I would like to once again thank my
opponent for agreeing to this debate. I too am a huge fan of history and have
learned a lot more about the accomplishments of both presidents during my
research. Now onto the rebuttal and provision of more negative areas of FDR’s
presidency.
Moral Character
I am shocked that my opponent chose
to argue for the morality of FDR. My opponent, however, didn’t even explain why
moral character and willingness to lead are “the most important test for
leadership”. Con mentions that FDR was confident and had polio as president.
These, while impressive, weren’t elaborated upon with specific policies that
these strengthened. He also states that FDR didn’t listen to his advisors. He
is correct, as Henry Morgenthau, his Secretary of Treasury said: "We have
tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and
it does not work." I will prove later that FDR did not listen to this
advice[13].
I think my opponent neglects the true
objective of fireside chats: propaganda. He reduced the license for radio
stations to six months so that he could shut down unfavorable news stations
quickly. NBC stated they would limit broadcasts “contrary to” US policies. CBS
also wouldn’t broadcast anything “that in any way was critical of any policy of
the Administration”. He limited all information so that no one could challenge
his fireside chats[1].
FDR was also immoral obviously for
his internment of over 122,000 Japanese men, women, and children purely on the
basis of their ethnic heritage. 70,000 of these individuals were citizens of
our great country, but that meant nothing to this tyrant. These Americans were
never compensated by FDR for their $1.3 billion in property loss and $2.7
billion in income loss[2]. Doesn’t seem moral. Nor does his refusal to accept 937
Jewish refugees who sailed to America. They were sent back to Europe where a
quarter died in the Holocaust[3]. FDR also helped cover up a massacre of 22,000
Polish officers by the USSR, which empowered the Russians to a much harsher
rule after the war[4].
Economic Policy
You argue that the Banking Holiday
was so good, but you ignore some of the darker portions of the bill. The
Glass-Steagall Act separated investment and commercial banking. This prevented
banks from growing by limiting their diversification abilities[5]. Executive
Order 6102 required all but negligible amounts of gold to be turned in. Those
who violated were threatened with $10,000($193,548) in fines and/or 10 years in
prison. Not only did he violate their rights, but he also threatened violators
with significant fines and prison time[6].
The FLSA wasn’t the shining accomplishment
that you suggest. You say that it ended child labor, but the free market did
most of that. By 1930, 6.4% males and 2.9% of female children were employed and
much of this was agricultural work. Research into these types of laws show that
it often hurts poor families because of the reduced income[7]. Also, I’m
surprised Con brought up the minimum wage. You could argue for its use today but
back then, its purpose was to keep Blacks out of the job market. Blacks often
had less education and their labor was worth less, so they usually undercut
white workers’ wages. Minimum wages made undercutting impossible, so it would
help white people[8]. The minimum wage was largely pushed by eugenicists, as
they wanted to keep “unemployables” out of the job market[9]. So, no, child
employment wouldn’t be running rampant and more Blacks would have been employed.
FDR had other egregious economic
policies. He created the AAA, which paid farmers to not produce crops. This
made agricultural products much more expensive to consumers. The smaller crop
yields increased our reliance on imports, which decreased the money supply. By
1935, we had to import 36 million lbs of cotton, 13 million bushels of wheat,
and 34 million bushels of corn[18].
The AAA also gave millions of dollars
to farmers, but it gave no relief to 600,000 Black sharecroppers. FDR even
destroyed the jobs of many of these African Americans by having the TVA flood
farmland. 15,000 people were removed from their homes. The Black tenant farmers
again weren’t reimbursed. FDR had more power than any other president in
history at the time. If he was so moral, why would he not use this power to
help Blacks instead of hurting them? FDR also implemented the Wagner Act, the
National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, and the National Recovery
Administration. These allowed for the creation of 700 business cartels, they
made it more expensive to hire employees(minimum wage, social security taxes,
etc.), and raised taxes on corporations. Economists Thomas E. Hall and J. David
Ferguson stated that the increased taxes and regulation of the industries
contributed to the high unemployment experienced throughout the Great
Depression. FDR also created uncertainty among businesses by frequent tax code
changes, with four between 1932-1936. This prevented them from expanding because
they couldn’t accurately predict the future business environment that they
would endure[19,20].
Foreign Policy
No sources are provided to prove
“aftershock” from WWI, how FDR was specifically “brilliant” in his war waging,
or that he remained “calm and vigilant”. I can, however, say that FDR caused the
Pearl Harbor attack by freezing Japanese assets in the US and cutting off oil
trade. We were 88% of Japan’s oil imports, and their reserves would only have
lasted for 3 years, which caused their hasty retaliation[10].
I can say that FDR helped cause the
Cold War. He agreed to give the Russians much of Eastern Europe, thus
empowering this untrustworthy state. FDR ended the lend-lease program to
Russia, which provided weapons to help the war effort. He also stalled in
opening an Eastern front, and instead let Russians fight that battle entirely
on their own. This seems to contradict your point of his “brilliance”. He also
didn’t tell the Russians about his nuclear arms, so Truman’s use frightened
them and started an arms race between already distrusting countries[10,11].
Environmental Policy
I would say that your characterization of
these policies’ success is quite misleading. While farmers did overplough their
land, the main cause of the dustbowl was the years-long drought that baked this
land. The dustbowl ended because the rain returned[12]. So, while some of these
programs may have caused minor alleviation to the problem, they did not stop
them, the rain did. I also think that it would be hard for you to compare FDR’s
few policies to the enormous conservation efforts of the EPA, Clean Air Act,
and Clean Water Act, which I have mentioned have prevented hundreds of
thousands of diseases and have prevented dumping waste in rivers freely.
Turned the US into a Superpower
The reason that the US stood above
these other countries financially was not because of FDR’s economic policies,
but because (barring Pearl Harbor) no fighting occurred in the US to destroy
our assets. However, my opponent’s whole argument is based on a myth. The US
did not become a superpower until 1956. Eisenhower saw that Britain was still
the main world power(influentially), as it was dominant in the Middle East,
manipulated us into intervening in Greece’s civil war, and had “veto” over our
policy in Southeast Asia[14]. If we were such a superpower, why could the
British influence our decisions like this? It is even hard to say that we were
a financial superpower, as we were drowning in debt. Our debt to GDP ratio was
the worst it has ever been under FDR, nearing the end of WW2. We had a debt 20%
larger than our entire GDP[15]. The Bretton Woods System you mention was
luckily ended by Nixon. This system was impossible to manage, as it mandated
exchange rate stability. This is impossible because not all countries have the
same rates of inflation. This caused an imbalance of foreign money reserves and
caused the system to eventually collapse. A fixed-rate exchange never could
have worked[16].
Also, you mention the UN, which utterly failed early on. They
allowed the USSR to gain a veto on the security council, which prevented the UN
from resolving issues caused by the USSR in the Cold War. By 1947, USSR had
used 17 of the 18 vetoes. This prevented intervention against the Soviets who
invaded Iran, and other international violations by them[17].
Conclusion
So, despite by opponent’s supposed
negation of my resolution, I have quite covered how the opposite is true. FDR
silenced all political opponents through media regulation and interned over
one-hundred thousand Japanese. He also sent nearly one thousand Jewish refugees
to Europe, where many died. Nixon, on the other hand, proved to be much more
moral through championing minority and womens’ rights. FDR forcibly collected
private property, supported racist minimum wage laws, and raised the prices of
domestic products. He flooded farmland and created a hostile business
environment that prolonged unemployment. FDR increased the debt to GDP ratio to
its worse in history. Nixon on the other hand took us off the gold standard so
we could combat future recessions, and he reduced deficits during wartime and following
the Great Society.
FDR empowered the Soviets by promising them many lands after
WW2 and UN veto power, thus preventing the UN from accomplishing its goals. He angered the USSR through not opening an Eastern front
and ending Lend-Lease. Nixon had to deal with the Cold War, instigated
partially by FDR, and Nixon actually reduced Cold War tensions with SALT and
ABM treaties. FDR’s policies mentioned did not stop the dust storms, rain did.
His environmental achievements are dwarfed by Nixon’s EPA and Clean Air/Water
Acts. Finally, FDR did not turn us into a superpower in the sense that Britain
still had a monopoly in world influence. FDR set up a doomed Bretton Woods
system that Nixon ended. So, it is quite clear that Nixon is far more worthy of
the title of best president than FDR.
Sources(Pg.2)
I'm trying to start the Nixon gang. Coolidge and Teddy are good, too, though
Where's the Calvin Coolidge gang? Massive economic growth, 1/3 reduction in national debt. Restored the integrity of the presidency after the scandal-ridden Harding administration, zero scandals of his own (indicative of high moral character)
I appreciate you taking the time to sift through my debate!
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Nixon > Roosevelt
Gist:
Two great men, but unfortunately the comparison stopped with the negatives of Roosevelt uncontested, and all positives of Nixon unchallenged by any negatives.
1. Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
Anti-R. Did not listen to his expert advisers. Engaged in propaganda (didn’t they all?). Racist who sent 122k people to concentration camps, of whom 70k were full citizens; further they were directly robbed by the government and not economically reimbursed.
2. Saved His Political Party (2)
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems unimportant as people would almost certainly just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
3. Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
---RFD (2 of 4)---
4. Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
Anti-R. Child labor was already low (mostly rural, where they were often working family farms...), stuff about blacks (it’s dropped so pro gets it, but I feel the need to point out this not being a good interpretation o the data, even if utilized well as an argument). Ended up causing more unemployment worsening the great depression.
---RFD (3 of 4)---
5. Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
Anti-R. Speaking of WWII on the moral point, it came up that he rejected 1k Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust, sending them back where many died. Plus empowered Russia with covering up some of their warcrimes, making them an increased threat to the USA. ... Pro continued by linking him to causing Pearl Harbor (on NPR I’ve listened to some stuff about them trying to declare war just before the attack, but us intentionally delaying their declaration to play victim... Not excusing their actions, just pointing out a funny historical detail about our role). And on the superpower note (I hoped this was coming), the simple fact that we did not have fighting on our soil causing our comparative economic strength, to which whomever happens to be president at the time does not get credit.
---RFD (4 of 4)---
---
Arguments: pro
See above review of key points. Honestly, I felt that just on the strengths Nixon would win this, but his negatives are within living memory so may have cost him worse in R3 (I can’t imagine what would compare to the concentration camps, but something could have been argued as worse).
Sources: tied
I really dislike when things are posted outside the debate. I strongly suggest highlighting the intent to do that within the debate description... Actually I really suggest just increasing the character limit to hold them (and probably using a few less to get the gist across...).
S&G: tied
Both were fine.
Conduct: pro
Two rounds forfeited, vs the source issue... Had con raised the character limit violation, I would leave this tied, as is I’ll discount one of the forfeits, but that leaves a forfeit standing.
In case anyone is curious, here's a snapshot of my RFD draft at the end of R2...
1 Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
2 Saved His Political Party (2) vs
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems pretty unimportant as people would just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
R.
3 Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
4 Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
5 Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
My opponent proved my point: Nixon did nothing wrong!
One day left, heads up.
I had a debate on Israel with whiteflame, if you ever want to read a novel. Only one person (blamonkey) allocated points, and I lost :/
The Jews like us supporting their foreign policy by having out men die for things that are of no benefit to the United States. As long as they are enemies with those countries, our leaders under the influence of their campaign contributions and control of popular media, we will be forced to have enemies that would mean us no harm otherwise.
Yeah, I don't really see any benefit to being enemies with these nations. The only option to change anything at that point is to go to war. If we treat them with respect and open negotiations, you can achieve good results without spending trillions and sending thousands of soldiers to die.
Obama caufht shit from Hillary for saying he would have a dialogue with dictators as well. They say it showed his inexperience. It is completely retarded for any head of state to be opposed to dialogue with another head of state. Kim Jung UN was visibly frightened sitting across from Trump. Putin seems to be putting on a front in front of Trump. No Democrat could get this type of respect. They don't understand that his reckless demeanor gives him an advantage over every head of state he sits across from. Reagan used the same tactic. Pretending he had dementia, intentionally spreading rumors of it so they would think they were dealing with an unpredictable dangerous entity. Democrats are scared Putin has black mail material on Trump. They are too stupid to know Trump is the real teflon don and there could be footage of him killing a 5 year old and fucking its severed head and he would still come put looking like roses.
Did you know about what they did about his Supreme Court pick? They had signs against each of his picks premade. They found a stockpile. They oppose him just to oppose him..... Not to mention the "meeting with dictators" narrative. They praised Obama for going to Cuba...
The Democrats already had a memo sent out to each other that said to oppose him on every front, even on policies they agree with, so pretty clear they are pieces of shit
Yeah, Trump is up there. Everything good like the economy (2 years later) they try to take credit, but the child separation and the little camps set up under Obama are Trump's fault. A little consistency would be nice
I think Andrew Jackson was better. Richard Nixon was pretty good though. Almost as Good as Trump
Do you agree that my main man Nixon is the best?
I will join you in the top ten. I am done fucking around.
This debate needs to regain its hype.
I'm rooting for you because I want more conservatives in the top 10. I'm currently the only one.
Thanks, my dude. Even though I'm rooting for "Mr. Watergate"?
Good luck. I'm rooting for you.
This debate could use some comments :P