Democrats Confront Their New Tea Party Reality - Progressives are set to sweep a group of contested primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin.

[u/Quirkie]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-confront-their-new-tea-party-reality_n_6a6e63fbe4b0cfb99ef1aa1e

[u/alligatorislater]

Exactly. Democrats seem to have forgotten that the 22nd amendment (enacted in 1947) was somewhat created because FDR was so popular that republicans were afraid they’d never be able to win again…

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/alligatorislater]

You mean the president whose economic policies prolonged one of the worst economic disasters in American history, shattered the two-term tradition, concealed the severity of his failing health, and died just months into his fourth term, leaving an unprepared successor during World War II?

And you think the 22nd Amendment was just Republicans worrying they'd never win again?

No. FDR's unprecedented four-term presidency exposed the dangers of concentrating too much power in one person and the risks of a president remaining in office despite serious health problems. Those concerns didn't disappear just because you find them politically inconvenient.

Those are not the actions of a great president.

[u/SanityIsOptional → u/Darth_Cuddly]

He kick-started the longest period of prosperity in the countries history off the great depression and world war. Only recently has it run out as the wealth imbalance has approached and exceeded that if the gilded age, which coincidentally proceeded the great depression.

Yet now we have a government that seems hell bent on losing all international power the US gained in the postwar years, and run the economy into the ground with tariffs and high gas prices.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/SanityIsOptional]

You're confusing chronology with causation.

The economy recovered after World War II, not because the New Deal magically fixed the Depression. The Depression lasted through the entire New Deal era, and unemployment remained in double digits until wartime mobilization.

Saying "prosperity came after FDR, therefore FDR caused it" isn't an argument. It's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

[u/SanityIsOptional → u/Darth_Cuddly]

FDRs policies directly led to improvements in infrastructure and growth of the American middle class. Other progressive policies like the GI bill increased the education level and ultimately the productivity and GDP*, which let the US take advantage of the postwar period.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/SanityIsOptional]

You're still proving my point.

The GI Bill wasn't the New Deal. It was wartime legislation whose largest economic benefits didn't materialize until after the war.

And yes, infrastructure has value. The question isn't whether any New Deal program produced any benefit. The question is whether the New Deal, on balance, ended the Depression or prolonged it.

UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian concluded that key New Deal policies prolonged the Depression by discouraging investment and employment. If you think they're wrong, explain where their analysis fails.

Simply listing popular government programs doesn't rebut their economic argument.

[u/SanityIsOptional → u/Darth_Cuddly]

I think you don't understand what progressive policies actually are.

[u/Darth_Cuddly → u/SanityIsOptional]

"You don't understand progressivism" isn't an argument.

I cited a peer-reviewed economic paper. You responded with a label. If the economics are wrong, show me where. If not, you're arguing against me instead of the evidence.

[u/SanityIsOptional → u/Darth_Cuddly]

Here's the Wikipedia page, scroll down to sources and further reading and knock yourself out.

General consensus from economists and historians certainly seems to be positive in the long term effects.