Good Morning Friends,

Last time we were quoting something from The Communist Manifesto, about the "historical position" of the aristocracies of England and France. Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels were writing in the middle of the nineteenth century, but I think much of the description sounds a lot like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

First of all, he was an American aristocrat, wasn't he? A scion of a wealthy - but more importantly a high social status - family in Hyde Park, who was called a "traitor to his class."

"Thenceforth, a serious political contest was altogether out of the question." Roosevelt did not campaign for the presidency the first time on a platform of radical change. He did not base his campaign on upsetting the system very much..

"But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the Restoration period had become impossible." Roosevelt had originally tried what we might call a "restoration" of the system, didn't he? He campaigned on a platform of balancing the budget and fiscal discipline. He thought that things had just gotten out of hand and needed to be reigned in. But this was not sufficient. The social movements going on the 1930s America, in response to the economic crisis, would not permit such a paltry response. He had to go further.

"In order to arose sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate their indictments against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone." Again, Roosevelt as "traitor to his class," after he was pushed in a relatively more progressive direction by leftist social movements verging on revolution.

To be continued.

wingedcentaur