FDR knew that America's willingness to fight inequality was more important than its ability to wage war.

Our strength is measured not only in terms of the might of our armaments. It is measured not only in terms of the horsepower of our machines.

The true measure of our strength lies deeply imbedded in the social and economic justice of the system in which we live.

For you can build ships and tanks and planes and guns galore; but they will not be enough. You must place behind them an invincible faith in the institutions which they have been built to defend. – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1938

In their recent debate on foreign policy, both President Obama and Governor Romney made a point of linking America’s security with the health of the U.S. economy. Governor Romney, for example, argued that the ability of the United States to promote “the principles of peace” abroad “begins with a strong economy here at home,” while President Obama said that thanks to our experiments with nation-building in places like Iraq, “we've neglected…developing our own economy, our own energy sectors, our own education system. And it's very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do here.”

Both candidates are correct, of course, in pointing out that a healthy economy—and in Mr. Obama’s case, a healthy education system and energy sector—are critical to the overall strength of the nation and hence our ability to project American influence overseas. But as has been the case with so much of this campaign, neither man had much to say about another critical element of national health that also plays an important part in our foreign policy: the social health of the nation.

Roughly 70 years ago, when the United States was living in a far more dangerous world than we are living in today, Franklin Roosevelt argued that America’s place in the world was not merely dependent on our military and economic power, but also dependent on our ability to create a society where social and economic justice were paramount. For Roosevelt, this meant building a nation which, in “arming itself for defense has also the intelligence to save its human resources by giving them that confidence which comes from useful work,” which in “creating a great navy has also found the strength to build houses and begin to clear the slums of its cities and its countryside,” and which as “the industrial leader of the world has the humanity to know that the people of a free land need not suffer the disease of poverty and the dread of not being wanted.”

Indeed, in gazing out over a world where anti-democratic forces were on the march, Roosevelt also insisted that “unhappy events abroad” had “re-taught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.” The first truth was that “the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.”

For Roosevelt and the generation that lived through the Depression and war, these truths were very real, and as such the conviction that the health and strength of the nation were linked directly to its ability to deliver social and economic justice for all its people was regarded, not as a luxury, but as a critical component of national security.

And yet on the campaign trail today we hear very little about the vital need to address the same disturbing trends that FDR warned us about all those decades ago: the vast and growing unequal distribution of wealth among the American people, the dangers of the rise of “private power” to the exercise of democracy, the fact that in America today roughly one-third of our citizens have rejoined the ranks of the poor or near poor.

No, instead what we hear is an endless stream of uninspiring messages about each candidate’s “plans” to create jobs, reduce the deficit, and “keep America strong.” But after living through four long years of the Great Recession and bearing witness to a society where 400 individuals now own more wealth that the bottom 150 million combined, the American people deserve more than mere platitudes. They want to hear their leaders articulate a vision for America that involves the creation of a better and more just society, a society that will inspire what Roosevelt called “the anguished common people of this earth.”

President Obama has offered hints of this in his call to move the country forward, but in the dangerous world that our parents and grandparents inhabited, Franklin Roosevelt went much further. In the final and anxious days of the 1940 election, for example, he reminded his fellow citizens that they were a generation living in “a tremendous moment of history,” where the “surge of events abroad” had led some to ask whether “the book of democracy” might “now to be closed and placed away upon the dusty shelves of time.” For Roosevelt the answer was clear and unequivocal:

All we have known of the glories of democracy—its freedom, its efficiency as a mode of living, its ability to meet the aspirations of the common man— all these are merely an introduction to the greater story of a more glorious future.

We Americans of today—all of us—we are characters in this living book of democracy.

But we are also its author. It falls upon us now to say whether the chapters that are to come will tell a story of retreat or a story of continued advance.

I believe that the American people will say: "Forward!"

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute. He is currently writing a book entitled Cordell Hull, Anthony Eden and the Search for Anglo-American Cooperation, 1933-1938.

We all know the conservative talking points about government: Big government impedes growth. Social Security is going bankrupt. We need to balance the budget. We've had the idea that government is an economic albatross drilled into our heads through decades of repetition. The problem is, it's just not true. Check out this new booklet from the Rediscovering Government Initiative to get the facts, plus an illustrated timeline of the government's role in shaping the economy and more information on how you can get involved in Rediscovering Government. Click here to view the booklet in magazine layout.

Capitol image via Shutterstock.com.

Unlike the modern-day GOP, FDR understood that securing peace required both massive military power and massive diplomacy.

The permanent security of America in the present crisis does not lie in armed force alone. What we face is a set of world-wide forces of disintegration—vicious, ruthless, destructive of all the moral, religious and political standards which mankind, after centuries of struggle, has come to cherish most…

Overstatement, bitterness, vituperation, and the beating of drums have contributed mightily to ill-feeling and wars between nations. If these unnecessary and unpleasant actions are harmful in the international field, if they have hurt in other parts of the world, they are also harmful in the domestic scene. Peace among ourselves would seem to have some of the advantage of peace between us and other nations. In the long run history amply demonstrates that angry controversy surely wins less than calm discussion. - Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940

In the vice presidential debate between Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan, the latter reiterated the now-familiar Romney campaign charge that the Obama administration has projected “weakness abroad,” and that as such the world has become “more chaotic and less safe.” In the Romney-Ryan view, it is critical that the United States exude strength at all times, and above all stop “apologizing” for America. The logic behind this view is based on the argument, put forward by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others, that American weakness or even the perception of American weakness is provocative. Based on this analysis, it would seem that Governor Romney’s foreign policy has been reduced to the idea that the first responsibility of the president in foreign affairs is to turn Theodore Roosevelt’s maxim on its head by speaking loudly and carrying a big stick.

In essence, it is this idea—that the president needs to “get tough” with our enemies and adversaries—that has formed the core of the Romney-Ryan critique of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, whether it’s toward Iran over its nuclear ambitions or toward China over its trade policies.

But as any expert in the field of foreign policy will attest, securing America’s interests abroad involves far more than the mere projection of strength. It also involves a realistic understanding of the limits of military power and the ability to exercise restraint in times of high tension, the ability to understand and interpret other people’s histories and cultures, and most important of all, the ability to inspire in others the same respect for human rights and the rule of law that we aspire to here at home in our yet-to-be perfected democracy. At times—as much as Governor Romney or Congressman Ryan might not like to admit it—this involves a certain degree of humility and willingness to acknowledge our own shortcomings. Qualities that stem not from weakness but from strength, a deep and abiding faith and confidence in our ability as a people to learn from past mistakes and fashion a better democracy.

Seventy-plus years ago, in a world that in many respects was far more dangerous than our own, Franklin Roosevelt understood this. He knew better than anyone in the dark days of 1940-41 that there was an urgent need to build up America’s military capabilities, to render our nation second to none in armed strength. But he also knew that such a military buildup would be useless in the long run if people around the world did not believe that America’s cause was their cause, that what we were fighting for was not to establish an “American century” but rather to join with what he called “the anguished common people of this earth” in building a world where freedom would mean “the supremacy of human rights everywhere.” The United States, he believed, could play a unique role in this effort, not by virtue of our military or industrial power, but rather because of our willingness to lead not by force but by example. As he said in 1941,

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change—in a perpetual peaceful revolution—a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions—without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

To Roosevelt, then, even in a world ravaged by war, “the mere conquest of our enemies [was] not enough.” It was also critical that the United States do all it could “to conquer the doubts and the fears, the ignorance and the greed, which made this horror possible.” As such, the American people had to face “the preeminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships—the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and work together, in the same world, at peace.”

By reaching out to the world in Cairo, Indonesia, Moscow, and elsewhere, President Obama has shown that he understands the need “to cultivate the science of human relationships.” He has also made it eminently clear that he can be a ruthless adversary when dealing with the Taliban or the top leadership of al Qaeda. Based on the bluster and saber-rattling tendencies of Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan, however, it would appear that they still have much to learn about exercise of foreign policy. In this sense, Vice President Biden is surely correct when he says that “the President has led with a steady hand and clear vision” and that all of the “loose talk” the Romney-Ryan team seems to relish in risks “painting the United States into a dangerous corner.” After all, as the Vice President, also said, the “last thing” the American people want or need “is another ground war in the Middle East.”

David Woolner is a Senior Fellow and Hyde Park Resident Historian for the Roosevelt Institute. He is currently writing a book entitled Cordell Hull, Anthony Eden and the Search for Anglo-American Cooperation, 1933-1938.

Then as now, labor rights and labor's voice in politics are under heavy attack.

Today, October 11, is Eleanor Roosevelt’s birthday, a good day to reflect on the First Lady’s values and how she translated those values into action on behalf of ideas and people she supported. Eleanor Roosevelt strongly believed in workers, their unions, and their involvement in the political process. A member of The Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO for over 25 years, she came to see unions as fundamental to democracy itself. In 1941, she told striking IBEW workers that “it was important that everyone who was a worker join a labor organization.” Under her guidance, the right to join a union was included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet workers’ rights remain under heavy attack today. Her legacy is still in need of protection and promotion.

The fact that U.S. workers have a collective voice in the political process is firmly rooted in the New Deal. Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt believed that workers had a right to a voice at work as well as a voice in politics. They also saw the two as closely intertwined as they worked with labor to win elections and support their progressive agenda. John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers Union, and Sidney Hillman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers’ Union, led the labor movement in contributing money and getting out the union vote for President Roosevelt’s re-election efforts. Resistance was fierce. Then, as now, they were outspent by anti-union forces. Yet by 1947, Mrs. Roosevelt concluded in her “My Day” column that while “labor today is stronger than it used to be, it is no stronger than organized capital.”

Similar anti-union initiatives continue to this day. Many people in California are members of labor unions, from airplane pilots and grocery store clerks to nurses and teachers, mail carriers and electricians, police officers and fire fighters. Through their unions the pay dues, elect officers, and participate in decisions that affect their pay, benefits, and workplace safety. Should these union members also be allowed to have a collective voice in our political process through their unions?

Proposition 32, on the November ballot in California, says “no.” This proposition exempts powerful corporate interests from the limits on political spending but imposes formidable barriers to unions. Paycheck deductions – money raised through voluntary deductions from workers’ paychecks – could no longer be used for political activities. Only unions, however, not companies or wealthy individuals, rely on voluntary paycheck deductions as their source of funding to support political action.

Proponents of Proposition 32 hail it as “campaign finance reform.” Yet it places no meaningful restrictions on corporate contributions to candidates, campaigns, or Super PACs. Members of the 1 percent or the 10 percent don’t use paycheck deductions to contribute to politics. They use profits, interest, dividends, salaries, and bonuses. Professor John Logan, director of labor and employment relations at San Francisco State University, reports that the backers of Prop 32 are also some of the same wealthy individuals who helped bring us the Citizens United Supreme Court decision leading to the most expensive election year on record.

This is also a “one-two punch.” In 1958, Eleanor Roosevelt led a national effort opposing right-to-work laws in six states, including California, where the law was defeated.  Most recently, the fight has escalated in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana and has now returned to California. If Prop 32 passes this year, workers will have diminished political power and next year we can expect to see these other anti-labor propositions further weakening private sector unions. Workers’ ability to fight back in California will be stopped in its tracks by Prop 32.

Mrs. Roosevelt saw unions as fundamental to the democratic process. She thrived on educating union members and rallying them to register people to vote, participate in conventions and campaigns, and get people to the polls on Election Day. She warned that when fear and prejudice are running high, “We may wake up to find that in trying to remedy certain wrongs, we have shorn ourselves of certain very precious freedoms.” In 1958, Mrs. Roosevelt called the right-to-work effort a “predatory and misleading campaign,” an equally apt description of Proposition 32 today.

Eleanor Roosevelt’s birthday is a fitting time to remember that when asked where human rights begin, she answered, “In small places close to home…unless they have meaning there they will have little meaning any where.” Proposition 32 is very close to home for Californians, and if it passes here it could come to your neighborhood soon.

Brigid O’Farrell is an independent scholar in Moss Beach, California, and member of the National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981, whose most recent book is She Was One of Us: Eleanor Roosevelt and the American Worker, now available in paperback.