"Not in the history of mankind"
The new GOP chairman refights the 1930s
"Not in the history of mankind"
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Any Republican discomfited by the election of Michael Steele as national party chairman, and fearful that the first black GOP leader might not be sufficiently conservative, can surely rest easy. In an interview yesterday on CNN, Steele no doubt soothed any jittery intraparty nerves by demonstrating that he is fully capable of denying factual reality and talking like Herbert Hoover.
During a discussion on how the GOP might help end the deepening recession, Steele said something that prompted me to roll backward on the TiVo, just to make sure I had heard him correctly. Turns out, I had. Not long after, I checked the transcript. The remarks were right there, in print. Steele said:
"The government doesn't create jobs. Let's get this notion out of our heads that the government creates jobs. Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
Not in the history of mankind...There's no better way for a new Republican leader to comfort the party rank and file, and win applause from Fox News and the conservative think tanks, than to insist - in defiance of the empirical record - that FDR's New Deal totally failed to lift America out of the Great Depression. Such is the broader context for Steele's fact-challenged assertion.
So here's where things stand today: The good news is that, at long last, we're no longer refighting the 1960s. The bad news is that now we're apparently stuck refighting the 1930s.
But with respect to the history of the New Deal, Steele was a tad off in his math...by roughly 15 million jobs.
Denying the truth of that statistic is akin to believing that the earth is flat. The historical record tells us that FDR's Works Progress Administration put eight million people to work. (Steele has no doubt driven on bridges and flown from airports that were built by WPA workers.) The Civilian Conservation Corps put 2.75 million people to work; in a 1936 Gallup nationwide poll, 67 percent of Republicans voiced their support for the program.
In addition, the Civil Works Administration put four million people to work in just four months - and was so successful at its task that one politician wrote FDR to say, "This civil works program is one of the soundest, most constructive policies of your administration, and I cannot urge too strongly its continuance." That was Alf Landon, the Republican governor of Kansas, who would run against FDR in 1936, and lose in a landslide.
Those stats don't even include the indirect benefits offered by the National Youth Administration, which provided part-time jobs to two million high school and college students who needed financial help in order to finish their education. And there was also the Public Works Administration, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs; even though the PWA was assailed as inefficient, its workers built (among many other things) 70 percent of all new school buildings between 1933 and 1939, helped build the Lincoln Tunnel, and helped complete Philadelphia's 30th Street Station.
Obviously, the New Deal was far from perfect, and America didn't fully emerge from the Depression until World War II (when, lest we forget, government defense contracts created millions of wartime jobs). But even prewar, the official jobless rate - which stood at 25 percent when FDR took office - was down to around 14 percent by the end of the '30s. (By the way, the real jobless rate was actually lower, because the official rate excluded the public sector.) And amidst all these governmental steps to create jobs and ameliorate the severity of the Depression, the Republicans of that era stood on the sidelines, carping.
(On the carping front, here's an example that captures the spirit of the '30s GOP, the party of No in action. In 1935, as FDR and the Democrats readied the historic bill establishing Social Security, the opposition scoffed at the notion that old people and survivors deserved any kind of safety net. To wit, New Jersey GOP Senator A. Harry Moore: "It would take all the romance out of life. We might as well take a child from the nursery, give him a nurse, and protect him from every experience that life affords.")
To be charitable, perhaps Michael Steele yesterday was trying to argue that no government in the history of mankind has ever created permanent jobs with permanent benefits and guaranteed pensions. But even that assertion would miss the point of the New Deal. Anyone who reads the history quickly discovers that FDR's intended mission was to save capitalism, to improve the climate for private-sector job creation by strengthening the system with new regulatory checks and balances. Hence the decision to rebuild confidence in the banks by protecting people's deposits via the new FDIC program. Hence the decision to rebuild confidence in Wall Street by introducing the concept of government oversight via the new Securities and Exchange Commission.
Indeed, the Dow Jones average rose by roughly 400 percent between 1933 and 1937. And one Nobel Prize winner has written: "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great depression." That would be Ben Bernake, the Federal Reserve chairman appointed by George W. Bush.
It's not hard to divine the intent behind Steele's hyperbolic denial of the historical record. If Republicans can somehow succeed in rewriting the past, by denying the imperfect but tangible benefits of bold government action, they can more easily make the case for standing pat today.
This is a somewhat risky proposition, however. Because they did nothing during the New Deal era, at a time when the public demanded bold government action, they wound up in extended exile - locked out of the White House for 28 of the 36 years between 1933 and 1969. If the current generation of Republicans continues to misjudge the mood today, it risks the same political fate.
Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it- I'm certain Xi Jah will repost his quote from Henry Morgenthau, Jr. even though it makes D!ck's point about refighting the 1930's.— Phrossty
- I'm certain Xi Jah will repost his quote from Henry Morgenthau, Jr. even though it makes D|ck's point about refighting the 1930's.— Phrossty
- Ya gotta love it.....Obama's performance officer withdrew her name from consideration today because of......TAX ISSUES. That makes 3 cabinet level appointments with tax problems. Apparently she was not the best person for the job, or it is not as important a position as Daschle and Geithner since she had to withdraw. Poor girl.— tjhaol
- The question isn't whether the government created those jobs because it did. The question is whether more jobs would have been created by the private sector without the dramatic rise in tax rates at the same time. I think the impact of lower taxes on economic growth and positive government tax revenue is also undeniable. I guess you are allowed to ignore the history you want to ignore.— jwad56
"...that FDR's New Deal totally failed to lift America out of the Great Depression". Dick, I know economics is not the strong suit of liberals like you, so you might want to read (from a newspaper who's actually bringing in money) how harmful FDR's policies really were. You could even interview the Penn professor if you can escape that liberal cocoon on North Broad if you really wanted.- Ooops, here's the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
- jwad56--It was Hoover who raised taxes. FDR lowered taxes until 1937, when in a misguided response to critics of the deficit (which was about $25 back then) he raised taxes and cut back New Deal work programs, which caused a recession. The recession ended when the government started spending again on armaments for England.— liberal
- What's also important to remember is that, though the country didn't fully emerge from the Depression until World War II, it was still government spending on a massive scale (for the War) which finally did the trick. Conservatives who rightly argue it was the War and not the New Deal just prove the extent to which government spending was required.— Augs
- Come on theodotius the Wall Street Journal is a right wing mouthpiece.— jwad56
- As I've often noted here, the true conservative agenda--which is no secret, it's on all their think-tank websites--is to reduce the size of the federal government. Taxes are just a means to the end. Conservative ideologues don't really care about the tax level; it's the Texas oil-rich and other super-rich folks who keep that crusade going, for very good dollars and cents reasons. I have to admit that i personally don't quite follow why reducing the size of the government is so important, but one reason (again, I'm not making this up paranoiacally, I got it from the Cato Institute website) is that conservatives believe that big government creates the electoral power of the Democratic party, through buying votes of the poor, ignorant, and foreign.— liberal
- It's very kind of Mr Polman to interpret Steele's comment about jobs by saying, oh well, he means permanent jobs with good pensions, etc. Ok--just where are these jobs in the private sector these days? Only the government creates that kind of jobs!— liberal
The government does not create jobs. The government does not sustain itself as a business does, it only lives off the productivity of the private sector. If the government takes money out of the private sector to "create" 1000 jobs, how may private sector jobs are lost or never come into existence because the government took taxes from business? It's a zero sum game. Government has to take in order to give, so jobs are subtracted in the private sector to fund jobs "created" by the government. The private sector does sustain itself through the buying and selling of goods and services. Jobs at a bakery do not have to be lost so a car dealer can hire more people at the dealership. That's why more jobs are created if tax dollars are returned to the private sector.— jmc- Liberal, apparently you did not read enough on the CATO website, such as the post about a study by economists in Sofia, Bulgaria that econmic growth and job creation begin to slow when government spending reaches more than 25% of GDP. Size of government is not so much the issue as limiting government spending and control. Right now, in the US, total government spending is 36% of GDP and Obama wants to increase it even further. Where on the CATO website did you find that passage about government creating electoral power? I missed it but would be interested in reading it. I have always felt, as a conservative, it is not so much the size of the government, but the control the government exerts that needs to be restrained therefore not so much smaller government but limited government.— tjhaol
- Richard, stick with partisan "journalism", historian or economist you are not. Every economists agrees that the New Deal failed and did not work. The unemployment rate in 1938 was higher than 1933. Only WWII and the aftermath raise America out of the depression. Get real Richard.— CD75
- jmc: My grandfather had a career as a doctor for the US Army and my uncle is an engineer in the Air Force. So, I agree with your second assertion (the jobs aren't SELF-sustaining), but disagree with your first - as careers in government can be had (with a full pension after a mere 20 years service without that pesky stock market performance to deplete it).— Phrossty
- Apparently, Republicans forget that their Iraq expedition has created many jobs in excess of 200,00 for sure, just in the military personnel needed for waging it and sustaining it, not to mention the civilian contractors such as Blackwater, and military arms mnufacturers, not to mention the contractors over their spinning their wheels, spending our tax dollars, and on and on for what? To create an "enduring republican majority". That's a laugh!— tiredoftheBS
- "Every economists agrees that the New Deal failed..." Wow, CD75, that is a mis-informed and "partisan" statement if there ever was one. Even your spelling and grammer is worse than a 5th grader. Where do you get your information from Fox News? Oh yeah...you probably do.— the anti-CD75
- jwad: "I think the impact of lower taxes on economic growth and positive government tax revenue is also undeniable". The second half of that (positive government tax revenue) is actually disputed by a majority of economists.— still_independent
- Hello all! Daschle just withdrew!— NEPhilly
- NEP: as he should have.— still_independent
- NEPhil, thank for for telling us. I'm quite relieved. I think Obama put himself in jeopardy by having what is becoming a steady stream of tam-impaired (for lack of a more diplomatic phrase) on his team. I was quickly becoming disappointed. So I see this as good news.— NigeltheMastiff
- Sorry. Meant to say tax-impaired.— NigeltheMastiff
- grammer? although I agree with what you said is grammar worth complaining about especially when you spell the word wrong?— James TL
- anti: You are flatly wrong. There is no data which shows the New Deal worked. All the data shows it failed. By the way, I enjoy the fact that you love me so much that you actually took my screen name! Thanks so much.— CD75
- Glad Daschle bowed out. We don't need is brand of insider-trading hackery. I can't believe there aren't qualified experts out better than these tainted nominees. Aparently Obama is no better than McCain at vetting his appointees.— James TL
- James, you got me. I was so intent on making a point I messed up myself. At least I can admit i made a mistake, not like anyone in the Bush administration or hard-line Conservatives like CD75. The point is, government is there to steer the country in whatever direction Congress and the sitting administration feel it needs to. With Reps its tax cuts and an increase on defense spending...that got us no where. Dems what to invest in the country's infrastructure, and its citizen health and well-being. The latter is a plan for the future, everything else is prologue. James, thanks for keeping me on my toes.— the anti-CD75
- James, you got me. I was so intent on making a point I messed up myself. At least I can admit i made a mistake, not like anyone in the Bush administration or hard-line Conservatives like CD75. The point is, government is there to steer the country in whatever direction Congress and the sitting administration feel it needs to. With Reps its tax cuts and an increase on defense spending...that got us no where. Dems what to invest in the country's infrastructure, and its citizen health and well-being. The latter is a plan for the future, everything else is prologue. James, thanks for keeping me on my toes.— the anti-CD75
- Obama's first 14 days has been a Circus. Daschel has withdrew because he is a tax evader. Richardson withdrew because he is a crook, Gentheir is a tax cheat, and the "performance czar" Nancy Killefer is also a tax evader. (Don't forget Caroline Kennedy is a tax evader too). Add in the Porkulus bill and Obama's Presidency is nothing but a joke so far. Obama is making Bush look like a good President. At least Bush could vet his people.— CD75
- The indisputable fact is that unemployment was higher in 1937 and 1938 than in 1932-1934. An inconveinant truth for you anti, tal, liberal, Richard, et al. We know dems do not like facts. Richard and Liberal, please stop getting all your "education" from Rachel Madden and MSNBC.— CD75
- Agreed CD75 this is a joke. This is the worst start to a presidency in my lifetime. But what else did you expect?— jwad56
- Good. Daschle pulls himself out of HHS Nom. Be gone, Go away. Far, far away.— NipTip
- Although it didn't stop the Depression the New Deal surely did help the situation. Would have wanted the Federal government to stand by and do nothing CD? Would you have preferred that they let these people starve to death? FDR, like Obama tried to do what was best for the country. Seems like you don't care what happens to this country. All you want is for Obama to fail. I guess you agree with Limpblimp about that. If Obama fails it is bad for the country. Bush was a failure. You can tell that because of the situation we are in. Why do you want America to fail?— James TL
- "If the current generation of Republicans continues to misjudge the mood today, it risks the same political fate" - The mood I think was no more Bush, not a desire for the rise of Mount Porkulus.— jwad56
- jmc--nobody is arguing that the government provides jobs by sustaining itself as a business (although it could--the TVA for example). What the government does is direct investment money (taken from taxpayers and bondholders) to areas that will provide jobs and growth in the economy. Education, for example. Highways, etc. If the government does this right, then these investments will provide more economic growth than the investments that would have been made by the taxpayers or bondholders. When there's an economic crisis, the problem is that the private sector is not investing, so the government steps in. In this situation, almost anything government invests in will provide more economic growth than the noninvestment that is happening in the private sector.— liberal
- CD75 -- did you even READ the column? "Every economist" agrees that the New Deal was a failure? How about Bernanke -- a repuglican economist -- who clearly DIDN'T agree with that? Once again, CD75 shows true repuglican spirit -- denying the inconvenient facts and spewing half-truths in an attempt to bolster a totally unsupportable position...— The Dogfather
- Tjhaol--Since we know that socialism as a general proposition doesn't work economically, it's obvious that government can't grow to such a size that it creates a dysfunctional economy. My point is simply that government-directed investment is effective and sometimes essential. It seems to me that in our economy there is far too little government-directed investment in certain areas, education and transportation in particular. By the same token, there is far too much private investment in oil--to the point that it creates a national security problem. And too much investment in housing, as we all know. Neither sector is omniscient.— liberal
- Apparently, Daschle read my post on this blog this morning and threw in the towel.— liberal
- jwad56, how do you explain two professors, including one from that bastion of liberalism Penn, doing the writing? Yes, the WSJ displays a point of view - one that is very focused on a free market. The 'right wing' tends that way more than the left, but they are happy to take Republicans to task, unlike the Inky or Daily News who kneel before the words of our Fearless Leader.
- Tjhaol--the Cato Inst quote about reducing government to limit the power of the democratic party was from a paper in a section on eliminating social security. This was quite a few years ago and that particular paper may not be there any more.— liberal
- The conservatives who manage to drag up a few anti-new deal professors to opine that the New Deal didn't work are acting entirely in character. This is their approach to global warming as well. As long as they can find even one alleged authority who agrees with their ideological fantasies, they are convinced that they are gospel. Normal methods of finding facts are of no interest to them.— liberal
- Posted by CD75 01:48 PM, 02/03/2009 ••• "... At least Bush could vet his people." ••• Or, perhaps, he was better at keeping secret? http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-wodeve036022355feb03,0,207024.story ••• Can you say, "Richard J. Griffin?" http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/bridge/story/748624.html ••• I guess in the Conservative's mind misfiling (cheating on) taxes is worse than killing innocent civilians. ••• Also, it's OK to avoid a tax bill if it is done in the name of National Security. http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/bridge/story/746112.html ••• AND ••• http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2007/10/23/IRS%20decision.pdf— Phrossty
- Liberal, I am completely puzzled about why conservatives insist that global warming doesn't exist. How does that position threaten their philosophies? I just don't get it. From what I have read, there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the reality of climate change. Why is that fact so unacceptable to conservatives?— NigeltheMastiff
- NTMastiff: Mind if I venture a guess? It would be 1) the cause is championed by Al Gore; and 2) it allows for the justification of regulating business, particularly manufacturers who pollute (and provide jobs). I'm sure you're aware of how fond Conse' 'Pubs are of regulating business. I mean, we all know that regulation is bad since oil barons, real estate tycoons, investment bankers, hedge fund managers, Monsanto et alia all have our best interest at heart, after all, and would never sell us out just to make a buck. So we should remove the SEC, EPA, FDA and let the free market work its magic.— Phrossty
Comment removed.- Xi, you mean unlike Republicans, who cut income (taxes) and spend, spend, spend, thus delivering us to the disastrous condition in which we find ourselves?— NigeltheMastiff
- I keep tripping over the refs to the notorius tax cheat, Caroline Kennedy. Is she being considered for a post in the new administration or is this a "butwhatabout"?— JimR
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- YES!! There it is!! Thank you, Xi, for making me a prophet!!— Phrossty
- btw, Xi Jah, I infer from your postings that you would have withheld the $700B TARP to prevent all those companies and banks from looking to the government as the answer to their problems? If true, that's one point we agree on as I'm not certain I buy the "sky is falling" logic although the current fiscal crises might repudiate my sentiment.— Phrossty
- Comment removed.
- OK, so which meddling? The CRA which "forced" banks to make bad loans or the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act? The creation of FHMA and FHMC or the lack of regulation on same? Do we dismantle the entire military-industrial complex? I'm sure Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, GE, PennDOT, Blackwater Security, etc. (and their employees) would have a beef with that!— Phrossty
- I wonder what Barack The Clown will mess up next. A new Gallup poll says 58% disagree with The Clown's executive order on funding abortions. I love wathching this train wreck. America is getting what it voted for - and inexperienced, too young, and unqualified leader who spent too much time creating his own press release and reading off the teleprompter.— CD75
- JGD, off point, but to respond to your comment earlier today, asking did I oppose Daschle for poliical reaons only, to cut losses? You must have missed my earlier post referring to the former senator as a scumbag.— Djoko Pritza
- Polman's "the stock market went up 400 point" argument that the New Deal worked is so silly. So if the stock market goes up 400 points this month, does that mean this recession is over?— CD75
- CD75 - I should know better than to address you directly, but are you truly that poorly raised? Partisanship is one thing, but your level of disrespect ("Barack the Clown") belies a total lack of manners, which reflects poorly on your upbringing. Your folks must be so proud.— Phrossty
- Hi Dorko! I see the Porkulus is also having major problems. Your messiah is a joke.— CD75
- Prossty, so one is not allowed to call our President a clown? Funny, because people like you believe in burning the flag. Love it or leave it, Prosty.— CD75
- Ok, CD, I see you referred to me on the last blog as Dorko once again. I had hoped by first ignoring you, then asking you what your problem is with my name, that you’d put aside your childish ways. Now, I realize you won’t, or can’t. So, you have my permission to twist my name any way you want. I’ll probably still ignore you, as you rarely say anything intelligent, but call me what you will, if that is what gets you off. After all, you’re clearly a whackjob.— Djoko Pritza
- Comment removed.
- CD75, I'm not suggesting you're not allowed. I'm suggesting that so doing is a negative reflection on your upbringing. Your defense by lumping yourself with flag burners is enlightening. To explain, I think burning the flag is disrespectful, but I happen to believe it's a good thing that people in the US have a right to do it. Freedom of speech is just one of the many reasons I LOVE this country. I think you have the right to call the President a clown. I also think it shows how immature and rude you are. Never mind how it undercuts any point you might be trying to make.— Phrossty
- Barack the Clown should amend his motto from "Change we can believe in" to "politics as usual"— CD75
- CD75 sez: "Polman's "the stock market went up 400 point" argument that the New Deal worked is so silly. So if the stock market goes up 400 points this month, does that mean this recession is over?" That comment is so stupid I cannot resist stating the obvious: Polman wrote "the Dow Jones average rose by roughly 400 percent between 1933 and 1937." That's PERCENT, CD, not POINTS. If the Dow "rose 400 percent this month," I think it would get people's attention, yes. You should learn to read if you don't want everyone laughing at your ignorance.— Red Wright-Hand
- CD75 - The unemployment rate was 19% in 38 and 25% in 33. I am not an economist, but I think 25 is higher than 19.— Mcarlyle
- If tax cuts areuch a great mechanism for creating jobs, where are all the jobs from the massive Bush tax cuts? How can Republicans make statements like that after the last 8 years? Oh yeah, they did it after Reagan and got Bush elected. They count on the average american being stupid and ignorant. It's a good bet.— MikeP
- CD75 - in case you haven't noticed, Americans are concerned with real problems right now. There's no time for arguing with conservatives over a right that was established with Roe v. Wade.— Mcarlyle
- Comment removed.
- RED: CD75 is a teacher, who instills good Conse core values in his students.— Talvenada
- ARK: Hey, REAL American. They didn't have Palin to point out that the new president needed to be investigated, because he's NOT a real American, like her, you and Rush. .................. Tell me how Obama can succeed if his policies FAIL? Rush wants his policies to fail, but not him. Unless he governs as Rush TELLS him to, no? Remember, Rush says you don't have to think; he'll TELL you what to think!!— Talvenada
- I believe CD75's claim that "the unemployment rate in 1938 was higher than 1933" is incorrect. Unemployment rate in 1933 was 24.75%. Unemployment rate in 1938 was 18.91%. (Source: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html or http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p1-05.pdf (See Table D 85-86, page 135) It seems that CD75 needs to get factual.— PlainSkeptic
- CD75 makes another false claim that "every economists agrees that the New Deal failed and did not work." Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman says the New Deal was improving the economy until FDR was convinced to balance the budget in 1938. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/paul-krugman-schools-geor_n_144298.html It seems that CD75 needs to stop exaggerating.— PlainSkeptic
- CD75 wrote: "Every economists agrees that the New Deal failed and did not work. Get real Richard."— p-diddy
- testing for account mixup.— Talvenada
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
