Author Jonah Goldberg has a good summary of the Wilson administration:
“Under Woodrow Wilson, the first American president to embrace the new cult of pragmatism and power that had overtaken “enlightened” thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic (and the first American president to openly disdain the U.S. Constitution), the progressives unleashed a crackdown on freedom that makes the supposed fascism of the McCarthy era and the Bush years seem like a teach-in at Smith College.
Wilson established the American Protective League, a group of domestic fascisti (after the practices of the Roman fasces – political enforcers) charged with crushing dissent, beating “slackers,” and intimidating average Americans. Wilson’s Committee for Public Information was the first modern propaganda ministry.
Indeed, according to the late sociologist and intellectual historian Robert Nisbet, the “…West’s first real experience with totalitarianism – political absolutism extended into every possible area of culture and society, education, religion, industry, the arts, local community and family included, with a kind of terror always waiting in the wings – came with the American war state under Wilson.”
“… particularly prominent on the American Left were the Bellamys. Edward and Francis Bellamy actively promoted what they called “military socialism” and, largely under their influence, loyalty oaths, flag ceremonies, racist preaching and even the straight-armed salute were all common in America long before they were adopted by the fascist Mussolini and by the Nazis.
Author John Ray says that “students of Marx identify Fascism with “Bonapartism” the type of regime devised by Napoleon Bonaparte and revived by his nephew Napoleon III.” “… Mussolini … [was] certainly influenced by Marx and the ancient world, but he had a whole range of ideas that extended beyond that. And where did he turn for up-to-date ideas? To America, of course!
And the American ideas that influenced him were, in fact, hard to miss. They were the ideas of the American “Progressives”. And, who was the best known Progressive in the world at that time? None other than the President of the United States – Woodrow Wilson – the man who would be most responsible for the postwar order in Europe [that led directly to the Second World War] and the creation of the “modern” Middle-East. So Mussolini had to do little more than read his newspapers to hear at least some things about the ideas of the very influential American Progressives.”
And the now notorious Ku Klux Klan was another of those parallels. It was once quite respectable in “Progressive” circles. In fact, the 1924 election indicates the extent to which the Klan was entangled with the progressives. For that was the year of the Democrats’ infamous “Klan bake” convention, when Klansmen participated heavily as delegates and blocked a platform plank that would have condemned their order.”
“Feminism, too was part of “Progressive” thinking. In the person of Margaret Sanger and others, feminists were very active in the USA in the first half of the 20th century, advocating (for instance) abortion and eugenics. Margaret Sanger, in fact, was warmly praised by Hitler for her energetic championship of eugenics – the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged desirable. And the American eugenicists were very racist. They shared Hitler’s view that Jews were genetically inferior and opposed moves to allow into America Jews fleeing from Hitler. [See The Voyage of the Damned.]”
And many progressives [several were well known fans of John Reed] were essential members, or strong and influential supporters, of the Franklin Roosevelt administration’s coercive and largely unconstitutional ‘New Deal’ in the 1930’s – people such as Rex Tugwell, Stuart Chase, James Hudson Maurer, John Brophy, John L. Lewis, Paul Douglas, Robert Dunn, Harold Ickes, David Lilienthal, Raymond Moley and more.
What these Americans all had in common was a curious affinity for coercive government action which characterized the socialist, fascist and communist regimes of the first half of the century. Many had traveled to Stalin’s Soviet Union in the late ‘20s and had written favorably of the coercive economic system touted by Stalin himself.
Again according to Goldberg:
“The progressive agenda permeat[ed] the philosophy and the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, who was first elected President in 1932. He campaigned, successfully, on a pledge to re-create the war-socialism of the Wilson administration, a goal that was wildly popular with the progressive/liberal establishment of the day.
Once he had been elected, progressive-minded newspaper editorial boards, politicians, his wife Eleanor and pundits exhorted him to become a “dictator.” The revered reporter and political commentator Walter Lippmann, for instance, told Roosevelt in a private meeting:
“The [economic] situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers.”
Similarly, Eleanor Roosevelt mused that America might need the leadership of a “benevolent dictator.” In FDR’s day, the term “dictator” did not carry [at least among the elite] all of the negative connotations with which it is currently freighted; rather, it signified the idea that a political “general” or “commander” was needed to take charge of the battle against the economic depression in a manner similar to how Woodrow Wilson and the progressives had fought World War I.”
Author William Engdahl has discussed Roosevelt’s First Inaugural and its forecasting of future coercive government actions:
“Our greatest primary task is to put people to work…We must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers, and by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land.”
Here FDR spoke about a major population resettlement from urban industrial centers to the land, anticipating his Civilian Conservation Corps [and Chairman Mao Tse Dong’s “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” in 1960s China]. As Roosevelt stated in the speech, that such government relief efforts, “…can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other public utilities…We must act and act quickly.”
Most explicitly, Roosevelt declared he was willing to suspend the Constitutional ‘Separation of Powers’ between Congress, Executive and Judiciary if need be:
“It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure. I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.”
foreshadowing Democrat Barack Obama’s selective enforcement of legislation passed by a Republican Congress or bills signed into law by previous presidents, Republican and Democrat alike.
To leave no doubt what he was pointing to if deemed necessary, Roosevelt concluded his speech by threatening to press for dictatorial powers should Congress balk at his agenda:
“In the event Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis – broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
Roosevelt’s was a most extraordinary and demagogic speech, for a man elected on a promise to restore confidence and get the nation on the road to recovery and prosperity. Rather than call for combined cooperative effort of the entire nation, to work together to restore confidence in banks and investing in the economy, Roosevelt went for what can only be termed a sort of class war attack against the “money changers in the temple.” This hardly restored confidence in the soundness of banks.
The core group of FDR’s early advisers centered about the figure of Harvard Law School Professor, Felix Frankfurter, an FDR intimate since his World War I days. The inner circle also included at the outset Columbia University Prof. Rexford Guy Tugwell, author Stuart Chase [Chase, along with Tugwell and Robert Williams Dunn, had jointly written a report, “Soviet Russia in the Second Decade,” following their 1927 travel to Stalin’s Russia], Agriculture Secretary Henry A. Wallace [later revealed to be associated with the Communist movement in America], and a small number of others. These were the men who had the private ear of the President on economic issues in his first term (1933-1937).
Also in his First Inaugural, Roosevelt promised “a new deal for the American people.” The term was taken from a 1932 book by the same name, “A New Deal,” written by Stuart Chase. Its contents were the currency of White House economic policy discussion by Tugwell and other central planners around the new President.
After leaving Harvard (What? Again?) in 1910, Chase went to Chicago to work in progressive icon Jane Addams’ Hull House. As a young bureaucrat with the Federal Trade Commission in 1917, Chase investigated charges against Armour & Co. meatpackers. This all shaped his social outlook, and the Soviet model gave it justification in terms of national planning.
In his 1932 book, “A New Deal,” Chase argued that “…The era of Trusts, monopolies, capital concentration by large banks, must now give way to central or collective planning.” Chase wrote, “…modern industrialism, because of its delicate specialization and interdependence, increasingly demands the collectivism of social control to keep its several parts from jamming.
We find a government meeting that demand by continually widening the collective sector through direct ownership, operation and regulation of economic functions … Collectivism is … on the march.” Much of Chase’s book was filled with fulsome praise for Stalin’s Russian model of central planning and its achievements, reflecting the fascination of numerous younger American intellectuals in the early 1930’s.
In his “A New Deal,” intended as a kind of blueprint for the Roosevelt campaign, Chase advocated [not an original concept but] what he called, “The Third Road, a road which runs neither to red [dictatorship – also communists’ favorite color] nor to black [business]” – an interesting choice of economic colors – red traditionally connoting losses and black connoting profits. Chase proclaimed that under the Third Road, “…private profit will not furnish the happy hunting ground it used to. State trusts, investment control, the curbing of speculation, will choke the muzzle of the more devastating forms.”
He also proposed drastic economic controls, “The Federal Reserve will take over the control of currency, the stock exchanges, banks and domestic investment… A new Foreign Trade Corporation will supervise exports, imports and foreign loans. Public works will undoubtedly be centralized in one department…”
Leaving no doubt that his sentiments were not market-oriented in any way, Chase concluded his tract by stating;
“… It is not an attempt to bolster up capitalism, it is frankly aimed at the destruction of capitalism, specifically in its most evil sense of ruthless expansion. The redistribution of national income, the sequestration of excess profits, and the control of new investment are all designed to that end.”
“Rexford Tugwell, the Columbia University economics professor who traveled with Chase in 1927 to the Soviet Union, was the central person of this collectivist group around Roosevelt. Indeed, when it emerged that Tugwell was one of the inner circle of the new President, business leaders and newspapers began to research Tugwell’s economic writings, and came away shocked, leading some to nickname him, “Rexford the Red.”
In a paper in the American Economic Review in March 1932, Tugwell wrote, that the quest for profit no longer motivated business, but that instead it produced “insecurity” because profits were, “…used for creating over-capacity in every profitable line; they are injected into money market operations in such ways as to contribute to inflation; they are used, most absurdly of all, as investments in the securities of other industries.”
Tugwell proceeded further in his frontal assault on the core of the free-market private enterprise system which had created such extraordinary wealth and improvement of general living standards over the previous decade:
“Industry is thought of as rather a field for adventure…The truth is profits persuade us to speculate.”
This belief is at the core of progressive liberalism – the quest for life without risk – which drives their social agenda to this day – cradle to grave government handouts.
In discussing a proposal to introduce national economic planning, Tugwell wrote in 1932,
“…it seems altogether likely that we shall set up, and soon, such a consultative body. The day on which it comes into existence will be a dangerous one for business … There may be a long and lingering death (of the private profit enterprise), but it must be regarded as inevitable… Private business would logically be required to disappear. This is not an overstatement for the sake of emphasis; it is literally meant.”
In October 1932, one month before FDR’s election, Rexford Guy Tugwell formulated a six-point program for dealing with the depression crisis. Tugwell opposed wage cuts, then a common method of corporate cost cutting. He insisted, however, on reducing retail prices, and called for “drastic income and inheritance taxes,” as well as “avoidance of budgetary deficits and monetary inflation.”
Obviously businesses could not possibly simultaneously maintain wage levels, reduce prices, and pay increased taxes, without risking bankruptcy in such crisis times. To this, Tugwell advocated,
“…the taking over by the government of any necessary enterprises which refuse to function when their profits are absorbed by taxation.”
This belief also is at the core of progressive liberal economic ignorance at best – insanity at worst.
In brief, Tugwell’s program (and this became the Roosevelt plan), would first make it impossible for business to function, then bring those failed businesses under nationalization or state ownership. Tugwell concluded his 1932 program,
“So long as prices, profits and individual production programs are at the disposal of independent business executives, our system will continue to show much the same faults as it displays at present.”
My “Auntie Ayn” was listening to this chilling analysis.
Again according to author Jonah Goldberg;
“FDR chose to attack the depression with his so-called New Deal series of economic programs passed during his first term in office. These programs greatly expanded the size, scope, and power of the federal government, giving the President and his Brain Trust near-dictatorial status.
“I want to assure you,” Roosevelt’s aide Harry Hopkins [later suspected of having a Communist affiliation] told an audience of New Deal activists in New York, “that we are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have a lawyer who will declare anything you want to do legal.”
I’m sure that was meant to be funny. It is, instead, frightening. Many of Roosevelt’s ideas and policies were entirely indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini. In fact, there were ”…many common features among New Deal liberalism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism, all of which shared many of the same historical and intellectual forebears [French Revolutionaries – including Napoleon].
Like American progressives, many Italian Fascist and German Nazi intellectuals championed a “middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism.” President Bill Clinton called it “Triangulation” in the 1990’s.
“The ‘middle way’ sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds un-ideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices—’I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.’ The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity.”
“The German and American New Deals – i.e., fascism and progressivism – also shared the bedrock belief that the state should be permitted to do whatever it wished, so long as it was for “good reasons.” Chief among those “good reasons” was the idea that government’s purpose was to protect the interests of “the forgotten man,” (that is – everyman) on whose behalf both FDR and Hitler were proficient at projecting deep concern.
Conversely, FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini alike made many populist appeals designed to spark resentment against so-called “fat cats,” “international bankers,” and “economic royalists.” Such appeals were, and remain, the tools of the trade for demagogues – a favorite progressive/liberal tactic.” [As recently as December 2009, for instance, President Barack Obama said: “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”]
In fact, Roosevelt hijacked the idea of “the forgotten man” from a Yale philosophy professor who had coined the phrase in the 1880s, when industrialization was exploding at the expense of the working man.
In her singularly superb book on the causes of the Great Depression – The Forgotten Man – author and economist Emily Shlaes makes the case that William Graham Sumner developed an anti-progressives lecture in defense of classic liberalism. His argument was that progressives often coerced unwitting average citizens into funding dubious social projects.
His central point was that progressive/liberal policy makers, and private supporters who may have ulterior motives, often decide what the social remedy will be for an issue that they determine to be wrong and which, in their view, negatively impacts the citizenry. They then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help their constituents. It is always the government’s way but – what about the citizens? According to Shlaes, “What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of the citizenry to the cause. The citizen was the forgotten man, the man who paid, (but) the man who never is thought of.”
According to Roosevelt, the forgotten man wasn’t the citizenry – all citizens, it was a particular citizen – “… the poor man, the old man, labor or any other recipient of government help.” Now, in order to justify giving something to the new “forgotten man”, government had to make a scapegoat out of another man. In Roosevelt’s world, those scapegoats were financiers, industrialists and businessmen and the program became one of bullying and pitting one group of Americans against another. Sound familiar? The game remains the same today.
Ironically, this scapegoating abruptly ended when war began in 1939 and Roosevelt needed those financiers, industrialists and businessmen to save his job and Western Civilization.
Much like Wilson, Roosevelt used the FBI and other government agencies to spy on domestic critics. He also authorized the use of the American Legion to assist the FBI in monitoring American citizens. And a compliant press remained silent.
The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was perhaps the most popular program of the New Deal, mobilizing some 2.5 million young men to work mostly as a “forestry army,” performing such tasks as clearing dead wood. In both substance and style, the CCC was essentially a paramilitary organization.
“Enlistees met at army recruiting stations; wore World War I uniforms; were transported around the country by troop trains; answered to army sergeants; were required to stand at attention, march in formation, employ military lingo…; read a CCC newspaper modeled on Stars and Stripes; went to bed in army tents listening to taps; and woke to reveille.”
While FDR justified these camps as useful vehicles for getting youth “off the city street corners,” their primary purpose was to expand the public sector. At the very same time, the Nazis were busy establishing similar camps that Hitler said would keep young people from “rotting helplessly in the streets.” A secondary objective of the camps – both in the U.S. and Germany – was to transcend class barriers and promote a sense of collective unity and duty.
The most representative initiative demonstrating the admiration of the New Dealers for the communist social and economic model of Joe Stalin was the creation of the Export-Import Bank in 1934. The Ex-Im Bank was created to promote trade with the Soviet Union, which many New Dealers, as we know, had visited in the late twenties, and which we have already discussed, had written favorably about and which – even in 1934 – was known for its pogroms, purges and gulags, along with its universally coercive central planning.
The Ex-Im Bank functioned by providing loan guarantees to the Soviet Union to allegedly encourage them to buy American products. Of course there weren’t many products to export in Depression Era America, except from large companies that had supported Roosevelt’s coercive policies that allegedly created jobs but which only gave them economic advantage.
Today the Ex-Im Bank provides billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company – which itself was extorted from the American oil companies that had developed the industry – and to other U.S. oil interests overseas.
Roosevelt also instituted the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which was led by Hugh “Iron Pants” Johnson, a passionate disciple of fascism who personally distributed innumerable copies of the openly fascist tract, The Corporate State (authored by Raffaello Viglione, one of Mussolini’s favorite economists).
Under Johnson’s leadership, the NRA imposed hundreds of onerous codes on businesses – mandating industry collusion and price-fixing that virtually eliminated competition and the free market. Threatening that Americans who failed to cooperate with the NRA’s dictates would get a “sock in the nose,” Johnson emphasized that the Roosevelt administration’s war on the depression was “lethal and more menacing than any other crisis in our history.”
The NRA established a stylized Blue Eagle as the patriotic symbol of compliance that all American business establishments were expected to hang from their doors, along with the motto “We do our part” – a phrase used by the Roosevelt administration the way the Germans used “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” (“Public need before private greed”).
American and German newspapers alike often noted the similarities between the Blue Eagle, which clutched a band of lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial cogwheel in the other, to the German Reich eagle. Johnson and the NRA dispatched a large army of informants, represented by such diverse constituencies as union members and Boy Scouts, to monitor compliance with the Blue Eagle program in neighborhoods across the United States. “When every American housewife understands that the Blue Eagle on everything that she permits to come into her home is a symbol of its restoration to security, may God have mercy on the man or group of men who attempt to trifle with this bird,” Johnson said.
To further promote “voluntary” compliance with the Blue Eagle program, Johnson organized many military parades and Nuremberg-style rallies, where marchers donned the uniforms of their respective occupations. The fascist mindset underlying the NRA’s authoritarian mandates was confirmed in the results of a study commissioned by the NRA’s own Research and Planning Division. Titled “Capitalism and Labor under Fascism,” it concluded: “The fascist principles are very similar to those which have been evolving in America and so are of particular interest at this time.” Unbelievable!
“It is also possible that socio-political Utopian ideas that inform Freemasonry also resonated with Roosevelt, who was a 32nd degree Freemason. This contention is strengthened by the technocratic pedigree of FDR’s New Deal. In the early days of the 1932 election, technocratic theoretician Henry A. Porter published Roosevelt and Technocracy. The book raised an interesting question: “Will TECHNOCRACY be the New Deal?”
Based on his observations of FDR’s policies, Porter gravitated towards the affirmative. In fact, Porter made no effort to conceal his approval of FDR: “Only skillful statesmanship – the statesmanship of Roosevelt, and sound economic principles – the principles of Technocracy, can lead us out of the valley of Chaos and Despair into which we are plunging”Meanwhile, technocratic enclaves in California even promoted “the granting of dictatorial powers to Franklin D. Roosevelt”.
Indeed, the New Deal facilitated the technocratic restructuring of America. One case in point was the Social Security Act, which was inspired by a retired physician named Dr. Francis Townsend. Cribbing from Looking Backward, a piece of normative fiction by Freemason and socialist Utopian Edward Bellamy, Townsend developed a federal program that would have allocated $200 a month to unemployed citizens over the age of 60. According to Townsend’s hypothetical plan, the recipients of this financial assistance would be required to spend their allotments of $200 within 30-days.
Although Congress did not pass the Townsend Bill, the legislation did inspire the Social Security Act. In this sense, Social Security was one of many New Deal machinations that originated with technocratic theoreticians. James Dowell Crabtree reiterates: “In this way, one might say that the Technocrats did indeed have an indirect influence on the New Deal, by way of the contributors to their doctrine (Bellamy) to an activist who espoused their ideas of guaranteed income (Townsend) and finally into law”.
In fact, the socialist pedigree of the Social Security Act is candidly reaffirmed by the U.S Social Security website, which features a tribute to Otto von Bismark, the conservative Prussian statesman who dominated German and European affairs from the 1860s until 1890.
In the 1860s he engineered a series of wars that unified the German states (excluding Austria) into a powerful German Empire under Prussian leadership. With that accomplished by 1871, he skillfully used balance-of-power diplomacy to preserve German hegemony in Europe and became the first Chancellor of Germany – a title taken by Adolf Hitler in 1933. It reads:
“Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany’s Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck’s behest, in 1881 by Germany’s Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: “… those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state.”
Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the imperialistic motivated German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: “Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me.”
In addition to this program of “guaranteed income,” the New Deal would create a vast constellation of government agencies. These included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Public Works Administration (PWA), the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), and, most notably, the National Recovery Administration (NRA).
Of course, such convoluted organizational compartmentalism reflected the massive bureaucratization endemic to technocratic models of governance. Crabtree observes that this new “[c]entralized and functional” monolith was similar to the continental administration advocated by Technocracy Inc. The impact of this model would leave a “permanent mark” on America’s federal government.” How prophetic. The era of Big Government had begun.
In The New World Order, legendary author H.G. Wells (recall The War of the Worlds) synopsizes the New Deal as follows:
“The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive ‘policies’ and ‘Plans’ of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word ‘socialism’, but what else can one call it?”
Of course, socialism is disseminated on the popular level under various appellations and in a myriad of forms. For instance, in 1933, Hitler candidly admitted to Hermann Rauschning that: “… the whole of National Socialism is based on Marx”. Nazism, which was merely a variant of fascism, was a derivative of Marxism. So, the historical conflicts between communism and fascism were merely feuds between two socialist totalitarian camps, not two dichotomously related forces.
Benito Mussolini once opined: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” This was precisely the form of socialism that the New Deal enshrined. Joseph R. Stromberg elaborates on the Corporatist features of the New Deal:
“Herbert Hoover was a major architect of peacetime corporatism. As Commerce Secretary he encouraged the cartelistic integration of trade associations with labor unions. As President, he pioneered most of the New Deal measures, which had the unexpected effect of prolonging a depression itself caused by governmental monetary policy.”
In the election of 1932, important Business liberals shifted their support to FDR when Hoover refused to go over to a fully fascist form of corporatism. By contrast, the Roosevelt Administration pushed through the National Recovery Act, which openly sanctioned the cartelizing activities of trade associations, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, cartelizing the farm sector. The Wagner Act of 1935 integrated labor into the nascent system.” (Corporatism – communism – cartels, Oh, my!
Sheldon Richman reiterates this contention: “Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy’s. Under the NRA Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other terms of employment, production, and distribution for all companies in an industry. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act the government exercised similar control over farmers. Interestingly, Mussolini viewed Roosevelt’s New Deal as “boldly… interventionist in the field of economics.”
According to Srda Trifkovic,
“Corporatism as it was implemented in Mussolini’s Italy, was a central preoccupation of the policy professionals that surrounded FDR: Roosevelt and his ‘Brain Trust,’ the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism – a term which was not pejorative at the time. In America, it was seen as a form of economic nationalism built around consensus planning by the established elites in government, business, and labor”.
So, what were the results of these policies?
Continued in the next post.