WI: FDR was a fascist

I don't think FDR was a fascist, but he certainly could be ruthless in the exercise of power. Fortunately checks and balances still worked to an extent.
 
I don't think FDR was a fascist, but he certainly could be ruthless in the exercise of power. Fortunately checks and balances still worked to an extent.
Even if not a fascist (which is a very broad term anyway), he certainly was authoritarian and did his best to circumvent checks and balances. If he actually was a fascist, well, the United States has a couple final backups to authoritarian regimes: 2nd Amendment and the States themselves. If push came to shove and states wanted to push the issue, there very well could be civil war over something like that. And that's if the US Army doesn't coup him themselves.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Even if not a fascist (which is a very broad term anyway), he certainly was authoritarian and did his best to circumvent checks and balances. If he actually was a fascist, well, the United States has a couple final backups to authoritarian regimes: 2nd Amendment and the States themselves. If push came to shove and states wanted to push the issue, there very well could be civil war over something like that. And that's if the US Army doesn't coup him themselves.

Those both presume an authoritarian regime that does not enjoy popular support. The post-Depression period could well have seen what Italy and Germany had: fascist regimes that enjoyed significant public support as long as they delivered to the people, or at least made the appearance of delivering.
 
Those both presume an authoritarian regime that does not enjoy popular support. The post-Depression period could well have seen what Italy and Germany had: fascist regimes that enjoyed significant public support as long as they delivered to the people, or at least made the appearance of delivering.
Well, Europe has always had more authoritarian governments and I would argue is more culturally accepting of strongmen, while the United States -despite coming from Europe- developed a much more localized federalist government even when it was under the British. There's a reason that when the United States fought it's first civil war it was a war of secession and not over control of the government.
 
*looks at the Japanese Internment camps and all his non-existent changes to race laws in the US*..hmm....

IMO, you're being too harsh on FDR, he was progressive on racial issues, for his time, but couldn't do much because he couldn't annoy the Southern Democrats too much. As for the Japanese Internment Camps, remember that while he authorized their creation, he also authorized their end.
 
*looks at the Japanese Internment camps and all his non-existent changes to race laws in the US*..hmm....

The fact that there were internment camps in the UK https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6651858.shtml didn't make Churchill a fascist. Civil liberties suffer even in democracies in wartime, but that doesn't mean there is no difference between democracy and fascism. And no presidents, liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, tried seriously to interfere with southern segregation for many decades. That didn't make them fascists.
 
Fdr wasn't a fascist . Sure he cozied up to people . Everyone did. That's politik . Praising Stalin is not saying let's be communist . That's saying dude we want you on our side - keep thy enemy close .
Fdr new better.. But the strength to fight a world war and fight Stalin . Eh not so much . That man did wonders from a wheel chair.

Hitler was times man of the year.. If your going to judge . Judge in the context of the times. Modern revisionism is whack, he was one of our better presidents and we have had lots of eh in our history.

Was Fdr perfect . No.. He made mistakes, he also binded people together . He worked to better things. Th united states has Been since its founding a dual standard screwed up place.

But to slander and even think Fdr was or could be fascist is wrong. Nationalist yes . Fascist . No . Though honestly it I could see a fascist USA fairly easily during those times if yiu had the right cocktail of people.
 
With a huge Democratic majority in Congress he couldn't get approval of a questionable but perfectly constitutional court-packing plan, nor could his attempt at a "purge" of the Democratic party succeed (in this case "purge" simply meant campaigning against his political opponents within the party, hardly a Night of the Long Knives or Yezhovshchina), nor could he get his 1937 executive reorganization plans through Congress. That shows how hard it was to get America to accept even modest changes from traditional political restraints on the presidency, let alone fascism.

Note that in 1936 he didn't even dare to campaign against the Supreme Court, because he knew that to do so would draw accusations of authoritarianism. And when he did propose court-packing, he at first felt it expedient to pretend that it was just a way to help an aging Court keep up with its work. Later he did shift to (unsuccessful) attacks on the Court's positions, but only on economic, not civil liberties issues; indeed, the justices he appointed were generally more civil libertarian than those they replaced.
 
Yeah, how could the President who dramatically expanded executive power, was the first President to seek more than two terms, attempted to pack the Supreme Court to circumvent the other two branches of government, and put an entire ethnic group of Americans in concentration camps, and praised tyrants like Mussolini and Stalin and was praised by them in turn ever be looked upon as a fascist.

There is a reason one of the first things that was rushed through after his death was restricting the Presidency to two terms by law.

Look what's on back of Mercury Dime
1943-mercury-dime-value-67-1394551384.jpg

Got changed after his death, so people wouldn't make the connection:cool:
 
Look what's on back of Mercury Dime
1943-mercury-dime-value-67-1394551384.jpg

Got changed after his death, so people wouldn't make the connection:cool:

"A direct quote from the designer: “I selected the fasces and olive branch to symbolize the strength which lies in unity, while the battle axe stands for preparedness to defend the Union. The branch of olive is symbolical of our love of Peace.” This is a fitting quote for a coin struck first in 1916 in the midst of World War I and years before Mussolini adopted the ancient Roman symbol to represent his fascist Italian government."
https://www.numismaticnews.net/article/fasces-on-the-dime-made-sense-at-time
 
"A direct quote from the designer: “I selected the fasces and olive branch to symbolize the strength which lies in unity, while the battle axe stands for preparedness to defend the Union. The branch of olive is symbolical of our love of Peace.” This is a fitting quote for a coin struck first in 1916 in the midst of World War I and years before Mussolini adopted the ancient Roman symbol to represent his fascist Italian government."
https://www.numismaticnews.net/article/fasces-on-the-dime-made-sense-at-time

I know;)

The Fasces, while not common, used from the Civil War till WWII
hqdefault.jpg
3644117092_ed433150c8_b.jpg

Till the Moose ruined that link to the old Republic for everybody
 
Some people seem to think that the admittedly ill-advised court-packing plan was unique--and uniquely reprehensible, showing authoritarian if not "fascist" tendencies on FDR's part. I would advise them to read J. R. Saylor, Court Packing Prior to FDR, 20 Baylor L.
Rev. 147 (1968)https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4566883/JR-Saylor-Court-Packing-Prior-to-FDR-1968.pdf on prior presidents' battles with the Court. E.g.,:

"Primarily because of the Federalist composition of the Supreme Court, Jefferson repeatedly defied and flaunted the Supreme Court. In the treason trial of Aaron Burr, for example, when Marshall sent Jefferson a subpoena to produce certain documents, he not
only refused, but sent word to Marshall that unless he acted with circumspection he would move to oust him from office. Jefferson followed up this threat by sponsoring a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of federal judges to ten years and making them
removable by the President upon the adoption of a resolution approved by two-thirds vote of the House and Senate.3'

"In a desperate attempt to "unpack" the Court, Jefferson employed the clumsy and dangerous expedient of judicial impeachment in order that an "executive-legislative oligarchy" might be eventually realized. 32 Justice Samuel Chase was the chosen victim.
He was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Court by President Washington in 1796. He was a man of brilliant intellect and had several important opinions to his credit. His rigid enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Laws embittered the Jeffersonians
toward him. 33 Justice Chase was impeached in 1805 by the House on charges of "oppressive conduct" in trials under the Sedition Act for browbeating a jury into a false verdict, and for uttering from the Bench "an intemperate and inflammatory political harangue. ' 34 Since the Constitution provides for removal from office of all civil officers only on "impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, '5 3 the Senate had no real grounds for impeachment and Chase was cleared.

"The real objective of Jefferson and his followers struck deeper than their desire to rid the Court of Chase. The Jeffersonians hoped to nullify the existing interpretation of the Constitution through the removal of a majority of the justices and filling such vacancies with men who would be pliable and subservient to their will. If Chase had been removed, it would have been merely a means to an end.37 One of the causes for the proposed Northern Confederation in 1814 was the alarm and disgust of the New England Federalists
at Mr. Jefferson's anti-judiciary doctrines and measures.38 The Federalists claimed that Jefferson was seeking an "unchecked, arbitrary, Executive power," and a weakened Judiciary would undermine "one of the fundaments of the Constitution." The Federalists claimed that Jefferson was tampering with the independence of the Judiciary which was "the sheet-anchor of republican freedom."'39

That changing the number of Justices for political purposes was hardly unprecedented was shown in an article Saylor cites: "Remodeling the Supreme Court: The Record Since 1789," United States News, May 17, 1937, p. 6. "This article surveys the altering personnel of the Court as follows: (1) The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a Supreme Court consisting of a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. (2) The Circuit Court Act of 1801 reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices to five, relieved them of the duty
of sitting in the Federal Circuit Courts, and established six new Circuit Courts with sixteen separate judges (The Jeffersonian administration did not permit this reduction to go into effect, however). (3) In 1802 the Jeffersonian party repealed the Act of 1801 and reestablished the original number of six Supreme Court Justices. (4) The Congress increased the Court from six to seven in 1807 along with the creation of a new judicial circuit, embracing the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. (5) In 1837, with the creation of two new circuits in the West and Southwest, during Jackson's administration, the number on the Court was increased to nine. (6) In 1863 Congress provided for the appointment of an additional Associate Justice, raising the total number to ten. (7) In July,
1866, Congress passed a law that President Andrew Johnson should fill no vacancies that might occur on the Court till its personnel had been reduced to eight members. It reached that number a year later with the death of Justice Wayne. (8) In 1869, during Grant's administration, Congress raised the number of Supreme Court Justices to nine. It has remained fixed at that number from then until now."
 
Top