Speaking of legends instead of facts:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which US President presided over one of the most infamous racially motivated incarcerations of US citizens in the country's history, for which he is ironically lauded by the opposition that hated him then? Which US President willingly sent Soviet dissidents to certain death at the hands of Stalin's death squads? Which US President successfully hid the effects of a major disease with the collaboration of the US Media? Which US President assumed the most wide-ranging power of any POTUS in the country's history, shamelessly breaking one of the oldest precedents, forcing US soldiers to go fight foreign wars against an enemy who really was none of our business in imperialism against a people that appointed an unpleasant megalomaniac, but he was the problem of that part of the world? Which President used a new and insidious means of communication to spread his shameless propaganda into our HOMES? 

Which President was it that shamelessly violated the letter and the spirit of Neutrality Acts passed by the Congress representing the Silent Majority of the American People who weren't in the least bothered by what the aforementioned megalomaniac was doing? Which President yielded to dangerous radicals who exploited without shame a war against that self-same megalomaniacal radical for purely selfish ends? Which US President was it under whom the US government assumed a power that it had never before considered remotely valid, only to extend these immoral and unjust expansions, including (horror of horrors) lifting a dirt-poor mountainous region out of the Stone Age (I kid, but barely) to that most evil and immoral of things, the draft? Under which US President was the HUAC led by a Soviet spy?

The answer is beneath the cut:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Now, this is the problem with pointing out that Reagan of propaganda-bordering-on-myth is not really the Reagan of real life. This is very much a valid point, but the patron saint of the progressive-liberal state did a lot of things that most modern liberals consider among the most immoral aspects of US society, such as acceptable use of strategic bombing, beginning the Manhattan Project, interning Japanese only on the mainland foreknowing that there was nothing but racism in it (as opposed to the Germans and Italians who actually were pro-Nazi), edit he also was POTUS when HUAC took its full form as a standing Congressional Committee, while expanding the US government's political power in ways that while necessary were entirely unprecedented. Similarly he was an undeclared member of the Allied Powers from 1940 which was very much violations of international law then and now.

So, I'm going to ask a simple question: As it's pretty much a given that Reagan, as an actual human being as opposed to a monomanical ideologue did not match his ideology, what does the real record of Franklin Delano Roosevelt mean? Would it be fair to say that he's actually not that much of a Progressive any more than Reagan was a zealous Conservative?

One more thing:

Remember when Reagan was responsible for losing the Cold War?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DD163FF934A25752C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Comments

Re: Reagan vs FDR

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Yes, but as you say, this was in large because of WWII. The man is certainly not beyond any form of criticism, but if we're going to go Jersaycajun's route and dissect the phenomena of blind devotion, I think FDR is a problematic choice, because the whole WWII thing muddles it up. He was pretty popular for a while regardless of party, because large groups of people in the US were united in a very particular way after Pearl Harbor and during the latter parts of the war era.

Re: Reagan vs FDR

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which is a very good point and does refute Jerseycajun's point. It was under FDR where the idea of the untouchable POTUS in wartime first took off.

Re: Reagan vs FDR

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

How does it refute the idea of political devotion being an undesireable and unhealthy thing in general? Is it less dangerous to have one's critical thinking clouded by feelings wounded in the wake of a national tragedy? How does that earn a pass? I'm perfectly willing to accept Reagan is not the patron saint that some segment of conservatives believe him to be, but I don't believe there's any reason Roosevelt should come out smelling any sweeter because he was President when Pearl Harbor happened. Nor do I believe that because 9/11 happened when Bush was president that he gets a pass for the numerous criticisms which have been rightly layed at his feet, and comparing bad-with-bad, one can certainly see a comparable level of it between internment camps and Guantanamo Bay.

Re: Reagan vs FDR

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

But this is the point. There is a particular thing going on in people's view on a president during times where the US has been attacked, so comparing people's views on FDR to Bush is actually relevant, but far more problematic when comparing to a leader that didn't have those particular dynamics in place. There is an element of fear and community that comes into the view, which is different from general idolization.

Re: Reagan vs FDR

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

In Bush's case, it was a much shorter honeymoon. Somehow, people managed to be both outraged over 9/11, and yet critical enough to know a stinker when they saw it.

Re: Reagan vs FDR

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

This is true, but also very logical. Read my answer to you above.

Re: Reagan vs FDR

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's what I'm getting at, starting with FDR and ever since POTUSes get passes on damn near everything they do in wartime. That's a disturbing trait, and it clouds the issue as to whether or not there's real "devotion." And depending on one's view of the Cold War this aspect could be said to cloud the Sadly Mythaken version of the Reagan Administration.