Warm Springs: HBO film
I saw Warm Springs last night.
Warm Springs tells the story of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's experience being afflicted with polio. FDR is portrayed as a self-indulgent punk who is humbled and then transformed into a genuinely loving and compassionate figure through his experience helping other polio victims in rural Georgia.
Eleanor Roosevelt grows along FDR. She goes from being somewhat indifferent to his political career to someone willing to get outside her comfort zone to advance her husband's interests. She is proud, but also ambitious. Initially she sides with FDR's mother that spending FDR's trust fund to buy Warm Springs is a waste.
Leave your comments about FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt or other great American political and social leaders of the 20th Century.
Warm Springs tells the story of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's experience being afflicted with polio. FDR is portrayed as a self-indulgent punk who is humbled and then transformed into a genuinely loving and compassionate figure through his experience helping other polio victims in rural Georgia.
Eleanor Roosevelt grows along FDR. She goes from being somewhat indifferent to his political career to someone willing to get outside her comfort zone to advance her husband's interests. She is proud, but also ambitious. Initially she sides with FDR's mother that spending FDR's trust fund to buy Warm Springs is a waste.
Leave your comments about FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt or other great American political and social leaders of the 20th Century.
posted by Carl Nyberg at 12:50 PM
6 Comments:
Off topic, but check out
http://www.atcenternetwork.com/?p=40
for a video interview with Christine Cegelis
Although FDR is easily our greatest president ever, my favorite is still Harry S.
Now there was a man of men.
For presidents in modern times (20th Century,) I would agree with HST. Even though Mr. Truman's Democratic Party would be considered too conservative today by Ted, Nancy, and Harry, it did get FDR and him in. FDR knew how to rally the people and keep them going during WWII. Brokaw's "greatest generation" probably would not have been as great as they were without FDR's leadership. As well, it took Truman's resolve and refusal to back down that helped us end the war. (None of us would have preferred it to end the way it did, and we could argue for millenia on the pros and cons.)
Kennedy would have been a great president, too, if he would have lived longer, but Truman gets my vote.
I consider FDR the father of socialism in America, and therefore do not have a very high opinion of him. You have to give him credit for his accomplishments and leadership during WWII. But I believe "New Deal" politics, and Social Security in particular will prove to be the undoing of this great country. During a difficult time, FDR passed legislation that regardless of its popularity violates the very concepts of individual liberty, private property, and limited government that America was founded on (sounds very similar to what many people say about the Patriot Act being passed during a time of weakness).
America the democratic republic is dead. America is a socialist country. Indeed, how can one argue otherwise when our single largest federal budget item is a social program--bigger than national defense?
These days most voters look at elections as a smorgasbord of goodies, and they vote for the candidate that is going to give them the most. Nevermind that the government is robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Peter is rich anyway, right? And we all hate those "rich capitalist pigs." Hey, I know! Why doesn't the government just pay for all of our health care! We could pay for it by stealing from all the rich people! After all, we deserve their wealth, and it's unfair that we don't have it, isn't it precious?
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
-- Guy That Foretold the Death of America, 1787
Dear Sir,
I am more than astonished that you confuse social programs with socialism as such. Social Programs do proof to be of value in times of need.
If I'm not mistaken the New Deal of President Rosevelt restored Americas confidence in it's ability to cope with crisis, and the US finaly did. (Something President Hoover had been unable to do, as I might like to add. That is in as much of interest, as to my knowledge President Hoover stood for the very principle of limited government. This Ideology failed him and the people of the United States at that time. However, this doesen't mean, the idea as such is wrong, you simply have to balance it.)
I'd like to congratulate you on your reminder, that a republic is going to detoriate, if the people forget the common good and start to look only to their own advantage.
Nevertheless, you have to ask rich people to do their share as well, and in my oppinion this should be proportioned - that is, whoever has higher assets should contribute more to the state or in short: To the common good. After all, with higher assets you also benefit more from the state. (Beeing rich normaly means beeing an entrepreneur of sorts, who normaly needs well educated people as a workforce, security for his business and a decent infrastructure. And surly you'd be glad if your workers, should they fall ill, be back as soon as possible, or better yet, that they don't fall ill altogether, thanks to precautions. A good healthcare provides you with this opportunity. So please, don't think, you don't get anything in return for your money.)
On a last note:
A quote dating back to 1787 denoting Democracy seems a bit preposterous. After more than 200 years of success everyone should agree that history proofed his author wrong.
Unless you wanted to point out, that anything men does on this planet is "temporary" by nature. But alas, this has to be attributed to any form of government, organization or institution.
The incredible ignorance of the post calling america socialist aside, I'd like to recommend the FDR monument in DC if anyone hasn't seen it. It's unconventional to say the least, and doesn't commit the sin of hagiography. Some warts are shown there.
It's not beautiful or stunning like the lincoln or vietnam, but it is interesting and worth a detour.
Post a Comment
<< Home