Reflections after the election: Lacunae in the education of engineers

On Nov 6, 7:15 pm, SMS wrote:
The U.S. has now moved into the 21st century. The Republican party base
has become a sad group of 19th century bigots, evangelicals, and
uneducated neo-cons that complain about some mythical "mainstream media"
that's against them.

Don't they teach engineers any history, Scarfie?

In the 19th century, if the rest of us recollect correctly, Abraham
Lincoln fought a civil war to free the slaves, the defining
Jeffersonian moment of American liberalism. Lincoln was a Republican.

The Roosevelt New Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief
policies of the Hoover Administration. Hoover was a Republican.
(Hoover before he was president planned and executed relief for
Central European countries. He was a very solid liberal do-gooder
indeed.

There were decades, amounting to almost a century, when the
Republicans were the most liberal party in US politics. Meanwhile the
Democrate were City Hall ward heelers, Tammany Hall crooks by any
other name.

It's shameful that you should need to be told that my a foreigner.

Andre Jute
No vested interest, not a member of either party or US religion, such
as it is

Andre Jute wrote:

The Roosevelt New Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief
policies of the Hoover Administration. Hoover was a Republican.
(Hoover before he was president planned and executed relief for
Central European countries. He was a very solid liberal do-gooder
indeed.

Hoover so opposed the New Deal that he offered FDR the opportunity to
take office early if he'd only give up that part of his plan of
action. Doesn't seem that liberal to me. Fortunately, Roosevelt
turned down his offer.

Chalo

"Andre Jute" wrote:
Don't they teach engineers any history, Scarfie? (clip) The Roosevelt New
Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief policies of the Hoover
Administration. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you're going to make up your own history out of whole cloth, I'm not
surprised they don't teach it. Neither do they teach that the Earth is
flat, nor that life is the product of intelligent design.

Chalo wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

The Roosevelt New Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief
policies of the Hoover Administration. Hoover was a Republican.
(Hoover before he was president planned and executed relief for
Central European countries. He was a very solid liberal do-gooder
indeed.

Hoover so opposed the New Deal that he offered FDR the opportunity to
take office early if he'd only give up that part of his plan of
action. Doesn't seem that liberal to me. Fortunately, Roosevelt
turned down his offer.

Chalo


You're attempting to rewrite history, Chalo. Hoover, for instance,
leaned on business during the Great Depression to maintain wages.
Awful economics (and his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon among others
told him that by itself would prolong the depression) but just the
sort of thing one would expect from a statist; Hoover was all intents
and purposes a lefty, an interventionist, and an activist. Hoover
started the handouts to farmers (then poor, now agribusiness, then
justified, now an abuse). Like you, for another instance, Hoover
thought of the stock exchanges as parasitical; he hated them and used
the excuse of the Great Crash to harass and regulate them. He
instituted massive programmes of public works. How pink can a
Republican get?

As for the crap you proffer above as an argument, about Hoover
offering to let Roosevelt be President early if he would give up his
New Deal dream, it is beyond a street myth and a lie, it is a
malicious distortion of the truth. For a start, the New Deal wasn't
Roosevelt's idea (he was a lightweight, more of a Republican than
Hoover ever was -- Roosevelt insisted until well after the election
that the budget be balanced, while Hoover had driven the nation deep
into debt with his relief programmes!), it belonged to Stuart Chase,
who in 1932 in his eponymous book labelled *Hoover's* policies A New
Deal. Hoover was considered by many leading socialists to be the model
of the new Social Engineer (I shiver just writing those words --
Soviet Russia was a society ruled by engineers...). Edmund Wilson
wrote: "Roosevelt has no real policy." Like the Kennedies, he just
wanted to be president and thought his turn had come.

Now let's turn to your malicious claim that
Hoover so opposed the New Deal that he offered FDR the opportunity to
take office early if he'd only give up that part of his plan of
action.

I say again: crap. But don't take my word for it. Here is the
distinguished historian Paul Johnson, in A History of the Modern World
(a bestseller in the States as The Devil's Decades): "There was then a
huge hiatus between the election and the transfer of power, from early
November to March. Both men [President Hoover and Roosevelt} agreed
action was urgent; except on details, they agreed what it should be --
more of the same." I think that handily disposes of you claim that
Roosevelt was proposing anything substantive that Hoover object to.
Now let's see which of Roosevelt's presumptions Hoover actually
objected to, continuing with the quotation from Paul Johnson:
"Roosevelt conceived the fantastic notion that Hoover ought to appoint
him Secretary of State immediately, so that he [Hoover] and his vice-
president could both resign and Roosevelt could constitutionally move
into the White House immediately. Hoover equally optimistically,
thought Roosevelt should be persuaded to disavow some of his campaign
remarks and promises, which he thought had made a bad situation still
worse, and humbly endorse, in public, measures which the President
proposed to take, thus restoring confidence and ensuring continuity of
(Hoover's) policy. Granted these ludicrous misapprehensions, it is not
surprising that their contacts over the long interregnum wer confined
to icy epistles and a mere courtesy call by Roosevelt on 3 March 1933,
the eve of the transfer. It terminated in an arctic exchange... When
Roosevelt, who was staying at the Mayflower Hotel, said Hoover was
obviously too busy to return his call..." (p253 of the Weidenfeld
paperback edition)

So:
1. There was no difference of policy between the Hoover and Roosevelt
at this or any other stage. It was merely a difference of stress,
aggravated by personalities.

2. Roosevelt was presumptuous, and bumptuous, to say the least,
further aggravating matters.

3. Why should Hoover ask Roosevelt to give up policies they held in
common? The Great Engineer was thinskinned; he merely wanted Roosevelt
to retract some campaign rhetoric that Hoover took personally, and he
wasn't prepared to give Roosevelt anything for it, he thought it was
the man's duty.

4. There was no opportunity for Hoover to make the request; the men
simply didn't meet until almost at the handover.

5. Hoover never said that Roosevelt could be president, as you (Chalo)
claim. On the contrary, Roosevelt demanded to be President. Hoover
simply cold-shouldered him.

In summary, that street myth that you offer isn't even revisionist
history, it is just field manure.

Here is my original post which Chalo snipped to make his meretricious
point stand up, no matter how shakily.

On Nov 6, 7:15 pm, SMS wrote:
The U.S. has now moved into the 21st century. The Republican party base
has become a sad group of 19th century bigots, evangelicals, and
uneducated neo-cons that complain about some mythical "mainstream media"
that's against them.

Don't they teach engineers any history, Scarfie?

In the 19th century, if the rest of us recollect correctly, Abraham
Lincoln fought a civil war to free the slaves, the defining
Jeffersonian moment of American liberalism. Lincoln was a Republican.

The Roosevelt New Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief
policies of the Hoover Administration. Hoover was a Republican.
(Hoover before he was president planned and executed relief for
Central European countries. He was a very solid liberal do-gooder
indeed.

There were decades, amounting to almost a century, when the
Republicans were the most liberal party in US politics. Meanwhile the
Democrate were City Hall ward heelers, Tammany Hall crooks by any
other name.

It's shameful that you should need to be told that my a foreigner.

Andre Jute
No vested interest, not a member of either party or US religion, such
as it is

On Nov 6, 8:44*pm, "Leo Lichtman" wrote:
"Andre Jute" *wrote:

Don't they teach engineers any history, Scarfie? (clip) The Roosevelt New
Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief policies of the Hoover
Administration. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you're going to make up your own history out of whole cloth, I'm not
surprised they don't teach it. *Neither do they teach that the Earth is
flat, nor that life is the product of intelligent design.

You're wanking, Lichtman. You're mistaking your prejudices for
history. Here are the facts:

Hoover leaned on business during the Great Depression to maintain
wages. Awful economics (and his Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon among
others told him that by itself would prolong the depression) but just
the sort of thing one would expect from a statist; Hoover was to all
intents and purposes a lefty, an interventionist, and an activist.
Hoover started the handouts to farmers (then poor, now agribusiness,
then justified, now an abuse). For another instance, Hoover thought of
the stock exchanges as parasitical; he hated them and used the excuse
of the Great Crash to harass and regulate them. He instituted massive
programmes of public works. How pink can a Republican get?

Contrary to your revisionist presumption, the New Deal wasn't
Roosevelt's idea (he was a lightweight, more of a Republican than
Hoover ever was -- Roosevelt insisted until well after the election
that the budget be balanced, while Hoover had driven the nation deep
into debt with his relief programmes!), it belonged to Stuart Chase,
who in 1932 in his eponymous book labelled *Hoover's* policies A New
Deal. Hoover was considered by many leading socialists to be the model
of the new Social Engineer (I shiver just writing those words --
Soviet Russia was a society ruled by engineers...). Edmund Wilson
wrote: "Roosevelt has no real policy." Like the Kennedies, he just
wanted to be president and thought his turn had come.

But don't take my word for it. Here is the distinguished historian
Paul Johnson, in A History of the Modern World (a bestseller in the
States as The Devil's Decades): "Both men [President Hoover and
Roosevelt} agreed action was urgent; except on details, they agreed
what it should be -- more of the same."

So:
There was no difference of policy between the Hoover and Roosevelt at
this or any other stage. It was merely a difference of stress,
campaign rhetoric aggravated by personalities.

Here is my original post which Leo snipped to make his meretricious
point stand up, no matter how shakily.

On Nov 6, 7:15 pm, SMS wrote:
The U.S. has now moved into the 21st century. The Republican party base
has become a sad group of 19th century bigots, evangelicals, and
uneducated neo-cons that complain about some mythical "mainstream media"
that's against them.

Don't they teach engineers any history, Scarfie?

In the 19th century, if the rest of us recollect correctly, Abraham
Lincoln fought a civil war to free the slaves, the defining
Jeffersonian moment of American liberalism. Lincoln was a Republican.

The Roosevelt New Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief
policies of the Hoover Administration. Hoover was a Republican.
(Hoover before he was president planned and executed relief for
Central European countries. He was a very solid liberal do-gooder
indeed.

There were decades, amounting to almost a century, when the
Republicans were the most liberal party in US politics. Meanwhile the
Democrate were City Hall ward heelers, Tammany Hall crooks by any
other name.

It's shameful that you should need to be told that my a foreigner.

Andre Jute
No vested interest, not a member of either party or US religion, such
as it is

Andre Jute wrote:

But don't take my word for it. Here is the distinguished historian
Paul Johnson, in A History of the Modern World (a bestseller in the
States as The Devil's Decades): "Both men [President Hoover and
Roosevelt} agreed action was urgent; except on details, they agreed
what it should be -- more of the same."


Paul Johnson is a right-wing revisionist, writing (preaching to the
choir) from the margins. This election was a referendum on (the 25 year
consequences of) all that nonsense. Spare us the Reagan/Thatcher-ism.
That ship has sailed.


So:
There was no difference of policy between the Hoover and Roosevelt at
this or any other stage. It was merely a difference of stress,
campaign rhetoric aggravated by personalities.

For those interested in a more mainstream (and modern) POV see "The
Great Depression and the New Deal", by Eric Rauchway.

The whole Hoover/Roosevelt difference and current parallels:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?... e_new_dealers

and:

http://www.slate.com/id/2169744/pagenum/all

I hope we get a modern FDR in Obama and a new New Deal. McCain came
across like Hoover-lite. The electorate obviously got that. But thanks
for your insight on America!*

*and the gratuitous slap at engineers...

"Still Just Me" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:07:18 -0800 (PST), Chalo
wrote:

Hoover so opposed the New Deal that he offered FDR the opportunity to
take office early if he'd only give up that part of his plan of
action. Doesn't seem that liberal to me. Fortunately, Roosevelt
turned down his offer.

10 points if you can name the guy who was FDR's New Deal Architect
without googling it.



Let's see now, it wasn't Milton Friedman or Arthur Laffer.....

Chas.

Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:15 pm, SMS wrote:
The U.S. has now moved into the 21st century. The Republican party base
has become a sad group of 19th century bigots, evangelicals, and
uneducated neo-cons that complain about some mythical "mainstream media"
that's against them.

Don't they teach engineers any history, Scarfie?

In the 19th century, if the rest of us recollect correctly, Abraham
Lincoln fought a civil war to free the slaves, the defining
Jeffersonian moment of American liberalism. Lincoln was a Republican.

The Roosevelt New Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief
policies of the Hoover Administration. Hoover was a Republican.
(Hoover before he was president planned and executed relief for
Central European countries. He was a very solid liberal do-gooder
indeed.

There were decades, amounting to almost a century, when the
Republicans were the most liberal party in US politics. Meanwhile the
Democrate were City Hall ward heelers, Tammany Hall crooks by any
other name.

It's shameful that you should need to be told that my a foreigner.

Andre Jute
No vested interest, not a member of either party or US religion, such
as it is

You have revealed your ideological extremism in the past, no point in
hiding it now.

I see little point (or relevance) in describing the two American parties
as in any way represented by their (putative) roots 100+ years ago.

With any luck, the US will (continue to) move (in fits and starts)
towards the type of social democracy typified by the Nordic countries,
accompanied by an adoption of a more realistic, and less militaristic,
international role. I agree with Jeffery Sachs, the results of a century
of ideologically-driven social experiments are in -- time to adopt the
winning solution. Perhaps a bland concoction next to the intellectually
exciting extremes of Marxism or neoconservatism, but one that seems to
work -- without a lot of drama.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-welfare-state

I'm an optimist in that I think reason must eventually win over faith.
All of the extreme positions (I'll include yours) are supported only by
faith -- hence the fervor. Being a scientific-method guy myself, I favor
evidence-based beliefs, with experiment and observation filling in the
blanks. When experiments fail -- whether they be central economies or
pure free markets, it's time to learn, tweak the models, and try
something else. Affiliating one system or another with divine or
universal (pseudo-science) intent only leads to zealotry, anti-reason,
and immense suffering. Social democracies may be boring, but in the
sense of the Chinese curse, I'd rather not live in "interesting" times.

Neoconservatism has been neither good for the US nor good for General
Motors. There must be a lesson in that. It is indeed an ill wind that
blows no good. Hayek was wrong, Friedman was wrong, Reagan was wrong,
Thatcher was wrong, Greenspan was wrong, etc. Time to pick up the pieces
and move on.

On Nov 7, 4:03*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
But don't take my word for it. Here is the distinguished historian
Paul Johnson, in A History of the Modern World (a bestseller in the
States as The Devil's Decades): "Both men [President Hoover and
Roosevelt} agreed action was urgent; except on details, they agreed
what it should be -- more of the same."

Paul Johnson is a right-wing revisionist, writing (preaching to the
choir) from the margins.

Well then, Peter Cole, you should have no difficulty refuting Mr
Johnson's account, and all the original documents he based it on.
Until you do that, you look like a slack teenager who hasn't done his
homework, screeching that his "feeling" should be history rather than
the facts. So far you haven't even tried, you have merely hung around
sneering at those who know more than you do.


This election was a referendum on (the 25 year
consequences of) all that nonsense. Spare us the Reagan/Thatcher-ism.
That ship has sailed.

Who cares **** what you think about world affairs if you are so weak
on your own country's history? And, it should be said, if you have
such a "politically correct" attitude to the truth?

So:
There was no difference of policy between the Hoover and Roosevelt at
this or any other stage. It was merely a difference of stress,
campaign rhetoric aggravated by personalities.

For those interested in a more mainstream (and modern) POV see "The
Great Depression and the New Deal", by Eric Rauchway.

The whole Hoover/Roosevelt difference and current parallels:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?..._a_new_deal_wi....

and:

http://www.slate.com/id/2169744/pagenum/all

I hope we get a modern FDR in Obama and a new New Deal. McCain came
across like Hoover-lite. The electorate obviously got that. But thanks
for your insight on America!*

I wasn't offering insights; Americans lacerating themselves is not
even mildly amusing. I was correcting street myths Chalo had picked up
in much the same way as some people pick up the clap, by being
careless about who you mix with.

*and the gratuitous slap at engineers...

Slapping down ignorant engineers is never gratuitous. Who knows, one
in a hundred times an engineer actually learns something. Are you an
engineer, Cole? You have all the hallmarks of ignorance and smug
arrogance and disregard for the truth, though we're still waiting for
you to display any of the brains.

Andre Jute
Sauvitor in modo, fortiter in res

Ugh. You live in a social democracy already, Cole. All Americans do.
Hoover started it, Roosevelt fixed it in the American consciousness,
the GI Bill made equality of opportunity a reality for thousands of
poor boys by giving them an upperclass education, and Johnson's Great
Society was a comprehensive affirmation.

Every time I correspond with you, I am reminded again of how you use
fashionable buzzwords without really knowing their meaning. This,
below, is a really gross example of your ignorance about your own
country.

Ciao.

Andre Jute
Bored already with the low level of this discussion

On Nov 7, 5:15*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 6, 7:15 pm, SMS wrote:
The U.S. has now moved into the 21st century. The Republican party base
has become a sad group of 19th century bigots, evangelicals, and
uneducated neo-cons that complain about some mythical "mainstream media"
that's against them.

Don't they teach engineers any history, Scarfie?

In the 19th century, if the rest of us recollect correctly, Abraham
Lincoln fought a civil war to free the slaves, the defining
Jeffersonian moment of American liberalism. Lincoln was a Republican.

The Roosevelt New Deal policies were all foreshadowed by the relief
policies of the Hoover Administration. Hoover was a Republican.
(Hoover before he was president planned and executed relief for
Central European countries. He was a very solid liberal do-gooder
indeed.

There were decades, amounting to almost a century, when the
Republicans were the most liberal party in US politics. Meanwhile the
Democrate were City Hall ward heelers, Tammany Hall crooks by any
other name.

It's shameful that you should need to be told that my a foreigner.

Andre Jute
No vested interest, not a member of either party or US religion, such
as it is

You have revealed your ideological extremism in the past, no point in
hiding it now.

I see little point (or relevance) in describing the two American parties
as in any way represented by their (putative) roots 100+ years ago.

With any luck, the US will (continue to) move (in fits and starts)
towards the type of *social democracy typified by the Nordic countries,
accompanied by an adoption of a more realistic, and less militaristic,
international role. I agree with Jeffery Sachs, the results of a century
of ideologically-driven social experiments are in -- time to adopt the
winning solution. Perhaps a bland concoction next to the intellectually
exciting extremes of Marxism or neoconservatism, but one that seems to
work -- without a lot of drama.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-welfare-state

I'm an optimist in that I think reason must eventually win over faith.
All of the extreme positions (I'll include yours) are supported only by
faith -- hence the fervor. Being a scientific-method guy myself, I favor
evidence-based beliefs, with experiment and observation filling in the
blanks. When experiments fail -- whether they be central economies or
pure free markets, it's time to learn, tweak the models, and try
something else. Affiliating one system or another with divine or
universal (pseudo-science) intent only leads to zealotry, anti-reason,
and immense suffering. Social democracies may be boring, but in the
sense of the Chinese curse, I'd rather not live in "interesting" times.

Neoconservatism has been neither good for the US nor good for General
Motors. There must be a lesson in that. It is indeed an ill wind that
blows no good. Hayek was wrong, Friedman was wrong, Reagan was wrong,
Thatcher was wrong, Greenspan was wrong, etc. Time to pick up the pieces
and move on.