David Woolner

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow

Recent Posts by David Woolner

  • Tipping the balance in an Era of Outrage: Will the Angelides Commission Inspire Congress to Act?

    Jan 15, 2010David Woolner

    legacy-lessons-150

    Roosevelt historian David Woolner shines a light on today’s issues with lessons from the past.

    legacy-lessons-150

    Roosevelt historian David Woolner shines a light on today’s issues with lessons from the past.

    There has been a great deal of speculation this week as to whether the newly opened commission on the financial crisis will live up to the reputation of its more famous predecessor headed by Ferdinand Pecora. It is true that Pecora's ruthless pursuit of the truth brought many of the evil practices that contributed to the 1929 crash on Wall Street to light and even landed some of its kingpins in jail. But the real significance of the Pecora commission did not come during the famous hearings but after -- in Congress.

    Spurred by Pecora's determination to leave no stone unturned, and buoyed by the overwhelming support FDR had received at the polls in the 1932 election, Congress was not afraid to take matters into its own hands in the wake of Pecora's revelations. Some of the most important provisions of FDR's first hundred days, in fact, were initiated, not by the White House, but by Congress. Perhaps the most significant was the Glass-Steagall Act, which established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), separated commercial from investment banking, and shifted greater regulatory power from the Federal Reserve Banks to the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. At first, the newly elected FDR was reluctant to support this bill as it was considered very controversial at the time. But with the public clamoring for action-thanks in large part to the work Pecora-FDR soon came to support it.

    Another important and controversial 100 days measure -- the Truth in Securities Act-had FDR's full support. But it was Congressman Sam Rayburn (aided by Felix Frankfurter and other key FDR advisors) who successfully brought this bill through Congress. The 1933 Securities Act was the first major piece of federal legislation aimed at regulating the stock market. It required that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale. It also prohibited deceit, misrepresentation and outright fraud in the sale of securities. Wall Street cried foul at this, but in the aftermath of the financial meltdown of 1929 and the subsequent exposure of the outrageous practices that led to it in the Pecora Commission, Rayburn was able to gain enough support to ensure that it was his bill-the House bill-not the milder Senate version that ultimately became law. As Rayburn put it at the time ‘Today we are forced to recognize that the hired managers of great corporations are not as wise, not as conservative, and sometimes not as trustworthy as millions of people have been persuaded to believe."

    There is no question that FDR was a President bent on engaging in serious reform. He is, and may always remain, the one President who effected the greatest change while in office. In fact we live in a nation -- indeed a world -- that was profoundly influenced by the reforming spirit of the New Deal. But FDR did not accomplish all of this by himself. Congress too -- on both sides of the aisle -- played an important part in initiating, drafting, and refining the legislation that gave us the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Housing Association, Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Wagner Act, the minimum wage, the GI Bill, and the many other provisions that laid the foundation for the unprecedented prosperity and economic security that followed the twin crises of the Great Depression and the Second World War.

    In most if not all of these cases, powerful vested interests did everything in their power stop these measures from moving forward. But heeding the words from FDR's first inaugural that "this nation is calling for action and action now" and that it was time for all to recognize that "the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit," Congress decided to do its duty and act in the public's interest. Recognizing this some years later, FDR noted that the generation that lived up to these great challenges did so because it had "a rendezvous with destiny." Let us hope that this generation-and its leaders-can rise to the same level of achievement.

    David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

    Share This

  • Feminomics: Breaking New Ground - Women and the New Deal

    Dec 15, 2009David Woolner

    eleanor-roosevelt-150Will 2010 be the year of the women? We asked prominent thinkers to discuss women’s changing roles in the economy. How has the crisis affected them? Are women the key to reform? What economic impact will they have going forward?

    eleanor-roosevelt-150Will 2010 be the year of the women? We asked prominent thinkers to discuss women’s changing roles in the economy. How has the crisis affected them? Are women the key to reform? What economic impact will they have going forward? We’ll explore all this and more in a special ND20 12-part series. Roosevelt historian David Woolner explores how the New Deal advanced women's rights and equality.

    Earlier this year, the National Organization for Women reported that it was pleased with the way Congress and the Obama administration had approached the need to ensure that women workers benefited from the federal stimulus program. NOW played an important behind-the-scenes role in making sure that the federal dollars not only went to "shovel ready" infrastructure projects (like roads, bridges and other construction work), but also to our nation's "human infrastructure," especially those occupations -- such as nursing, teaching, and social work -- that are frequently held by women.

    Looking back more than 70 years, we can see that the precedent for making sure that working women benefit from such federal programs as unemployment insurance came from the New Deal. In fact, the New Deal laid the groundwork for many of the later gains made by women, but as was the case in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the task of securing those rights was not easy and did come without a struggle.

    The principal advocate for women's economic and social rights within the context of the New Deal was Eleanor Roosevelt. From the thousands of letters that poured across her desk from ordinary Americans, ER knew that women too were suffering as a consequence of Great Depression. This was especially true of working women. It is estimated that more than 2 million women were unemployed at the start of 1933, many of whom represented the sole support for their families. Thanks to the traditional view of a "worker" as a white male breadwinner, however, these women went largely unrecognized, not only by government officials, but also by the public at large.

    ER was determined to change this and from the start of the Roosevelt Administration, she began to lobby those in charge of the federal employment relief programs to make sure that opportunities for work were made available to women. As a consequence of her efforts, FDR's relief czar, Harry Hopkins, not only agreed to create a special woman's division within the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (the first major New Deal relief program and the precursor to the later CWA and WPA), but also to appoint a woman to head it. Hopkins asked Ellen Woodward to do so. Under her direction, the whole approach to the problem of unemployed women was completely revamped. Woodward refused to tolerate that ad hoc part-time approach that had heretofore been used by both state and federal officials within the FERA structure to deal with the needs of unemployed women. With Hopkins' backing, each state was now required to appoint a qualified woman to devote herself full-time to the woman's program.

    Not content with this move alone, ER also hosted a special "White House Conference on the Emergency Needs of Women" in November 1933 to draw further attention to the plight of working women in the midst of the Depression. Still, progress was slow. Only seven per cent of the jobs created by the FERA-backed Civilian Works Administration went to women, for example, and roughly 25% of the National Recovery Administration's wage codes set minimum wages for women at a rate lower than men for the same work.

    Fortunately, the employment benefits extended to women improved dramatically with the establishment of the Works Projects Administration in 1935. Also headed by Hopkins, with Ellen Woodward once again leading the women's division, the WPA employed 460,000 women at its peak in 1936.

    As was the case with male workers, women also benefited from the major reforms of the New Deal, such as the Fair Labor Relations Act (which guaranteed workers rights to organize and led to more than 800,000 women joining unions by the end of the 1930s) and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which set maximum hour and minimum wages, although some major categories of women's employment, such as domestic workers and retail clerks, were left outside the reach of the law.

    These gains, though somewhat modest within the overall scope of the New Deal relief, nevertheless established the precedent that the plight of working women must be taken into consideration in any state or national effort to provide relief to the unemployed. Equally important, the opportunities provided by the New Deal for professional women such as Ellen Woodward to work in the upper echelons of the federal government was also unprecedented. Indeed, the New Deal's record in placing women in positions of responsibility within government -- which includes, among others, Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, the first female cabinet minister in American history; Josephine Roche, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Hilda Smith, the Director of Workers Education within the WPA; Clara Beyer, Associate Director of the Division of Labor Standards; and Mary McLeod Bethune as head of the Division of Negro Affairs in the National Youth Administration -- would not be matched again until the 1960s.

    Thanks to the efforts of Eleanor Roosevelt and others, then, the New Deal-though not perfect -- broke new ground for women in America.

    David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

    Share This

  • Is it time to revive the War Bonds?

    Dec 4, 2009David Woolner

    war-bonds-posterRoosevelt historian David Woolner shines a light on today’s issues with lessons from the past.

    war-bonds-posterRoosevelt historian David Woolner shines a light on today’s issues with lessons from the past.

    In his speech to the nation last Tuesday evening, President Obama noted that the costs associated to date with the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has now reached nearly a trillion dollars. He also predicted that the costs associated with sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan will run 30 billion dollars in the first year alone. He acknowledged that these costs, coming as they do in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, are a difficult burden, a burden that we "simply cannot afford to ignore." The President also wisely said it was time for America "to address these costs openly and honestly," but other than committing himself to working with Congress on this question he said very little about how the country would actually pay for this substantial increase in our military commitment to the Afghan war.

    How to pay for the war also brings up another issue -- the issue of sacrifice. The President rightly acknowledged the tremendous costs the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already exacted on the men and women serving in America's armed forces. But what about the rest of us? Have we done enough as a people to share the burden of these conflicts, especially the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan? Or have we simply gone on with our lives, content to let the men and women in uniform carry the fight to those who ruthlessly attacked us on 9/11?

    When FDR faced a similar, much larger dilemma at the onset of the Second World War, he and his advisors were keenly aware of the link between the issues of costs and sacrifice. Simply put, the President understood that effort required to prosecute the greatest war in America history could not fall on those in uniform alone; the entire country would have to share the burden. He also understood that the war effort would cost a great deal of money (an estimated $288 billion dollars in direct expenditures, a huge figure in the early 1940s). To pay for the war the Roosevelt Administration not only raised taxes (a move which nearly all economists would agree was a necessity, given the enormous expenditures required), but also issued war bonds, which by the end of the conflict had generated $100 billion in revenue for the government.

    The war bonds in fact became very popular, as they were widely viewed by the public as one way the average American could support the war effort. They were promoted by celebrities, the famous wartime posters, and by the President himself, who frequently reminded the public of the sacrifice all Americans must make to carry the war forward to ultimate victory. As he said in his message to Congress on January 6, 1942

    War costs money...This means taxes and bond and bonds and taxes. It means cutting luxuries and other non-essentials. In a word, it means an "all-out" war by individual effort and family effort in a united country.

    Given the inability of the American people and our representatives in Congress to hold a rational discussion on taxation and the responsibility each of us has to support the many public expenditures required to live in a civilized society, it seems unlikely that the President or Congress will instigate any new taxes to cover the costs of these new expenditures. But the sale of war bonds might go a long way towards helping to offset the expense of the surge. It would also serve to remind the American people that the burdens of war should not be carried by soldiers alone; that we are, as President Obama reminded us, "one people" who understand that our security "does not come solely from the strength of our arms" but from our shared values and common belief in freedom, justice and the rule of law. In short, it is time that we recognize that we all need to play our part in securing a safer world. We owe ourselves and the brave men and women in uniform no less.

    David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

    Share This

  • How FDR Took on the Forces of Wealth and Power

    Nov 25, 2009David Woolner

    legacy-lessons-150Roosevelt historian David Woolner shines a light on today’s issues with lessons from the past.

    legacy-lessons-150Roosevelt historian David Woolner shines a light on today’s issues with lessons from the past.

    Earlier this week, the International Herald Tribune noted the seventy-fifth anniversary of a story the New York Times ran on November 20, 1934, about an alleged plot to overthrow the United State Government. Frequently referred to as the "Business Plot," the alleged plan was disclosed to Congress by Major General Smedley D. Butler, U.S.M.C. retired, in testimony he offered before a House committee investigating un-American activities. According to Butler, a group of wealthy individuals, many of whom worked on Wall Street, had asked him to lead a 500,000 strong march of ex-servicemen on Washington with the intent of bringing down FDR and establishing a fascist regime.

    Although Congress concluded there was some credibility to Butler's story, and the news of the alleged conspiracy generated a brief sensation in the press, most historians have dismissed the plot as little more than what the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., called a "wild scheme."Still, the anniversary serves as a reminder of the degree to which the wealthy elite hated FDR and the New Deal. Nor should we forget the opposition the New Deal generated among hard core conservatives -- in both parties.

    A few months before the "business plot" came to light, for example, a group of prominent public officials and wealthy businessmen (including former Democratic Party Presidential nominee Al Smith) formed an organization called the American Liberty League. Billed as a research and opinion organization, the Liberty League's primary focus was to attack FDR and the New Deal. Accusing the president and his recovery programs of being -- at various times -- fascistic, socialistic or communistic, the real goal of the League was to return the country to the rule of unfettered and unregulated free enterprise à la the 1920s.

    Some of the most prominent names in American business helped finance this effort, including Edward Hutton of General Foods, Alfred Sloane of General Motors and the members of the Du Pont family.

    As the New Deal took hold, and as FDR prepared to run for re-election in 1936, the Liberty League launched a major effort to unseat him. In the end, however, the wealth behind the Liberty League sealed its fate. Never one to shy away from "a good fight", FDR took on the forces wealth behind the Liberty League and other like-minded groups in a devastating full frontal attack. Characterizing the League as a tool of what he called "selfish big business," FDR would go on to remind the public that the wealthy interests behind such groups tended "to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs." Indeed, based on the experience of the late 20s and early 30s, he continued, we "know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." He then fully acknowledged their contempt, when he famously said:

    Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred.

    I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

    FDR won the 1936 election in an unprecedented landslide, taking 46 states and more than 60% of the popular vote. The American Liberty League never recovered; and as for fascism, the United States would go on to destroy it, not only through the military might we unleashed during the Second World War, but also through the effective regulation of capitalism that was established in the New Deal.

    David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

    Share This

  • Navigating the Jobs Crisis: FDR Would Not Accept a 'Jobless Recovery'

    Nov 18, 2009David Woolner

    need-job-150In the wake of the highest unemployment rate in 25 years, the Roosevelt Institute asked historians, economists and other public thinkers to reflect on the lessons of the New Deal and explore new, big ideas for how to get America back to work.

    need-job-150In the wake of the highest unemployment rate in 25 years, the Roosevelt Institute asked historians, economists and other public thinkers to reflect on the lessons of the New Deal and explore new, big ideas for how to get America back to work. David Woolner urges President Obama and Congress to adopt the fearlessness of FDR in directly creating jobs.

    The recent news that the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expanded at an annual rate of 3.5 percent in the third quarter of 2009 while at the same time the national unemployment rate hit a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October, has many economists talking about a "jobless recovery." What this means, say the experts, is continued economic growth--and hence a technical end to the recession--but no improvement in the employment figures for the immediate future. In fact, most economists predict that under current conditions, the unemployment rate will rise even further - perhaps reaching as high as 11 percent by the summer of 2010.

    It appears that the Obama administration is prepared to accept this scenario and will not push for bolder solutions so as to ensure that the so-called "recovery" includes not just an expansion of the GDP, but also a reduction in the alarmingly high unemployment rate. As a consequence, millions of American workers will continue to languish among the ranks of the unemployed, burdened by an anxious present and an uncertain future.

    When Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933, about 18 million Americans were in immediate need of food, clothing, medical care-and most of all, jobs. For his administration, the notion of a "jobless recovery" would have been an anathema. Indeed, for FDR, the health of the nation was tied directly to the dignity of work. People needed jobs not merely to put food on the table, but also to maintain their physical, psychological and economic well-being. Moreover, FDR firmly believed that it was government's responsibility to provide for the "general welfare." So in the midst of an economic crisis that had produced the highest unemployment figures in our nation's history, he did not hesitate to use the power of the state to provide the jobs the private sector had failed to generate. The Civilian Conservation Corps, which put hundreds of thousands of young men to work regenerating our nation's depleted forests, preventing soil erosion, and enhancing our national parks; the Civil Works Administration, which provided work for more than 4 million Americans building schools, roads, and bridges, or as teachers in rural districts; the Works Progress Administration, which between 1935 and 1938 employed 5 million people to help build the economic infrastructure we still enjoy today.

    These programs were not government hand-outs. Far from it. They provided real jobs to real people doing real work. They improved our natural resources and quality of life and brought America's economic infrastructure into the modern world. No one--least of all FDR--expected these programs to continue indefinitely.

    But they dramatically reduced unemployment in a moment of crisis and prevented what FDR called the "atrophy" of the work force. They also brought hope and dignity to millions through the one thing most able-bodied Americans want more than anything else-a job. Isn't it time we adopted the same approach to our own recovery from the Great Recession?

    David Woolner is is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute.

    Share This

Pages