He may not have legislative victories ahead, but he can still tell the real story of American history.

Okay, Obama is no FDR -- at least not the FDR who placed himself "at the head of the urban and agrarian masses," as progressive critic Max Lerner put it in 1939, and led one of the great "upsurging movements of American democracy."

So I won't waste time suggesting that Obama, in his State of the Union Message this coming Tuesday evening, should try to sound like the Second Coming of Roosevelt-the-New-Dealer. To say such things would be foolish, not only because the Republicans control the House, but also because Obama -- despite his community organizing experience -- just doesn't seem to have FDR's progressive spirit in him. Nevertheless, Obama does have in him something of the 32nd president, and I would urge him to start exercising it.

Like FDR, Obama has more than oratorical talents. He also has teaching talents. We need him to put them to work to counter the bizarre renditions of America's past propagated by the likes of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Jim DeMint, Governor Rick Perry, chalk-boarder Glenn Beck, media hound Sarah Palin, and AEI president Arthur C. Brooks.

I would seriously urge Obama, the former law professor, to go pedagogical.

I would press him to go up to the Capitol and speak not just as President and Commander-in-Chief, but as Head Teacher. I would tell him to instruct Congress and the nation in American history -- not just the tea party types, but Republicans and Democrats alike. I would encourage him to recover and project the narrative of American experience that reminds us all that the United States was founded as a Grand Experiment. It is an experiment in freedom, equality, and democracy and in extending those ideals. It is an experiment literally inscribed in American life through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address, the Four Freedoms, and the innumerable words and songs delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

I would then have the president direct our attention and imagination to the National Mall and the monuments we have built to presidents and others who inspired generations to fight for, defend, and advance the nation's historic purpose and promise. I would tell him to fervently recite the words "All men are created equal... Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... We the People... A new birth of freedom... Government of the people, by the people, for the people... Freedom of speech and expression, Freedom of worship, Freedom from want, Freedom from fear... and We shall overcome." And I would insist that in the wake of doing so, he go out into the nation and tell that story over and over again.

Franklin Roosevelt regularly spoke to Congress and the public of the American experience and what it promised and demanded. In fact, he wanted to emulate his presidential mentors, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, by writing histories of the United States as they each had. But he did not, for he discovered that he was no author. Still, he articulated a narrative of the nation's history and prospects through his speechmaking. It was a narrative that rejected the story repeatedly told to bolster the rule and status of WASP Americans and the propertied and corporate rich of the Gilded Age. He proffered one in favor of expanding the "We" in "We the People," empowering working people in public and industrial life, and fashioning a social-democratic polity. And when he and his party suffered setbacks in 1938 and 1942, he did not retreat but, rather, sustained that narrative and vision.

Now, when the once-again ascendant right threatens not only Obama's own pro-corporate Health Reform Act, but Social Security itself -- as well as any chance of real recovery, reconstruction, and reform -- and guarantees to return us to the social and economic order of the Gilded Age, Obama cannot win significant legislative victories. But as "Educator-in-Chief," he can cultivate a more progressive American narrative and thereby encourage energies that might once again turn into movements.

Harvey J. Kaye is the Rosenberg Professor of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of Thomas Paine and the Promise of America. He is currently writing The Four Freedoms and the Promise of America. Follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/HarveyJKaye

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

President Obama's stirring address at the memorial service for the victims of the Arizona tragedy reminds us that the president of the United States is much more than merely the head of government. He is also our head of state -- the national figure we look to for guidance and comfort in times of national trauma.

Over the course of his twelve years as president, FDR found himself having to address an unprecedented number of national and international crises that required equally unprecedented leadership qualities. First and foremost, of course, was the trauma caused by the crash of 1929 and the subsequent rise of the Great Depression. In the midst of the profound anxiety and fear that had gripped the nation by the time Roosevelt assumed office in 1933, he famously rejected the harbingers of despair and instead counseled that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." This line would not only go on to capture the imagination of a generation, but would also set the stage for the long struggle that lay ahead as the nation worked its way out of the worst economic crisis in history. In years that followed, FDR would return to this theme time and time again in speeches, major addresses, and via his famous "Fireside Chats" on the radio. By reminding the American people that they need not fear the challenges they faced and in fact had "conquered fear," FDR gave them the one thing they needed more than anything else: hope. Hope in themselves and in the future; hope in their ability to lift the nation out of its economic malaise; hope that together, the people and their leaders could transform the American government into an active instrument of social and economic justice.

But coping with the economic crisis was not the only challenge FDR had to face. He also had to guide the nation through the most destructive war in human history. For six long years, the forces of liberal democracy struggled against the anti-democratic forces of fascism in Europe and Asia. During these dark days, it is no exaggeration to say that democracy itself teetered on the brink of catastrophe, especially in the early years of the conflict. FDR understood this. He never doubted for a moment that the war was about much more than conquest or the mere acquisition of territory. It was, first and foremost, a moral conflict that threatened to bring about the destruction of modern civilization. Throughout his tenure as a war president, therefore, FDR insisted on couching the conflict in moral terms. It was for this reason that he joined Winston Churchill in drawing up the set of guiding principles known as the Atlantic Charter in August of 1941 to govern the conduct of Great Britain and the United States during the war. It was a document which, among other things, not only made it clear that neither government sought "aggrandizement, territorial or other" in the conduct of the war, but also insisted that "all peoples have the right to choose the form of government under which they live."

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

FDR's most famous wartime address -- which came six months before the Atlantic Charter -- was animated by the same spirit. Here, the president, in asking the American people to make further sacrifices in support of Great Britain's effort to resist Axis aggression, did so not merely because such a sacrifice might serve to shield the United States from the ravages of war. Rather, he did so because he wished them to join a wider effort to secure a future based on four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear -- "everywhere in the world."

Inspired by the president's simple yet eloquent language, the American people embraced the Four Freedoms as the war aims of the United States and, once in the conflict, would not rest until the forces of democracy would go on "to win through to absolute victory." In the process, they also came to appreciate that the United States could no longer afford to turn away from the rest of the world, but must accept its share of responsibility to provide the moral, political and economic leadership required to advance FDR's vision put before them in the dark days of January 1941.

Judging by the reaction of the press on both the left and the right to President Obama's moving remarks in Tucson, it appears that he too has risen to the occasion. His heartfelt speech not only crystallized the mood of the nation, but also reminded us of our common responsibilities as citizens, of the values we share and of the need for each and every one of us to use this tragic occasion, as he said, "to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy" and to never forget "all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together."

The president is right when he says that "only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation" in a way that would make the victims of this senseless tragedy proud. Only time will tell if his compassionate words will serve as a guide for us in the future.

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

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

Amid much fanfare, the 112th Congress convened for the first time last week. In his opening address, the new Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner, urged his colleagues to move forward "humble in our demeanor, steady in our principles, and dedicated to proving worthy of the trust and confidence that has been placed in us." Reaching out to both sides of the aisle, he also observed that if the newly elected members of the House "brace ourselves to do our duty, and to do what we say we are going to do, there is no telling what together we can accomplish for the good of this great and honorable nation."

In the wake of the first midterm elections of the Obama presidency, it will be interesting to compare the 112th Congress's legislative accomplishments to those of the Congress that FDR inherited in the wake of the 1934 midterm elections. Like today, the 74th Congress convened at a time when the nation was in the midst of a continuing economic crisis and faced numerous threats abroad. Unlike today, however, the prevailing political philosophy of the 74th Congress -- and a good share of the public -- was vastly different. In 1935, thanks in large part to FDR's rhetorical skills and leadership, the people's faith in government as the protector of the common good was at one of its highest points in our history. United by a sense of common purpose and steadfast in the belief that government should act as the primary guarantor of social and economic justice, the 74th Congress gave us such landmark legislation as the Social Security Act, which not only provided old-age pensions and support for children and the handicapped, but also the established our country's first nationwide system of unemployment insurance. The same Congress also passed the National Labor Relations Act, which sought to stabilize labor relations and bolster unions' security. It guaranteed the right of workers to join unions and created the National Labor Relations Board, a three-member federal review board responsible for determining which unions would represent workers in specific industries or factories and for guarding against unfair labor practices by employers, employees, or unions themselves.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

The 74th Congress also passed many other important bills. It passed the Soil Conservation Act, which encouraged farmers to adopt more environmentally friendly practices in an effort to save one of nation's most precious natural resources -- its soil. The Rural Electrification Act brought the revolutionary benefits of electricity to the 9 out of ten farmers who did not have it when FDR took office. The Commodities Exchange Act established federal regulation of all commodities and futures trading activities and required all options to be traded on organized exchanges. The Public Utility Act facilitated the regulation of electric utilities. The Flood Control Act of 1936 committed the federal government to the protection of people and property on over 100 million acres of land through the US Army Corps of Engineers. And it passed the 1935 and 1936 neutrality laws, as well as five other significant pieces of legislation.

As even this brief summary of the work of the 74th Congress shows, under FDR's leadership these and other New Deal measures dramatically expanded the scope of the federal government's responsibilities in American life. Where Washington had previously been only a distant regulator of economic and social affairs, it was now the government's responsibility to maintain economic prosperity, mitigate the worst effects of unfettered capitalism, spread industrial and agricultural development to impoverished regions of the nation, guarantee workers' right to choose their unions, protect the bargaining rights of those unions, and conserve and develop the nation's vast natural and artistic resources.

Contrary to some critics' views, the New Deal was not intended to radically change the foundations of American capitalism. Rather, it revised that system in order to save it. Moreover, it did so not by abandoning government, but by strengthening it. For as FDR and the 74th Congress well understood, they had inherited a nation that was dominated by the forces of wealth and privilege. As a consequence, and as FDR once remarked, "[f]or too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor -- other people's lives." "Against economic tyranny such as this," he went on, "the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government."

A good share of the 112th Congress, particularly under the Republican leadership in the House, appears determined to take the country in the opposite direction. They would prefer to let market forces, rather than the "organized power of government," determine the social and economic fate of the nation. It is too early to tell whether their determination to reduce its role will succeed or whether the impact of these conservative forces on future generations of Americans will be as large as that of the 74th Congress. Over the course of its two-year tenure, that Congress passed a number of legislative initiatives that still benefit us today.

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

Refuting the myths of neoconservative Roman Catholic economics.

In October 1936, Roman Catholic priest and professor of moral theology Monsignor John A. Ryan took to the airwaves to defend the New Deal from scurrilous attacks made by another Catholic priest, the demagogic radio personality of the day Father Charles Coughlin. Monsignor Ryan's speech was titled "Roosevelt Safeguards America." Many years later, the radio volley between the two priests still reflects debates raging in the church and in American society today. Ryan's economic interpretation remains important in light of the claims of a small group of contemporary neoconservative Roman Catholic intellectual leaders whose views have had a profound influence on the American Catholic Church -- as well as broader American public discourse.

If, as Pope John Paul II declared, the Church has a "preferential option for the poor," one would be pressed to find it expressed in the works of such contemporary "friends of the Church" as Michael Novak, Robert P. George, George Weigel and other Roman Catholic neoconservatives. Indeed, they are prominent proponents of a buccaneer capitalism that exploits the poorest people of God -- an idea profoundly at odds with Catholic social teaching for more than a century.

Much like its more secular variety, Roman Catholic neoconservatism bases its approach upon three pillars: nationalism, a national religious orthodoxy, and laissez-faire capitalism. The concept of nationalism is in direct conflict with the Vatican's call for universalism. This conflict comes into sharp relief when economics comes into play -- it quickly becomes apparent that Catholic neocons are more "neocon" than "Catholic."

In essence, Catholic neocons are attempting to subvert the Roman Catholic tradition of social justice in order to further a greater (and ultimately nonreligious) neoconservative agenda. Their take on Catholicism, social justice, and economics is not only inaccurate, but engages in a quietly ruthless form of historical revisionism. Roman Catholicism has a tradition of social justice consistent with the New Deal's generally pro-worker approach, one that calls for the use of activist government to ensure economic equity. But Catholic theocons such as Michael Novak are doing their best to efface that tradition.

Michael Novak's Whiggish Revisionism

At the forefront of the revisionist movement is Michael Novak, the former Christian Socialist turned Catholic theocon and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak may pay lip service to such concepts as labor laws, but when the rubber meets the road, he excuses the sins of the rich and powerful at the expense of the common man and woman.

Novak embraces the libertarian Hayek's view of a very limited role for government. Like Hayek, Novak describes himself as a "Whig" on economics. Government's only concern, he believes, should be the rule of law, letting a "free market" correct itself when recessions and depressions occur. Hayek and Novak believe that the only appropriate corrective measure in the marketplace is loss of profit. They fail to acknowledge that property concentrated in the hands of a powerful few can be used to domineer the many.

A Brief Overview of Catholic Economics

But Catholicism has a long tradition of siding with workers. Modern Catholic social justice economics begins with "Rerum Novarum (Of New Things)," issued by Pope Leo XIII in May 1891 and subtitled "The Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor." In it, Leo severely condemned unrestrained libertarian capitalism while maintaining the Church's opposition to communism and support of private property ownership. Key progressive components included a living wage and the right of labor to organize unions.

While Leo's encyclical is clearly based upon natural law principles, they are neo-Thomistic natural law principles, based on a school of Roman Catholic thought reinterpreted by foundational thinker Thomas Aquinas. Neo-Thomism is far more flexible than traditional natural law thinking. It embraces the spirit of Aquinas' writings instead of focusing on the letter of his works and acknowledges that he viewed the world through a thirteenth century lens, and he would undoubtedly see things differently 800 years later.

Aquinas addresses something the Roman Catholic neoconservatives conspicuously do not -- a duty to distribute with provision to the poorest of society, i.e., distributive justice:

...in distributive justice something is given to a private individual, in so far as what belongs to the whole is due to the part ...Consequently in distributive justice a person receives all the more of the common goods, according as he holds a more prominent position in the community... Hence in distributive justice the mean is observed, not according to equality between thing and thing, but according to proportion between things and persons: in such a way that even as one person surpasses another, so that which is given to one person surpasses that which is allotted to another.

At the time of Rerum Novarum's release, the Vatican was concerned that excessive individualism would result in deplorable living conditions for the working class. The Church's criticism was aimed at nineteenth century classical liberal, laissez-faire economics -- not the economics of New Deal liberalism and its legacy.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

The Bishops' Program of Social Reconstruction

A major step in Roman Catholic social justice teaching in the United States came in 1919 with the release of "The Bishops' Program of Social Reconstruction," ghost-written by Monsignor John A. Ryan. The program, Ryan wrote, "...was issued in response to the general need which men felt after the war for programs for the reconstruction of social regions." It called for the right of workers to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining and for retirement insurance, but unlike previous Catholic distributionist ideas, it embraced government programs as the means for achieving these goals.

Ryan is an often-overlooked hero of twentieth century economic liberalism. Born to Irish immigrants in 1869 Minnesota, he grew up during the age of robber barons and a labor movement with little or no real bargaining power. Ryan was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1898. In the course of his career, he blended Midwestern progressive populism with neo-Thomist ethics and became a champion of civil liberties and economic justice. He wed theology to economics and in 1906 published his first major economic treatise, "A Living Wage", that defended the ownership of private property, yet "spurned overly acquisitive and unregulated free market capitalism as economically unhealthy and morally bankrupt."

Ryan's magnum opus, "Distributive Justice: The Right and Wrong of Our Present Distribution of Wealth," outlined a very contemporary liberal concept of the just distribution of profit in relation to contribution, merit, and special talents. He later became a confidant of FDR, earning the moniker "the Right Reverend New Dealer."

His Bishops' Program of 1919 called for a living wage as well as retirement insurance -- a forerunner of what in 1935 was to become Social Security.

Rerum Novarum, as well as the Program of the American Bishops, say that the telos for the worker to fulfill is to be allowed to live a reasonable life. That means earning an income that would allow for the purchase of a home, food and clothing for his family. In other words, the worker who contributes to profit is to be rewarded with a dignified wage.

Saving Monsignor Ryan

Monsignor Ryan's role and legacy in U.S. Roman Catholicism matters for many reasons. He is the central figure in the development of modern American Catholicism's approach to economics and a profound influence on FDR and the development of the New Deal -- making him an important figure not only in Roman Catholic but in American history.

It seems to be essential to the project to which Novak et al. have devoted their lives to erode Ryan's influence and ideas in the American Church. One of their main methods is, as major Roman Catholic authors, to elide him from history. After all, a Catholic Church that advocates for the economic interests of the poor, working, and middle classes can threaten the unfettered practice of buccaneer capitalism. They therefore shift the focus to the micro issues of personal economic evils and away from systemic causes of economic evils.

When only those of superfluous wealth have the ability to shape policy within historic religious institutions, eventually their economic self-interest will have a corrupting effect. Religious organizations lose their independence and their ability to offer social criticism, and their history and theologies are rewritten for them.

American Roman Catholicism doesn't need any more Novaks channeling Hayek and politically aligning with the Religious Right. It needs thinkers, writers and leaders who advocate for the average worker -- an equally and often far more important player in wealth creation than seven-figure CEOs and mega-stockholders. It needs leaders like Monsignor John A. Ryan.

Frank L. Cocozzelli writes a weekly column on Roman Catholic neoconservatism at Talk2Action.org and is contributor to Dispatches from the Religious Left: The Future of Faith and Politics in America. A director of the Institute for Progressive Christianity, he is working on a book on American liberalism. **A longer version of this post originally appeared on Public Eye Magazine.