FDR won 4 presidential elections. He enjoyed popular consent. Not a fascist. The fascists were the ones trying to unseat him via a military coup. Thank dog for Smedley Butler.
Strange, then, that both Mussolini and the National Socialist Party in Germany at the time both called him one of their own in publications of the time. Never mind that you seem to imply that there can only exist one fascist faction at any given time.
FDR was accused of being fascist because typically in a fascist environment the leader will promote works programs to appease the people. The difference in FDR being that it was to try to stimulate the economy after the Great Depression, but it wasn't to bolster the government, despite the fact that it was a government program.
He was both accused of it AND PRAISED FOR IT. By two of the most prominent examples of the time. I'll let your "intentions are all that matter" gambit percolate in it's own naivete for a while.
There isn't a practicing historian on earth who would call Roosevelt a fascist. The whole notion is completely preposterous; along the same dumbshit intellectual lines as "The Nazis were socialists." It's an argument that should be utterly beneath you. Is this something Jordan Peterson whispered in your ear?
Roosevelt May have been a populist but not a fascist, just because Hitler and Mussolini say something, it does not make it so. yes I know a shocking revelation.
I am sure there are multiple forms, I doubt that most scholars outside Mussulini and Hitler would qualify Roosevelts administration as one. Now having said that, there are crazy "scholars" out there, so I would not be shocked if I goggled and found people that claim that just like I probably would find people claiming he was an Alien. And well, the other Roosevelt, but the first thing I saw after a quick google. http://www.followingthenerd.com/par...ents-made-treaties-with-other-worldly-aliens/
1 quoting the dictionary is a form of white colonial oppression (or so I exaggerate what I have been told). 2. A world War does cause a big raise in Nationalism, dictatorial power is an exaggeration IMO, sure use of executive power can be seem as authoritarian, if it goes against your political leanings, but all presidents have used it, suppression of opposition, I am going to say Roosevelt mostly fails here some dirty tricks perhaps, but not much more, strong regimentation of the economy, sure, the new deal was that, but of society, I say not really, not intentionally.
I didn't describe one, I mentioned one. A military coup can result in fascism. So can voter suppression within a democracy. You can even have fascism within the context of a leader legitimately elected by a democratic majority. Juan Peron in Argentina is a good example.
You didn’t mention the word ‘coup’. I had to deduce that was what you meant. Military coups tend to result in fascist regimes. Not always, but generally yes.
When Hitler ran for office he ran on a platform of full employment, similar to FDR and Mussolini in that respect. One of the main differences between FDR and dastardly duo would be his attitude towards corporates ("I welcome their hatred, business plot etc) and unions. Hitler and BM worked with the oligarchs, FDR had to battle against them.
Was FDR praised for "fascism" or just the programs he instituted (I found reference the latter, not the former)? If it was only the latter, of course they would, the programs worked great for the time and were backed by the people. As for praise in general, Hitler called Stalin a great leader. The point being that just because another leader says it, doesn't mean it is true.
Yes. And one cannot ignore the similarities between the programs of the New Deal and German & Italian ones of the same time. Contemporaries did just that. Most of that gets left out of summary articles because any diminution of the myth is just not "proper". Sure. But it wasn't just them.
But he did not cancel elections to get them done. He did the court packing bluff thing. He was definitively a populist, (some) Iranian people calls us the great Satan, it does not mean we are. The differences between Roosevelt and the other 2 clowns are much bigger than the similarities.
You're right! Everyone who explores the similarities acknowledges that. The GOP of the 70s through the 2010s wants their argument back. Debatable, but the mere exploration of the similarities is nearly taboo.
Probably on the left (most of us here are on the left). But the argument is alive on the right. https://www.cato.org/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt I am sure it is mostly about the economic programs or state sponsored growth, the funny thing is that it took WW2 to fulfill the temporary state take over of the USA economy. That seems to be the big argument, the right never liked how much involvement there was in the economy during the new deal. At that point many governments reacted in a similar way to the economic conditions, more government involvement was the answer. Now, to the credit of the USA government, after WW2, the state mostly moved away from the economy and allowed the private sector to continue to control the economy. BTW, CATO needs to do better with their quote references.
Schivelbusch was who I had in mind. I don't know what you mean. Yes...? What? Hell, the CPUSA wasn't thrilled either. That was the answer that was accepted by the leadership of the various players. Was it the only possible answer? We'll never know. -ish. Yeah, the CCC and things like it went away (Goebbels actually talked admiringly of a couple of them and tried running propaganda off them, even in the early days of our involvement in the war). Other stuff, and importantly, the ideas behind them, stuck around a long time and morphed into a victor-writing-history situation where aspects of the "enemy" ideology got co-opted and re-framed as exemplars of the opposite, "good" ideology. What do you mean?