77 Years ago this week

terp said:
On February 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 authorizing military personnel to lock American of Japanese descent in concentration camps that are often euphemistically called “internment camps.”
One more way that many's favorite American President was a disgrace. 

 Thank goodness only clueless and uninformed people connect this disgrace to his economic policies.


Lincoln is known to have said that if he could save the Union by freeing some, all, or no slaves he would do that, because saving the Union was his goal.  Should we now hate him?


FilmCarp said:
Lincoln is known to have said that if he could save the Union by freeing some, all, or no slaves he would do that, because saving the Union was his goal.  Should we now hate him?

 It's a good question.  

I don't advocate hating anyone.  At the same time, we should not turn these people into saints.  We shouldn't write fairy tales and then treat them as the truth.  As you point out, these people and these situations are much more complex than what we're taught.  

We should see these things in their true light.  Basically, see things for what they are, like an adult would. 




And yet FDR was exactly the right man at the right time.  


FilmCarp said:
And yet FDR was exactly the right man at the right time.  

 How so?


Because he mobilized an entire nation to defeat Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan.


Who else was going to do that? 


And before you say "Josef Stalin," consider the condition the USA was in after the war, as compared to the condition of the USSR.


And he knew exactly how to read the public.  We were not in favor of joining the war.  He worked very slowly to move public opinion.  In fact he only asked for a declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor because he knew the support for war against Germany wasn't there.


So, he was a good propagandist?  


Given the audience on this board, I don't think there's any crying need to make a pro-FDR case. I don't think terp's post invalidates the pro-FDR arguments one might make, but I do hope it complicates them, and makes us think a bit more about where liberalism/progressivism falls short.

The internment of Japanese Americans was an unconscionable blot not just on FDR's legacy, but on the country's. I'd point out that FDR didn't do a whole lot for those Americans suffering under the Jim Crow police state either. While this doesn't take away from the legitimately important and impressive advances like the establishment of the welfare state, stronger labor laws, etc, I think it's important to be honest that on matters of racial justice, 1930s liberalism failed.

Where I find such reflections relevant is to ask, when evaluating current liberalism and progressivism, where is it failing? Climate change is hugely important. Access to health care is important. The whole laundry list of issues the 2020 campaign is beginning to define are all important -- but even if, out of that, we get the most progressive, most effective candidate, who goes on to be president, where will we be falling short? Because there will be areas, and those areas might very well not be small things, and it's important I think to be honest with ourselves about that.

I don't know where those failures will be (though issues of race are generally a safe bet in America). Partly that's because we don't even have a clear sense of who will emerge out of the crowded field as the likely candidates, and partly because it's the nature of living in a place and time that it's difficult or impossible to see our blind spots.

I don't know that this leads to any immediately actionable advice (I would have still voted FDR over the alternatives I believe, for instance), but I think should lead to some humility. If we're lucky we get good leaders, but our leaders are not saviors, and the work of improving our society is heavier and broader than who we elect.

A bit of a ramble I'm afraid, but a "liberal" gloss on terp's libertarian criticism of FDR ;-)


And on this anniversary:

Three Asian-American lawmakers introduce a bill to prohibit internment like that of Japanese Americans during World War II

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/20/politics/japanese-internment-law-trnd/index.html


On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an order that sent 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps for the remainder of World War II.

Now three Asian-American members of Congress are trying to ensure that something like that never happens again.

US Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, along with US Rep. Mark Takano of California -- all Democrats -- have introduced a bill that would bar Americans from being forcibly incarcerated based on their race or religion.



PVW said:


The internment of Japanese Americans was an unconscionable blot not just on FDR's legacy, but on the country's. I'd point out that FDR didn't do a whole lot for those Americans suffering under the Jim Crow police state either. While this doesn't take away from the legitimately important and impressive advances like the establishment of the welfare state, stronger labor laws, etc, I think it's important to be honest that on matters of racial justice, 1930s liberalism failed.

FDR did what he could within the political realities of the times.  No politician will ever be a fairy tale hero yet we somehow manage to be disappointed each time we discover that one of our heroes has committed or not prevented injustices.

 


I think it's important to be honest that on matters of racial justice, 1930s liberalism failed.

Racial justice efforts failed in the 1930s, just like they did in the 1940s and 1950s and beyond, because conservatives blocked them.


Liberalism "failed" to sway white southern racists.


our country still hasn't succeeded with regard to racial justice. But I don't see how the conclusion to be drawn is that it's a failure of liberalism. 


FDR did what he could within the political realities of the times.  No politician will ever be a fairy tale hero yet we somehow manage to be disappointed each time we discover that one of our heroes has committed or not prevented injustices.
Racial justice efforts failed in the 1930s, just like they did in the 1940s and 1950s and beyond, because conservatives blocked them.
our country still hasn't succeeded with regard to racial justice. But I don't see how the conclusion to be drawn is that it's a failure of liberalism.

Doesn't this let liberalism off a little too easily, and so allow us to avoid hard introspection? Did FDR forcibly place Japanese Americans in camps because conservatives forced him to? Can we dismiss the federally-directed redlining of the FHA, which actively accelerated segregation, as being a simple falling short of achieving justice when in fact it was an active participation in furthering injustice?

This looking away has an effect. For the Sanders supporters who were disappointed by his showing in 2016, recall that one factor was his poorer showing compared to Clinton with African Americans. Sanders presents himself as an "FDR" Democrat, focused very strongly on issues of class and economics. If, in 2016, he had been able to better acknowledge that economic inequality on its own does not account for the challenges African Americans face in contemporary America, would he have encountered more success?

Or to give another example -- how should we think about the Clinton presidency? If, for instance we try to skip over the discomfort of thinking of the way he treated women in the context of #metoo, are we not running the danger of enabling that kind of abuse going forward? (I saw a disappointing number of people rushing to Al Franken's defense, for instance).

Or to give yet another example -- I'm a fairly down the middle, mainstream democratic voter. When posters such as Nan or Paulsurovell or (further to the right) terp bring up uncomfortable questions about the role of American foreign policy abroad, should I downplay and ignore such concerns, or allow the discomfort they provoke to spur hard reflection? Again, this may not have an immediate, practical outcome -- I stand by my votes for Obama even while acknowledging legitimate critiques of his administration, for instance -- but surely actually grappling with these knotty questions and contradictions is work worth doing?


PVW said:

Or to give yet another example -- I'm a fairly down the middle, mainstream democratic voter. When posters such as Nan or Paulsurovell or (further to the right) terp bring up uncomfortable questions about the role of American foreign policy abroad, should I downplay and ignore such concerns, or allow the discomfort they provoke to spur hard reflection? Again, this may not have an immediate, practical outcome -- I stand by my votes for Obama even while acknowledging legitimate critiques of his administration, for instance -- but surely actually grappling with these knotty questions and contradictions is work worth doing?




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.