seem to worry about that too much. Trickle down? pffft...
A full bucket rarely leaks water to the ground.

This President seems concerned. Seems. But I'm not getting my hopes up, based on the ones I recall.
They probably thought that about FDR too.

my two cents

excuse the long post

_________________
A lie is something that's only valuable to yourself. Truth is valuable to everyone. If the only thing you have to offer is something that is only valuable to you, then people will eventually not seek you out for what you have to offer.