World PoliticsSocial IssuesMilitaryEconomyUS PoliticsActivismGovernment

Economic Growth: The United States (C): Subsection One

Updated on December 12, 2016

FDR: Traitor To His Class?

Today I want to briefly make a political point. This may seem odd, in a series about an economic issue; but that is only because of the modern fallacy that tries to persuade us that politics and economics are separate, discrete spheres of activity. They are not and never have been.

Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt [White House term: 1932-1944] was, of course, the politician that gave the United States the progressive reform program known as the New Deal, in response to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression.

Born of privilege, yet apparently able to feel such compassion for working class folk, FDR was called a "traitor to his class."

I have this idea I'd like to try out on you. It is somewhat experimental. If you will permit me, I will present it now.

Here we go.

You see, I would like to push back, a little bit, on the idea that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was necessarily a "traitor to his class." I am going to argue that he served his class quite faithfully; and that his interventions in the economy were not at all inconsistent with his true class loyalty.

I think it's important that we examine this matter closely. You see, there is a question that dogs the left in America: Why didn't Franklin Roosevelt liberalism have more staying power? What made it mutate into the centrist, pragmatic, "neoliberal/neoconservative" version we got with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

A related question is: What ever happened to the far left in the United States?

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt | Source

The first thing to say about Franklin Delano Roosevelt is that his background was Hyde Park Old Money, as was his cousin President Theodore Roosevelt [White House term: 1901-1909].

Just as nations seek to regulate the in-migration of foreigners into their countries, so too does Old Money seek to regulate the in-migration of what we might call, the insurgent New Money into their social caste.

Old Money, or Old Rich families are families, on one or both sides, that have been rich for four generations or more.

New Money, or the New Rich are families in that have only become rich in the present generation.

Old Money tends to think of New Money as little more than plebeians, common folk riff raff, if you will, who hit it big in the lottery. Old Money thinks New Money is uncouth and needs time to learn how to be rich with dignity, grace, and refinement.

From their own perspective, Old Money people have the proper "breeding." They are concerned with balance, symmetry, order, and harmony, the proper arrangement of cultural forces and social hierarchy.

You see, the Old Money people, in their serenity, do not want hordes and hordes and hordes of sudden, "lottery-winning," uncouth New Money folk storming their country clubs, gentlemen's clubs, their university fraternities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, like that), cigar rooms, professional associations, and so forth.

As I said, the Old Money old guard, are concerned with carefully regulating traffic from the ranks of the New Rich into the realm of Mount Olympus.

Still with me, so far?


President Theodore Roosevelt
President Theodore Roosevelt | Source

Now, finance and the stock market, then as now, are known to be, or thought to be get-rich-quick wealth creation tools.

Consider Bernie Madoff at a point well before he was suspected of fraud. He came from a relatively modest background, became hugely successful in the high-stakes world of finance, as a "market-maker," among other things.

TR and FDR would look at someone like Madoff as relatively uncouth, "lottery-winning," "New Money."

Now, from the perspective of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, multiply that Madoff by a thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand: a wild pack of storming "Madoffs" stampeding straight for their beloved Hyde Park and the country clubs and their hunting lodges, and so forth.

Does that make sense?

As you know, the administration of Franklin Roosevelt took various disciplinary measures against the banking and investment sector.

What if FDR's primary interest was in giving the insurgent New Money of finance capital, its comeuppance, to get this insurgent class to "slow its row," as it were?

You may recall that Theodore Roosevelt, the Republican, had something of a reputation as a corporate monopoly "trust-buster."

It is important to remember that in TR's time, the start of the twentieth century, the permanently standing corporation, as we know it today, was still quite new on the scene. This was the start of the age of insurgent, uncouth, New Rich, "robber barons."

Therefore, one might say, that for TR, "busting" the "trusts" was his contribution to regulating the in-migration of the New Rich into the serene world of the Old Rich.

TR also lived during the time of the "Progressive Era." His actions, whose primary purpose was class gatekeeping, happened to look a lot like "progressivism.

Let's return to FDR.

Now then, let us say that the reforms that FDR's administration imposed upon the banking and investment sectors were his contribution to class gatekeeping.

Now then, I do not say that TR and his cousin FDR were men without compassion. I'm sure they did have compassion, especially FDR. After all, Franklin did all that stuff for working people and the poor, not least of which was his jobs program and Social Security, and so much more.

But consider this: Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a reputation for favoring an administrative approach which "pitted advisors against one another." He believed that this kind of tension caused the creativity and the "out-of-the-box" solutions to flow, and so forth.

Why shouldn't he have taken that approach on the national, macro-social level? Perhaps, from his Old Money perspective, the empowerment of the working class acted as a useful foil against the impudent, insurgent, crass, crude, uncouth, "lottery-winning," insurgent "New Rich"?

You think that's far-fetched? You think that's unjustifiably cynical?

Well, we shall see, shan't we?


Before we get started, let me say this: I am going to be talking about U.S. Liberalism, by which I mean political liberalism, as I understand it to have emerged and developed in the United States of America.

Let me say, also, that I will be talking about American Liberalism in practice, not theory --- I cannot stress this point too strongly. By reviewing history, I will be discussing how I understand American Liberalism to have behaved in practice; I am not concerned with elegant theories of liberalism, by the various luminaries of political philosophy, such as John Locke, Samuel Adams --- whatever big name in political philosophy, generally regarded as "liberal," that you want to throw out there.

I am only concerned with how American Liberalism actually functioned "on the ground," "where the rubber meets the road," and all that.

Secondly, what do I mean by "liberalism"?

I am defining liberalism as follows: Liberalism is the advocacy for and/or the implementation of a generous deployment of state resources to the material improvement of the condition of middle class, working class, and the poor in a given society; in other words, liberalism is primarily attentive to all those who must work for a living, as opposed to those whom they work for, the owners of the means of production, broadly speaking.

I know that definition may seem woefully incomplete to some of you; but there is a reason I'm setting things up this way, initially. If you bear with me, all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

So, again, for now, let us simply assume that liberalism is the advocacy for and/or the implementation of a generous deployment of state resources to the material improvement of the condition of middle class, working class, and the poor in a given society.


Question: What else was happening during the stock market crash of 1929-30, the Great Depression, and the New Deal of the 1930s?

Well, one thing that was going on, which we don't like to talk about or remember anymore, was the Eugenics Movement. This was official government policy that said that worthy people should reproduce and that unworthy people should be sterilized to prevent inferiors from dragging down the country.

Many officials who joined the New Deal administration of FDR had, at least at one time, previously been committed eugenicists. Historian Thaddeus Russell gives names: "including Margaret Sanger, David Starr Jordan, Robert Latham Owen, William Allen Wilson, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Robert Latou Dickinson, Katherine Bement Davis, Virginia Gildersleeve, and Rexford Tugwell's mentors, Simon Patten and Scott Nearing," as people who "were deeply involved with the eugenics movement" (1).

The nation-wide eugenics program was a "racial" purification program that had earned the respect and admiration of Adolph Hitler and the German Nazis (2). In fact, Thaddeus Russell goes so far as to say: "The Second World War appeared to many contemporary observers, and still appears to many historians, as proof of a fundamental antagonism between fascism and the American way of life. Many have seen the war as evidence that, in particular, the New Deal--Liberal way of life was hostile to fascism. After all, while many Republicans and other enemies of the New Deal were opposed to fighting fascism abroad, Roosevelt led the nation to war against Germany, Italy, and Japan. More than four hundred thousand Americans died in the fight, and the Roosevelt administration made sure to not just defeat the fascist regimes but to obliterate them. But the evidence of their similarities suggests that the New Deal and fascism went to war not over ideas or values or a way of life. Rather, it seems, the war was a struggle between brothers for control of the world family" (3).

You see, the thing to understand about racism in America was that it has always functioned on two tracks: One is what we might simply call the good old fashioned kind --- "white" supremacy. The other is what we might call "white-on-white" racism, or Anglo-Saxon chauvinism.

Let me explain that second one.

For many centuries, there has been---on behalf of people of northern and western European descent, who see themselves as "Anglo-Saxon," or as "WASPs," if you like (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant)---a bigotry toward people not called WASPs, people of southern and eastern European descent.

There has been, for many centuries, then, an "ethnic" division between northern and western Europeans and southern and eastern Europeans.


Well, as far as I can tell, Anglo-Saxon chauvinism (mind you, by no means all individual "Anglo-Saxons") has long seen people of southern and eastern Europe as---to put it quite bluntly, almost cruelly---tainted or distastefully mongrelized Europeans or "White" people.

Tainted or mongrelized by what?

By too much biological mixing with non-"whites" or non-"Europeans" in the form of Arabs, Africans, or Turks.

What do I mean by that?

Well, one should remember that the "Moors" (Arab Muslim/African alliance) conquered and colonized the Iberian peninsula in the year 711 and were not completely driven out of the land until 1492. The Moors, as you may know, were not only in Spain, but southern Italy and southern Greece as well.

The Ottoman Turks would dominate much of southeastern Europe into the nineteenth century.

For this reason, then, the American Eugenics movement was a program targeted against other "white" people, as it were. In other words, by coincidence the tendency was to find that "whites" of southern and eastern European ancestry, to be most afflicted by the various kinds of conditions which America needed to "fumigate" for through sterilization.

Meet the Anglo-Saxons!
Meet the Anglo-Saxons! | Source

The American eugenics movement must be understood within the broader context of American immigration and naturalization policy.

The very first thing to understand about U.S. immigration and naturalization policy, from roughly 1790-1965, is that it functioned along both strands of racism I have mentioned: straightforward "white supremacy" and what I have called "Anglo-Saxon chauvinism."

Law professor, Ian F. Haney Lopez wrote, in a 1997 book:

"In its first words on the subject of citizenship, Congress in 1790 restricted naturalization to 'white persons.' Though the requirements for naturalization changed frequently thereafter, this racial prerequisite to citizenship endured for over a century and a half, remaining in force until 1952. From the earliest years of this country until just a generation ago, being a 'white person' was a condition for acquiring citizenship" (4).

Among other things, Mr. Lopez's book analyzes a small sample size of the "fifty-two racial prerequisite cases" that were "reported" between 1878 and 1952, when "racial restrictions were removed" (5). It is a sad account of how people from around the world were literally forced to humiliate themselves by futilely arguing their "whiteness," in order to gain citizenship in the United States of America.

That's naturalization. What about immigration, the right to simply come to the United States of America?

Well, "[f]ederal law restricted immigration to this country on the basis of race," wrote Mr. Lopez, "for nearly one hundred years, roughly from the Chinese exclusion laws of the 1880s until the end of the national origin quotas in 1965" (6).

What about birthright citizenship, the idea that anyone actually born in the United States of America, automatically becomes a citizen?

Well, the powers-that-be dragged their feet. For it was not until 1924 that Congress passed an act conferring citizenship on all Native American peoples. But it took additional legislation in 1940, the Nationality Act, to finally bestow citizenship "on all those born in the United States 'to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe' (7).

The bottom line is that "the basic law of citizenship, that a person born here is a citizen here, did not include all racial minorities until 1940" (8).

Furthermore, writing in the late-1990s, Mr. Lopez observed that "the impulse to restrict birthright citizenship by race is far from dead in this country. Apparently, California Governor Pete Wilson and many others seek a return to the times when citizenship depended on racial proxies such as immigrant status. Wilson has called for a federal constitutional amendment that would prevent the American-born children of undocumented persons from receiving birthright citizenship" (9).

Not only that, but both historians, Nell Irvin Painter and Thaddeus Russell, make the point, moreover, that naturalization for wannabe, "white" immigrants to the United States of America, was, one way of another, structured on a specifically anti-black basis.

Dr. Painter makes the point casually, almost in passing, but she does make it.

She noted the following:

"Popular literature also mirrored the movies, even as the war effort stressed diversity. A 1945 study by Columbia's Bureau of Applied Social Research found that stories published between 1937 and 1945 in magazines reaching twenty million readers featured 889 characters, of whom 90.8 percent were Anglo-Saxon..." ---- (Remember, not just "white," but the good white, Anglo-Saxon white, as in White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) ---- "The rare Non-Anglo-Saxons were stereotyped as menial workers, gangsters, crooked fight promoters, and thieving night club owners, while Anglo-Saxons in central roles were honest and admirable, their superiority taken for granted. The advertising seeping into every corner of American popular culture beamed out smiling Nordics free, beautiful, and desirable" (10).

Just so there is no confusion about whom the "real Americans" were supposed to be.

Still quoting Nell Irvin Painter:

"With real American identity coded according to race, being a real American often meant joining antiblack racism and seeing oneself as white against blacks. Looking back to the war years, an Italian American recalled a tempting invitation to take sides during the Harlem riot of 1943(11):

I remember standing on a corner, a guy would throw the door open and say, "Come on down." They were goin' to Harlem to get in the riot. They'd say, "Let's beat up some niggers." It was wonderful. It was new. The Italo-Americans stopped being Italo and started becoming Americans. We'd joined the group. "Now we're like you guys, right?" (12).

"The temptation and the decision to succumb did not pass unnoticed," concluded Nell Irvin Painter. "Malcolm X, spokesman of the black nationalist Nation of Islam, and Toni Morrison, a Nobel Prize laureate in literature, later noted that the first English world out of the mouths of European immigrants was frequently 'nigger.' Actually, Morrison said it was the second, after 'okay'" (13).


Thaddeus Russell makes the same point in a very different way. The way he breaks down American naturalization situation, he insists that the African American population, specifically, were held up a negative example of what kind of behavior incoming, "ethnic" European, "white" wannabes needed to avoid. You see, in a way, these incoming groups were invited, you might say, to undergo cultural self-purging --- that's the only way I can describe it!

You see, part two of Thaddeus Russell's book (A Renegade History Of The United States) is titled How White People Lost Their Rhythm. Chapter Five of his book is titled: A Rhythmless Nation --- by the way, isn't that a nice play on the Janet Jackson Album, "Rhythm Nation"?

Anyway, lest you think the author is engaging in trivialities, he explains that the "Puritans left England in large part because it was full of people who used their bodies for pleasure. Next only to fornication, the most sinful use of one's body was to move in sensual and playful ways" (14).

Russell then quotes one Philip Stubbes, a Puritan writer in 1583:

"If you would have your son soft, womanish, unclean, smooth-mouth, affected to bawdry, scurrility, filthy rimes, and unseemly talking; briefly if you would have him, as it were, transnatured into a woman or worse, and inclined to all kinds of whoredom and abomination, set him to dancing school and to learn music, and then you shall not fail of your purpose. And if you would have your daughter riggish, bawdry and unclean, and a filthy speaker, and suchlike, bring her up in music and dancing and my life for yours, you have won the goal" (15).

Okay, is that clear?

Let's all focus: dancing and music makes males "soft, womanish, unclean, smooth-mouth, affected to bawdry, scurrility, filthy rimes, and unseemly talking." Not only that, your son is liable to be "transnatured into a woman or worse, and inclined to all kinds of whoredom and abomination."

Dancing and music makes females "riggish, bawdry and unclean, and a filthy speaker, and suchlike."

Here comes the Black connection. The connection is with the slaves.

"By the nineteenth century," wrote Thaddeus Russell, "some slaves expressed pity for white people's lack of rhythm. Others were amused. There are several accounts of slaves mocking the movements of whites, such as a newspaper report on a party held by slaves near Charleston in 1772. The entertainment at the event was 'men copying (or taking off) the manner of their masters, and the women those of their mistresses, and relating some highly curious anecdotes, to the inexpressible diversion of the company' (16).

Still quoting:

"One ex-slave recalled, 'Us slaves watched white folks' parties, where the guests danced a minuet and then paraded in a grand march, with the ladies and gentlemen going different ways and then meeting again, arm in arm, and marching down the center together. Then we'd do it too, but we used to mock 'em every step. Sometimes white folks noticed it, but they seemed to like it; I guess they thought we couldn't dance any better' (17).

First, understand that we are not simply talking about music and dancing.

What we are talking about---and what I'm trying to set up for you---is the racism and social pressure that "ethnic" Europeans came under to culturally self-purge any and all elements of their culture that could, in any possible way, be construed as "black," "black-like," or "a bit to black"---- because the African American population were held up as the great negative example of what not to be like.

Stay with me.

Chapter Six of Dr. Russell's book is titled: From White Chimps To Yankee Doodles: The Irish. This chapter talks about the Irish journey to "whiteness" in the United States of America, the process of cultural self-purging they were encouraged to undergo to win "WASP" entrée.

Thaddeus Russell speaks of a kind of "sterilization," if you will of the Irish style of dance. He speaks of a "widespread" "movement away from" an "offensive, sexually suggestive" style of dancing. Stay with me: The year is 1917 (18).

Now, note how Thaddeus Russell says that the fun was taken out of being young for Irish youth ---- as a result of racism!

"Irish youth were underrepresented on the floors of the commercial dance palaces that became the rage in the 1910s and 1920s," Russell wrote. "Many instead attended clubs in which only 'traditional Irish music' was played. These clubs were part of the movement led by the Gaelic League, which had branches in all major U.S. cities, to rid the American mind of Irish stereotypes and reinvent Irish culture as genteel, placid, and respectable" (19).

I'm afraid that Dr. Russell makes it crystal clear that "respectable," in this instance means DEFINITELY NOT BLACK!

Stay with me. Still quoting:

"The league claimed with fury that true Irish dancing was never 'vulgar,' and that it was 'superior in grace, science, modesty, life, and mental effects,' and that any dance resembling 'the fleshpots of Egypt' was 'alien' to the Irish people. Branches of the league were instructed to ban 'the Cat Walk,' 'the Cake Walk and all foreign monstrosities' at their social functions. League members vowed to stop the Irish from practicing 'pure music-hall dancing,' an 'un-Irish style [that] should not be tolerated' (20).

Same long paragraph:

"What the Irish were doing in commercial, unregulated dance clubs 'is buck-jumping [a dance associated with Irish sailors and black slaves in America]. It is fiercely vigorous, but in its execution there is no attempt at gracefulness; no attention to positions, of which the dancing-masters told us there were five; there was little attempt at step---it was simply 'jigging' or as sometimes called clog dancing.' (In Irish clog dancing, the wooden footwear is used by striking the heel or toe against the floor to create percussive, syncopated, 'off-beat' or 'downbeat' rhythms. It was taken up by many African Americans in the nineteenth century and is the basis of both tap dancing and 'stepping' in black fraternities)" (21).

What were the results of the Irish American community's cultural self-purging?

Thaddeus Russell tells us:

"The results of this aggressive assimilation are twofold. First, Irish Americans not only shed their status as a race apart from other whites, but are now rarely even considered as 'ethnics.' The second result is what is found in Irish American bars all over the country: Guinness on tap, sports on television, and more fistfights than dancing on the dance floor" (22).

But more seriously, there were economic consequences for "the Irish, who by the end of the nineteenth century had left the ditches for good. "Just one generation after the canals were dug, Irish were proportionally underrepresented in the lowest-paying occupations and overrepresented not only in police and fire departments but also in teaching, clerking, bookkeeping, and other white-collar jobs. Irishmen were elected mayor of New York in 1880, of Boston in 1884, and of Chicago in 1893. In the first two decades of the twentieth century, Rhode Island, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York elected Irish governors" (23).

Got that straight? In other words, after the Irish American community had successfully finished their term of public, self-flagellating cultural self-purging,---remember with the African American population held up as the Great Negative Example---they were redeemed, forgiven, accepted into the club of American "whiteness," and advanced up the ladder several socioeconomic rungs well into the middle class.

I won't go through the details, but the same basic story applies to the Jews, Italians, and Germans.

Chapter Seven of Thaddeus Russell's book: The Jew Was A Negro. This chapter talks about the Jewish American journey of cultural self-purging and acceptance into the paradise of American WASP-hood, with the African American population held up as the Great Negative Example of the kind of behavior to avoid and "purge" from their cultural practices.

Chapter Eight of Thaddeus Russell's book: Italian Americans: Out Of Africa. Once again, this chapter talks about the Italian American [especially Southern Italian (24)] journey of cultural self-purging and acceptance into the paradise of American "whiteness," with, as I say, the African American population held up as the Great Negative Example of the kind of behavior to avoid and "purge" from their cultural practices.

Russell only makes a passing reference to "German settlers" who "were similarly split over 'primitive' and libidinal dancing. At a ball celebrating the signing of a treaty between European settlers and the tribes of the Six Nations at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in 1744, the leader of the delegation of settlers was dismayed to see a number of German women who 'danced [in] wilder time than any Indians... The females (I dare not call them Ladies...) were, in general very disagreeable'" (25).

Russell just goes on to note that, despite the outrage, "many white colonists, especially in the South, continued to be inspired by the movements of Indians and slaves," (26); and that kind of thing had to be squashed, of course.

Now, these four "ethnic" groups---Irish, Jewish, German, Italian---are the same groups dealt with by another historian, Nell Irvin Painter, addresses in her text, The History of White People. She labels their journey into the light of Wasp-hood as the four "Enlargements of American Whiteness" (27).

Why am I talking about all of this stuff? What does it have to do with American liberalism?

I am talking about all of this stuff because I mean to discuss American liberalism in practice, not theory, as I've said. In order to do that, I think it is necessary to look at American liberalism in the context of the tapestry of cultural and strategic global issues, out of which it arose, with which it interacted, negotiated and compromised with, and was shaped by.

Also, to a certain extent, liberalism must be discussed in concert with American conservatism, again, in practice not theory. That is because, in the case of the latter, in order to develop a conservative ideology, you have to have some idea about what it is you want to conserve.

When an entity is in its formative phase, in the process of becoming God knows what, it is not easy to grab hold of what needs to be preserved or conserved. You might say that it is for this very reason that there were not only moderates and centrists, but honest-to-God liberals in the Republican party, in the 1960s and 1970s.

In fact, Republican President Richard M. Nixon (White House term: 1969-1974) governed, in domestic policy, very much from what we would call something like the "center-left" (28). I am going to return to this point when I discuss the years 1930-1980, as a period of American national "Becoming" or "Re-Becoming."

So, again, for now, let us say that before an entity has finished becoming whatever it is it is going to become, it is hard to know what needs to be liberalized or conserved.

Publicity shot from Charlie Chaplin film, "Modern Times" (1936).
Publicity shot from Charlie Chaplin film, "Modern Times" (1936). | Source

American Liberalism and Labor

The Transition To Industrial Capitalism

The thing that makes American politics so fascinating, confusing, intriguing, bewildering, and whatever other dozen adjectives one might use --- is the fact of the ideological swap of the two dominant parties, the Republicans and Democrats. This fact is, in my opinion, one of the most amazing occurrences in the history of global politics. Has there ever been anything like it.

Let's go through it quickly, and watch what this history does to the concepts of "liberalism" and "conservatism." Just remember, before an entity of some kind, say, a country, Becomes, or "completes" the process of Becoming, it is unclear about what should be "conserved" or "liberalized."

As you know, today we associate "conservatism" with the Republican Party and "liberalism" with the Democratic Party. But in pre-industrial nineteenth-century America, the Republican Party was the liberal party.

By that I mean that the Republicans, then, advocated for a liberal application of state resources to industrialize America, modernize the country, to replace its rural simplicity with urban sophistication, to join the world --- by "world," we mean the richest, most powerful countries of Western Europe.

The Party of Lincoln advocated for the liberal application of state resources to create modern transportation, communications, and financial infrastructures to wield the land into a strong, centralized nation-state.

As you know, the Republican Party was also "liberal" in the sense that they advocated for the suspension of expansion and/or abolition of slavery.

The Democratic Party (and later just the Southern Democrats after the regional split from the national party) was the conservative. What it wanted to "conserve" was the status quo of slavery and the Jeffersonian ideal of a nation of free, agricultural homesteaders. The Southern Democrats remained conservative on the matter of race until the 1960s, perhaps holding out until 1980. By that time Southern Democrats had become, en masse, Republicans.

The trick is that the South was "liberal" in its enthusiastic support for Roosevelt's New Deal, which was necessary so that the southeastern and western regions of the country could be brought up to par with the northeast and upper Midwest.

To be continued on Part (D): subsection two

References and Notes

1. Russell, Thaddeus. A Renegade History Of The United States. Free Press, 2010. 267

2. ibid, 267: Historian Thaddeus Russell talks about a man called Paul Popenoe, "the most influential American eugenicists" of the 1930s, who wrote a book, Sterilization for Human Betterment, which was "one of the first American books translated into German by the Nazi government, and it was widely cited by Hitler's 'racial hygiene' theorists to justify the Nazi's own sterilization programs."

See also Cohen, Adam. Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck. Penguin Press, 2016. 11. Mr. Cohen tells us, in the introduction of his book, about the Nuremberg trials that followed World War Two. The Nazis, who had carried out 375,000 forced sterilizations cited the American judicial ruling of Buck v. Bell, in defense of their own actions.

3. Russell, T. A Renegade History... 268-269

4. Haney Lopez, Ian F. White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York University Press, 1997. 1

5. ibid, 4

6. ibid, 37

7. ibid, 41

8. ibid

9. ibid

10. Painter, Nell Irvin. The History of White People. W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 363

11. ibid

12. ibid

13. ibid

14. Russell, Thaddeus. A Renegade History Of The United States. Free Press, 2010. 127

15. ibid

16. ibid, 139

17. ibid

18. ibid, 155

19. ibid, 155-156

20. ibid, 156

21. ibid

22. ibid, 159

23. ibid, 152-153

24. In the early-twentieth-century, as far as immigration and naturalization went, for the United States of America --- if one had to be from the country of Italy, it was better to be from Northern Italy, where they make them tall, blond, and blue-eyed, sufficiently Nordic, in other words, than it was to be from Southern Italy, where the make them like Lt. Columbo.

25. Russell, T. A Renegade History... 133

26. ibid

27. see Painter, Nell Irvin. The History of White People.

28. Krugman, Paul. The Conscience of a Liberal. W.W. Norton & Company, 2007. 159

Here is what I mean when I say that Richard M. Nixon, on domestic policy, governed from a sort of center-left position: First of all, I am saying that by today's standards of liberalism.

I am saying, that by today's standards of liberalism, Richard M. Nixon, governed social and economic domestic policy, in a way that we would call "center-left" today, 2016 going into 2017.

Of course, I don't want you to take my word for it. Let me just quote from one of the books by Paul Krugman, a Nobel-Prize-winning Keynsian economist. In The Conscience of a Liberal we read:

"Modern movement conservatives sometimes say, contemptuously, that Nixon governed as a liberal. And in terms of economic and environmental policy, it's true, at least by today's standards. In addition to proposing universal health care, Nixon pushed for a guaranteed minimum income. On the revenue side, Nixon pushed through a tax increase in 1969, including creation of the alternative minimum tax, which was intended to crack down on wealthy Americans who managed to use tax shelters to avoid taxes. On another front he passed the Clean Air Act, and sent dozens of environmental measures to Congress. Veterans of the Environmental Protection Agency have told me that the Nixon years were a golden age."

And by the way, Dr. Krugman called the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan of 1974, something that "broadly resembled plans being offered today by liberal Democrats like John Edwards today."


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.