Ken Burns - "The Roosevelts"

I had no idea that Teddy Roosevelt was so "progressive" - very interesting. He fought the trusts and mega-capitalists - fascinating. Of course, by today's standards, his overall policies would be considered conservative, but in the 1905 world he was on the radical side, apparently. Oh, how times change.

 

I found it a little late, and missed the beginning. I watched parts 3, 4 and 5. I've got 6 and 7 in my DVR but haven't watched them yet. I've certainly found it fascinating, and even enjoyable.

However, I've found it to be very pro-FDR and not impartial in the least. In that respect, it is not a pure documentary. This is often the case with Ken Burns docs, as he tends to romanticize figures and ideas with a one-sided bias rather than "document" them impartially.

Most of it has been harmless (thus far, as I still have 2 parts to go), but a particular section did not sit well with me during part 5. When the subject of the rise of Nazi power became the subject, Burns made the point that FDR wished for persecuted European Jews to be able to immigrate to the US for safe harbor. He offered no citation or interview to back up this claim. He even noted that according to a poll (which poll performed by whom he did not offer) over 80% of Americans opposed offering refuge to European Jews. What he failed to mention was that the Immigration Act of 1924, which restricted European refugees from immigrating to the US, had provisions which allowed the President to adjust the quotas. This fact would have been decidedly inconvenient for Burns' God-like image of FDR. (And he made sure to cite a silly newspaper poll from the 30s that placed FDR #1 and God #2). Seeing as the nation was dealing with an economic crisis, and the overwhelming majority of Americans were opposed to the immigration of refugees, it wouldn't have been prudent for FDR to lift the restrictions on immigration, but Burns outright stated that FDR wished to offer them harbor (without any evidence to back up this claim).

Incidentally, FDR also refused to allow American citizenship to any legal Asian immigrants throughout his entire presidency, and interned all Japanese immigrants and many non-Japanese Asian immigrants prior to and throughout WWII, but I have yet to see how that will be addressed by Burns as I have not yet made it that far in the doc.


My bottom line on FDR is that while he massively expanded the role of federal government (often unconstitutionally) during his tenor in office, a lot of the legislation he pushed worked to help our country out of the Depression. While some of those policies have had a detrimental effect on us in the long term, they helped the country in a time of great need. But, personally, I've always felt that his Lend Lease Act, and foreign policy, which purely supported the Allied Powers, (and outright defied the isolationist sentiment of the vast majority of Americans) opened the floodgates to our direct involvement in the war. That's all just my opinion though.

I'm looking forward to watching the rest of the doc.

 

Just a heads up for those like me who are streaming this from various PBS apps and whatnot, it's only available online until 9/28.

 

Maybe this will make up for it.

http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/ken-burns-country-music-pbs.html

 

I kinda got a kick how his affair with Lucy Mercer was treated: touching piano work with Casablanca-esque excuses of romantic longing. C'mon, the man was cheating on his wife.

 

.. Massaging his legs indeed!

 

The proper term is non-interventionist (Wiki: the belief that political rulers should avoid military alliances with other nations and to avoid interfering in wars bearing no direct impact on their nation.)

 

Po*tay*toe
Po*tah*toe


i·so·la·tion·ism
ˌīsəˈlāSHəˌnizəm/
noun
noun: isolationism
a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.


I'll concede that "non-interventionism" would convey the sentiment of my point just as well (if not slightly better) because I referred specifically to foreign policy and Lend-Lease, but "isolationism" aptly summarizes the feelings of the majority of Americans throughout the 1930s, not only as a result of the Depression, but also due to the huge sacrifice we had made as a nation during the previous world war. But we're really just splitting hairs over semantics.

 

Both pronunciations are acceptable (rhyming with cow, or with go).

That pretty much sums it up right there. I can't think of another politician who was on (or even remotely close to) the national stage at that time who was up to the task, who could have inspired and motivated the average citizen the way FDR did. You can argue about the ultimate effectiveness (or lack thereof) of his Alphabet Soup of agencies and programs, but if there was one thing he truly excelled at it was motivating a desperate people to keep hopeful and to work towards better times, and once we entered the war to keep our eyes on the goal regardless of the cost.

We actually just stopped at the Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park on Saturday (we were in NY to visit Margaret Roach's garden, as well as Lynden Miller's in CT). It's so extensive we would've needed several more hours to really go through it all, and we just didn't have the time. Definitely planning to go back, and to also visit Val-Kil and Top Cottage as well.

(Oh, and the beer at Hyde Park Brewing Co. is pretty darn good! )

 

Eleanor seems to be the best first lady ever.

Amazed how much work she did for the President speaking at the Convention on behalf of her husband who didn't even show up.

 

Saved as a template for the next KB series.

 

I can't remember which convention you're referring to, but it was the accepted practice for the candidates not to attend the conventions or even to accept the nomination until sometime after the convention when the party formally presented it. IIRC, FDR the first nominee to attend only at the end of the convention to make his acceptance speech.

Eleanor was an active First lady, though. And while nominally the eyes, ears and legs of her husband, I couldn't get over over the perception that she was actually doing it for her own sake rather than his.

 

I think she was doing it for the good of humanity without regards of how she was perceived.

 

Isolationism / isolationist are the terms used at the time by people on both sides of the issue - and they seem to accurately convene their meaning.

 

It was his third election when precedent was being broken.

 

Really? You have quotes from Senator William Borah, Randolph Bourne, Charles Lindbergh and William James identifying themselves as "isolationists"? Post 'em if ya got 'em.

My guess it that you'll find more quotes like this:

"We are assembled here tonight because we believe in an independent destiny for America. Such a destiny does not mean that we will build a wall around our country and isolate ourselves from contact with the rest of the world. But it does mean that the future of America will not be tied to these eternal wars in Europe. It means that American boys will not be sent across the ocean to die so that England or Germany or France or Spain may dominate the other nations."

"There are many such interventionists in America, but there are more people among us of a different type. That is why you and I are assembled here tonight. There is a policy open to this nation that will lead to success--a policy that leaves us free to follow our own way of life, and to develop our own civilization. It is a policy not of isolation, but of independence; not of defeat, but of courage."

Both of those are from Lindbergh. Your turn. Here, start with Borah's famous speech against the League Of Nations:

http://historycentral.com/documents/League.html

 

Forum members correct posts that confuse "remixed" with "remastered".

I am not attempting to debate the merits of one policy or another, I am pointing out that the two policies are factually different. The forum does not permit certain areas of opinion-based debate, but it is of little use if it does not permit the correction of factual errors. Raw language is only as an effective means of communication when its component parts - words and phrases - are explicitly defined and their meanings mutually understood by all who are engaged in the conversation. This is especially true online where the ability to express nuance and inflection is crippled (italics, bold, emoticons, etc. are crude substitutes for posture, timbre, cadence, volume, facial expressions and the like).

So if a member is permitted to correct those who conflate a "remix" and a "remaster", to be consistent, a member must be permitted to correct those who conflate "isolationist" and "non-interventionist".

 

Just finished pt. 3; what a great documentary-series! Being a Dutch citizen I love the scope and storytelling in almost all Ken Burns's movies! It struck me that West Wings' own president Bartlett must have been modelled on some characteristics of Theodore Roosevelt.

 

Is he the only president who served that long of a time? Wondering why it's only 8 yrs in a row nowadays?? Because of that?? One more question - if a person served 8 yrs, can they run again after a break?

 

22nd Amendment to the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

What schools did you attend?

 

That's really really scary. I wish I hadn't seen that.

“The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other in opposite directions.”- George Carlin

 

No. But if a Vice President assumes the Presidency because the President left office (death or resignation, for example...), they are eligible to run for reelection twice. So through that path a President could serve for 11-12 years.