Free beer everyone! Or, the candidates and the economy

So I think that there is room for someone who's willing to face the facts and say so -- *if* s/he can simultaneously describe concrete steps to make things better and start cleaning up the mess. The latter bit was what was missing from Carter's "sweater speech" -- and perhaps it's that what sunk him, rather than the gloomy news as such.

I don't know. No matter what, the news will be "we're all going to have to make sacrifices."

The entire weakness of democracy is that this message can never be sold. Ever. Except in time of war.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
I don't know. No matter what, the news will be "we're all going to have to make sacrifices."

The entire weakness of democracy is that this message can never be sold. Ever. Except in time of war.

It was for us in the early-1990's depression. Iiro Viinanen, the slasher-in-chief (i.e., minister of finance), was and remained one of our most popular politicians ever, and his message was pretty much a constant "we're all going to have to make sacrifices."
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
It was for us in the early-1990's depression. Iiro Viinanen, the slasher-in-chief (i.e., minister of finance), was and remained one of our most popular politicians ever, and his message was pretty much a constant "we're all going to have to make sacrifices."

Well, you make a point there, the same goes for our former finance minister Gerrit Zalm, even though he was actually very incompetent in many ways and really not one of the best we've ever had.

But then again, Europe isn't the US, and our campaigns are definitely not like theirs.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
But then again, Europe isn't the US, and our campaigns are definitely not like theirs.

That's true, but I still don't think it's impossible -- just unlikely.

Come to think of it, do you know how Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigned?
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Yes, "a new deal" was his campaign, y'know, the whole "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people"

I believe he was fairly pessimistic, in fact. However, he was running against Herbert Hoover, who was wildly unpopular because the downward spiral of the great depression was blamed on him.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
I knew that much; also that he promised to slash government spending, and the "Relief, Recovery, Reform" slogan. I was just wondering whether there was anything about sacrifice somewhere in there, or was it the current "pennies from heaven" kind of thing, with the sordid details to be worked out later.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Well, his campaign song was "Happy Days Are Here Again", if that tells you anything.

But no, FDR never outlined his "new deal" before the elections, and was very vague about it. But he was very popular as governor of NY, which got him the democratic ticket, and really Hoover couldn't put up a fight, so he barely needed to campaign or promise anything. I'm fairly sure FDR never talked about costs for the public, but I might well be wrong.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
I found a couple of his speeches on the Net, and there doesn't seem to be much about costs there. Interestingly, though, he did outline a fairly specific economic policy in a campaign address -- and even more interestingly, it bears more than a passing resemblance to what actually happened.

[ http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932e.htm ]

There's a lot of material on that site; it'd be interesting to spend some time reading it. Much of it feels eerily apt to the 2008 presidential campaign...
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
Humpty Dumpty?

Dang, I wish we still had presidential candidates who used Through the looking glass for their speeches :p
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,558
My (Swedish immigrant blue-collar) grandfather spoke with more respect of FDR than Jesus Christ, and the main reason I'm a registered Democrat today is I didn't want him rolling in his grave.( Little did he know he was giving me the power to vote against Hillary in the primary...)

I believe that the Government, without becoming a prying bureaucracy, can act as a check or counterbalance to this oligarchy so as to secure the chance to work and the safety of savings to men and women, rather than safety of exploitation to the exploiter, safety of manipulation to the financial manipulators, safety of unlicensed power to those who would speculate to the bitter end with the welfare and property of other people.

Yes, the word "individualism" is a bitter word in the mouths of Republican leaders, who have fostered regimentation without stint or limit. Opposition to financial exploitation is a ghastly sham in men who have created, encouraged and brought into being the very power of exploitation. We must go back to first principles; we must make American individualism what it was intended to be--quality of opportunity for all, the right of exploitation for none.

He's got my vote, even if he's dead. :)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
That's TV for you -- totally destroyed speechwriting. No way you could get a two-second catchphrase from that -- there are actually complete sentences in there. Not to mention even the occasional bit of substance.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
TV and the education system. As BN says, the idea of using a literary reference to illustrate a point is sheer impossibility. FDR could count on his readers knowing what he meant by the Alice analogies, now to get a comparable understanding from the audience, it would have to be an analogy from CSI or a TV commercial. :S
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
Government Not Perish! What a line to move the hearts and minds of the masses. ;)
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
I hate to say this as a politican but winning an election is all about who can be lying the most. All of the candidates are smart enough to know they can't afford to do all of these things, they just want to promise as much as they can to win!

After they have won they'll not keep hardly any of the promises,,, and by the time for the next election people will ( hopefully ) have forgotten it and they will win again!
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
How totally True!! Unfortunately for them, I have a LONG memory!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,830
Location
Australia
Interestingly enough two of the contenders still in the race do have an executive track record (Romney and Huckabee), but it doesnt seem like they want to use this much in the race at this point of time. Could it be that their governorships would alienate the conservative grass roots that they are trying to win in the primary? ;)

EDIT: Not that these guys still stand much chance of winning any more, but did they EVER point to their achievements as governors during the campaign?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
From what Mike's said, Romney probably would prefer to keep his governorship "suitably vague". Besides, Massachusetts isn't exactly known as a hotbed of conservative thinking.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,550
Location
Illinois, USA
From what Mike's said, Romney probably would prefer to keep his governorship "suitably vague". Besides, Massachusetts isn't exactly known as a hotbed of conservative thinking.

Hehe ... I was surprised that 400,000 Mass residents took Republican ballots yesterday ...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,962
Well, I've found it a tad amusing that a man who's run Mass in a way that would allow him to carry the state in the general election is trumped as a more conservative alternative to McCain:D
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
Back
Top Bottom