Mit einer solchen gewaltigen Macht, wie sie die Demokraten gewonnen hahen, würde man in einem andern Land gewiß einen grundsätzlichen Umschwung der Politik, wenn nicht der Wirtschaft erwarten. In Amerika glaubt kein Unterrichteter ernsthaft, daß der demokratische Sieg irgendetwas Besonderes an der Innen- und Auβenpolitik der amerikanischen Regierung andern wird. Für Europaer sollte wohl die Erinnerung an Wilsons Riesenschwung von der Neuen Freiheit zur Kriegsdiktatur genügen, um Illusionen unmöglich zu machen. Ein Blick auf die heutige Zusammensetzung der demokratischen Führerfchaft und ihrer finanziellen Gönner sollte dazu beitragen auch die leiseste Hoffnung auf wesentliche Änderung der Methoden und des Ausblicks zu vernichten. Weder der Rekord des Gouverneurs Roosevelt in New York noch seine Haltung während der Wahlkampagne berechtigt zu der Annahme, daß seine Verwaltung von der Wilsons oder Hoovers grundsatzlich verschieden sein wird. Obgleich er eine Unterstützung der Wähler erhielt, die zum erstenmal in der amerikanischen Geschichte wirklich national genannt werden kann, und obgleich er also die volle Verantwortung für den Miβbrauch seiner Parteimacht tragen muβ wie noch nie ein amerikanischer Präsident, wird doch nichts geschehcn, um den Eisenschuh der großen Klassenherrschaft vom Nacken der Nation zu entfernen. Freilich hat Roosevelt in der Hitze des Wahlfiebers erklärt: »Ich bin fur Privatbefitz, aber doch nicht so weit, daβ 1/4 aller Bürger dadurch ruiniert wird.>> Aber er hat nach seiner Wahl sofort eingelenkt: »Legitime Geschäfte haben von mir nichts zu fürchten.>> So hat auch Wilson gedroht jeden groβen Finanzfürsten zu hängen, der an der Demokratie rührt, um dann doch auf John Pierpont Morgans Befehl eine der schlimmsten Diktaturen in unserer Geschichte aufzurichten. Wir werden also eine Wiederholung der Wilsonschen Entwicklung erleben, in der Franklin Roosevelts angeblicher Liberalismus vor der offentlichkeit als Deckmantel für die volksfeindlichsten Manöver dienen wird. {Contemporary "s" used in quote instead of original "f"-style German "s".}In one way, Untermann's expectation is dead-on: in the sense that a dogmatic assumption that the Democratic and Republican Parties of 1932 were irretrievably corrupt and reactionary because they didn't endorse an ultimate program of state ownership of the means of production, which makes its own circular definition. It also has the advantage of being retroactively correct from that viewpoint, because FDR neither attempted nor achieved the abolition of capitalism in the United States. The SPD nominally still did support such a program in 1932, although in reality they had long since rejected such a goal as anything but a symbol of some ideal future state not to be taken seriously in practical politics.
[My translation, with additional paragraph breaks: With such great power as the Democrats have won for them selves, in another country one would expect a basic change in politics, if not in the economy. In America, no news reporter seriously believe that the Democratic victory will change anything essential in the internal and external policy of the American government. For Europeans, the memory alone of {Woodrow} Wilson's huge swing from the New Freedom to war dictatorship should be enough to make illusions impossible. A glance at the present collection of the Democratic leadership and their financial backers should also contribute to destroying the slightest hope for essential changes in methods and outlooks. Neither Roosevelt's record as Governor in New York nor his position during the election campaign justifies the assumption that his Administration will be fundamentally different than those of Wilson or Hoover.
Even though he attained the support of the voters, who really could vote nationally for the first time in American history, and even though he must therefore carry the responsibility like no American President ever before for the misuse of his partisan power, nothing will happen to take the iron shoe of the great class rule off the neck of the nation. It's true that Roosevelt declared in the heat of election fever: "I'm in favor of private ownership, but not so far that a quarter of all citizens are thereby ruined." But after his election, he immediately softened his tone: "Legitimate businesses have nothing to fear from me." {Both FDR quotes retranslated from the German} So had Wilson also threatened to hang any great prince of finance who disturbs democracy, only to erect one of the worst dictatorships in our history at the order of John Pierpont Morgan.
We will therefore experience a repetition of the Wilsonian development, in which Franklin Roosevelt's alleged liberalism with serve as a cover for the most hostile maneuvers against the people.]
However, from any realistic point of view, it certainly reads now as near-delusional. Because Roosevelt wound up making more far-reaching reforms that increased the well-being and enhanced the rights of working people than any other major capitalist country during the early 1930s.
There are also some strange assumptions in that quote. Wilson's Administration did take repressive measures during the war against antiwar activists and resident aliens who were leftwing activists. But to imagine it as a "war dictatorship" is unrealistic, to put it mildly. And a dictatorship erected at the orders of John Pierpont Morgan? That sounds like Ron Paul Bircher territory.
In light of the 2012 fashionability of austerity economics in a depression, it's worth noting that neither Untermann nor Roosevelt nor the SPD understood in 1932 that budget-balancing in such circumstances was as suicidal as we see it being today in Greece and Spain. FDR famously promised in his 1932 campaign to balance the budget, and Untermann sneers at that promise ... because he argued the Roosevelt wasn't serious about it! Untermann protests, he never was able to do it as Governor of New York!
Untermann was also known for his paintings of prehistoric creatures. Here's a video of some of Untermann's dinosaurs YouTube date 0812/2009:
If that article is any measure, his painting is much better than his political analysis was.
Tags: ernst untermann, fdr, franklin roosevelt
No comments:
Post a Comment