Philip Klinkner

 

Recent Posts by Philip Klinkner

  • FDR's Call for an End to Selfishness Echoes in Today's Debates

    Mar 23, 2012Philip Klinkner

    fdr-profile-serious-150FDR knew that in order to create positive, lasting change, we had to look beyond our own interests and work to make the country and the world better for everyone.

    fdr-profile-serious-150FDR knew that in order to create positive, lasting change, we had to look beyond our own interests and work to make the country and the world better for everyone.

    Every candidate running for office this year is offering change. But what kind of change? Is it change that appeals to the interests of small and narrow groups, or change that appeals to the broader interests of the nation and the world?

    President Roosevelt addressed these questions on March 23, 1936 when he and Mrs. Roosevelt travelled to Winter Park, Florida. Both were likely happy for their brief sojourn to warmer climes. The president had been invited to receive an honorary degree from Rollins College, where he began his speech by thanking Rollins President Hamilton Holt. The two had been friends for many years. Before entering academia, Holt had been an important figure in progressive politics as a crusading journalist, a founding member of the NAACP, and the (unsuccessful) Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 1924.

    The president praised Holt for his educational reforms, moving from dry lectures to more interaction between faculty and students. Such changes were to be welcomed since, according to FDR, "In education, as in politics, and in economics and social relationships, we hold fast to the old ideals, and all we change is our method of approach to the attainment of those ideals. I have often thought that stagnation always follows standing still. Continued growth is the only evidence that we have of life."

    As necessary as such changes might be, he added, "growth and progress invariably and inevitably are opposed -- opposed at every step, opposed bitterly and falsely and blindly." As an example, the president spoke of how he had recently seen a motion picture of the life of French scientific pioneer Louis Pasteur. In the film, when Pasteur was being attacked for his claims, a fellow scientist told him, "My dear Pasteur, every great benefit to the human race in every field of its activity has been bitterly fought in every stage leading up to its final acceptance."

    The president added that not only was this true of science, "it is true of everything else that enters into our lives -- true of agriculture, true of living conditions, true of labor, true of business and industry, and true of politics."

    Roosevelt's own experience surely confirmed that it was true of politics. His New Deal programs had sought to reform the nation's political and economic system. Like Holt's education reforms, Roosevelt saw the New Deal not as a rejection of American ideals such as freedom, liberty, and democracy, but as a new method of attaining those enduring values.

    Check out the new special issue of The Nation, guest-edited by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick.

    Despite the benefits the New Deal brought to Americans suffering from the Great Depression, it had been opposed by many, often "bitterly and falsely and blindly." Roosevelt's opponents charged that he was leading the nation down the path to socialism and dictatorship. The Supreme Court, relying on an interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause drawn from what FDR called the "horse and buggy" days, had overturned many early New Deal programs, such as the National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The same fate seemed likely for more recent measures, such as Social Security and the Wagner Labor Relations Act.

    The answer, Roosevelt believed, was for a new approach to balancing interests in politics. To illustrate this, the president related the following anecdote:

    Not long ago two nationally known gentlemen visited me, one in the morning, the other in the afternoon. I asked the opinion of each of them in regard to a suggested new tax to replace a former tax which had been declared unconstitutional. My friend of the morning replied, "I could not approve of that kind of tax. It would cost me many thousands of dollars." My friend of the afternoon said, "Why, a tax like that would, it is true, cost me many thousands of dollars, but I am inclined to think, Mr. President, that it is a fair tax, a tax equitable for the people of the Nation, the people as a whole, and, therefore, I would favor it."

    For the president, the latter individual, the person who thought of the nation rather than just a narrow individual or group interest, represented the type of thinking that the nation needed and was indeed "growing by leaps and bounds throughout the country."

    Roosevelt concluded by pointing out that this rise of public spiritedness was not important just to America, but to the world as well. Despite the claims of his critics, the president abhorred dictatorships and he grew increasingly worried as authoritarian regimes grew more numerous and more powerful. Just a few weeks before, Nazi Germany had destroyed the last vestige of the Treaty of Versailles by marching its troops into the demilitarized area of the Rhineland.

    Roosevelt understood that United States stood as the great bulwark against the ultimate success of such regimes. But America could only undertake this role if it rejected narrow and selfish thinking and was instead guided by the most broad and inclusive concerns. If it did, this thinking "will in the long run assert itself so strongly, so victoriously, that it will spread to other peoples and other lands throughout the world."

    Roosevelt's words are still instructive today. We must always remember that progress will always engender opposition from those with narrow and parochial concerns. Nonetheless, progress in all endeavors, from education to science to politics, is necessary and the mark of a vital healthy society. Most importantly, an America that understands the necessity of positive change and thinks both broadly and boldly is still the best hope for the world.

    Philip Klinkner is the James S. Sherman Professor of Government at Hamilton College. He is the author (with Rogers Smith) of The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America and he is currently writing a book on the 1936 election.

    Read more

    Share This

  • FDR Knew Public Education is Vital to a Prosperous Nation

    Feb 22, 2012Philip Klinkner

    fdrmain-150At a time when government support for education is under attack, a reminder in FDR's own words that the progress of our nation depends on a well-educated citizenry.

    fdrmain-150At a time when government support for education is under attack, a reminder in FDR's own words that the progress of our nation depends on a well-educated citizenry.

    Today, many argue that the government can't afford some of its most fundamental tasks, including support for education. Some politicians have even gone so far as to question the very idea of public education. But President Franklin Roosevelt knew that mass education requires government support and that cutting such support in times of economic need is penny wise and pound foolish, since a prosperous economy and decent society require widespread education.

    On February 22, 1936, President Roosevelt traveled to Philadelphia, PA, where he received an honorary degree from Temple University. Roosevelt used the occasion to emphasize the critical role of government in advancing education. He pointed out that it was altogether fitting that the day was George Washington's birthday, since "What President Washington pointed out on many occasions and in many practical ways was that a broad and cosmopolitan education in every stratum of society is a necessary factor in any free Nation governed through a democratic system."

    Roosevelt went on to add that the progress of a nation cannot and should not be measured solely in material terms. Instead, a nation must also look to progress in "the things of the mind." He pointed to the great advances in education over the previous 50 years and how his administration had worked to ensure that the burden of the Great Depression "should not include the denial of educational opportunities for those who were willing and ready to use them to advantage."

    Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

    Increasing levels of education, according to Roosevelt, "has given to this country a population more literate, more cultured, in the best sense of the word, more aware of the complexities of modern civilized life than ever before in our history."

    Roosevelt then described the timeless qualities of a true education. First is "a sense of fair play among men. As education grows, men come to recognize their essential dependence one upon the other." Second, true education instills "a sense of equality among men when they are dealing with the things of the mind. Inequality may linger in the world of material things, but great music, great literature, great art and the wonders of science are, and should be, open to all."

    Finally, and most importantly, true education requires the unfettered pursuit of knowledge and the truth. At a time when Nazi storm troopers burned books and banned "degenerate" art, and Stalinist commissars sought to bend biology to the will of the state, Roosevelt declared, "No group and no Government can properly prescribe precisely what should constitute the body of knowledge with which true education is concerned. The truth is found when men are free to pursue it."

    Though spoken over 75 years ago, Roosevelt's words still hold true. Today we must also confront challenges to sound education, as some still seek to impose their own agendas on the pursuit of knowledge. Most importantly, Roosevelt understood that the essence of democracy is a free people engaged in the search for truth and understanding in an effort to make a better world for themselves and their children. As Roosevelt said, quoting Kipling, "On your own heads, in your own hands, the sin and the saving lies!"

    Philip Klinkner is the James S. Sherman Professor of Government at Hamilton College. He is the author (with Rogers Smith) of The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America and he is currently writing a book on the 1936 election.

    Read more

    Share This

  • FDR Wants You to Combat Misinformation About Progressive Policies

    Jan 11, 2012Philip Klinkner

    fdr-we-need-you-150As he kicked off his reelection campaign in 1936, FDR knew that, then as today, it takes an informed and active public to fight back against anti-New Deal attacks.

    fdr-we-need-you-150As he kicked off his reelection campaign in 1936, FDR knew that, then as today, it takes an informed and active public to fight back against anti-New Deal attacks.

    The 2012 election promises to be one of the most crucial moments in modern American politics. It's clear that it will be a referendum not just on President Obama and the state of the economy, but also on the New Deal and its legacy of government efforts to ensure security and opportunity for all Americans. Because of this, it's important to look back to America's first referendum on the New Deal, the 1936 election.

    Then as today, progressive values were under attack. The New Deal was blamed for continuing unemployment and denounced as un-American, unconstitutional. Roosevelt was portrayed as a socialist, a communist, and a fascist, often in the same breath.

    To confront this tide of misinformation, the president kicked off the 1936 election campaign 76 years ago Sunday. On January 8, Roosevelt addressed the Democratic Party's annual Jackson Day dinner at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. In addition, thousands more listened in at similar dinners around the country through a special radio hookup. In his speech, Roosevelt began by pointing out how fitting it was to honor Andrew Jackson since the issue of the day, "the right of the average man and woman to lead a finer, a better and a happier life... was the same issue, more than a hundred years ago, that confronted Andrew Jackson."

    But the purpose of Roosevelt's speech was not merely to offer up paeans to Old Hickory. The president understood that the success of his reelection effort, and indeed of the New Deal and progressive, humane government, required an informed and active American public. For this reason he praised Jackson for his efforts to educate and to include average Americans in the great issues of the day. And to do this, Jackson did not rely on the "luxurious propaganda" wielded by his political enemies. Instead, "the man on the street and the man on the farm believed in his ideas, believed in his ideals and his honesty, went out and dug up the facts and spread them abroad throughout the land."

    Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

    Roosevelt told his listeners that same problem remained -- the need to get out the truth "in the face of an opposition bent on hiding and distorting facts." Accomplishing this required that all those who believed in progressive causes must constitute a "committee of one" that would

    run down statements made to you by others which you may believe to be false. You will need to analyze the motives of those who make assertions to you. You will need to make an inventory in your own community, in order that you may check and recheck for yourself and thereby be in a position to answer those who have been misled or those who would mislead.

    Such education and information was vitally necessary since, as Roosevelt put it, "A Government can be no better than the public opinion which sustains it."

    The same is true today. Those who share the values and spirit of the New Deal need to educate and inform their fellow citizens so that this election will reflect the true voice of the people, not the distortions of an echo chamber created by narrow and selfish interests. In the words of FDR, "The people of America know the heart and know the purpose of their Government. They and we will not retreat."

    Philip Klinkner is the James S. Sherman Professor of Government at Hamilton College. He is the author (with Rogers Smith) of The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America and he is currently writing a book on the 1936 election.

    Read more

    Share This

  • Three Fact Checks on Myths About Millionaires and the Taxes They Pay

    Oct 4, 2011Philip Klinkner

    money-and-greed-150Think millionaires aren't rich and pay more than their fair share in taxes? You may need to think again.

    money-and-greed-150Think millionaires aren't rich and pay more than their fair share in taxes? You may need to think again.

    Tax rates may be making news these days, but if you listen to one media report on how much millionaires pay you may hear something completely different than the next. Are millionaires really rich? How do their taxes compare to the poor? And what will it really mean if we tax them more? John Steele Gordon's recent op-ed in the Washington Post repeated many of the myths and misconceptions about the wealthy in this country. Here are the facts on our fat cats.

    Myth #1: Millionaires aren't rich.

    As strange as it may sound, some think that millionaires aren't actually wealthy. According to Gordon, millionaires aren't rich because there are so many more of them today than in the past and $1 million dollars in the bank only generates $50,000 in income a year.

    Fact: Millionaires are rich.

    This confuses income and wealth. Income is what you earn in a year, while wealth is how much you have saved in investments and other assets. None of the proposals to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans would include taxes on assets, only on income. And those with a million dollars or more in income are a still a rare breed. According to data from the IRS, in 2008 only about 3 percent of tax returns had adjusted gross incomes of over $1 million. Just looking at wealth, in 2010 there were 3.1 million people in the U.S with $1 million or more in investible assets (assets excluding primary home and personal belongings), or about 1 percent of the U.S. population. Even if such investments only earned you $50,000 a year, that is still equal to the median household income in the U.S. And who wouldn't like to have a solid middle-class income without having to do anything other than checking your bank statements?

    Myth #2: Millionaires pay more in taxes than those with less income.

    Gordon writes that those with "incomes of more than $1 million paid an average of 23.3 percent in federal income taxes in 2008; those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 12.7 percent; and those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 8.9 percent. Nearly half of American families don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes at all." He adds that another reason people might think that the wealthy pay less in taxes is because a disproportionate share of their incomes comes from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a maximum of 15 percent, compared to a maximum of 35 percent for earned income. But this is mistaken, according to him, since dividends are doubly taxed, first at the corporate rate of 35 percent and then at 15 percent.

    Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

    Fact: Millionaires pay proportionately less in taxes than poorer people.

    Let's start with claims about double taxation. Income is income. Whether I make $100 with my labor or with an investment, I still earn $100. Saying that investment income should be taxed at a lower rate is just another way of saying that the income earned by the wealthy (and almost all capital gains and dividends are earned by the wealthy) should be taxed at a lower rate.

    Gordon is correct that the wealthy do pay a higher share of their income in federal income taxes, but he overlooks the regressive burden of other forms of taxes. Looking at the total tax burden, which includes not just federal income taxes but payroll taxes as well as state and local taxes, the top one percent of Americans paid 30 percent of their income in taxes, compared to 28 percent for the bottom 99 percent.

    Of course, many will say that even with these numbers, the wealthy are still paying an equal share of their income in taxes. But this is equality in name only, since it's much easier for Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to pay 30 percent of their income in taxes than it is for someone with a more modest income. This is the whole purpose of progressive taxation. Those with more income can afford to pay modestly higher rates without any real loss to their standard of living, while even very low tax rates have a huge impact on those with modest incomes.

    Myth #3: Obama's "millionaires' tax" will seriously limit investment.

    Gordon cites the Bush tax cuts as proof that tax cuts stimulate the economy and lower unemployment. He writes, "unemployment declined by a third in the four years after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003, dropping to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent."

    Fact: There's little evidence that raising taxes on the wealthy will hurt the economy.

    This claim cherry-picks the data. His analysis conveniently starts in the summer of 2003 when unemployment was at its highest point in Bush's first term, even though the first Bush tax cuts were enacted more than two years previously.  He also leaves out the final year of the Bush administration. By the time Bush left office, unemployment was at 7.8 percent and climbing fast. One can just as easily (and more accurately) argue that between the time of Bush's first tax cut and the end of his administration, unemployment rose by 81 percent, rising from 4.3 percent to 7.8 percent.

    There's no evidence that a modest increase in tax rates on the very wealthiest Americans will pose a significant drag on the economy. As Warren Buffett pointed out in his now-famous New York Times op-ed, "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."

    We would all do well to remember the words of FDR, who, speaking at another time of economic and political anxiety, said, "Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods. People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes." Our tax policy should reflect this reality.

    Philip Klinkner is the James S. Sherman Professor of Government at Hamilton College. He is the author (with Rogers Smith) of The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America and he is currently writing a book on the 1936 election.

    Read more

    Share This