How to Talk Like a Democrat, Part Two

Last time we began looking closely at FDR's great Madison Square Grarden speech, given near the end of the 1936 campaign.  And we saw how, with the fate of the New Deal programs hanging in the balance, FDR made what sounds to our ears like an extraordinary claim--that what the Democrats were fighting for in that election was nothing less than the preservation of democracy. 

Before we move on to FDR's answer to the obvious question--the preservation of democracy against what, and against whom?--it's worth pausing to absorb just how seriously he meant this notion of a fight for democracy to be taken. 

For it wasn't just some passing remark.  The entire opening of the speech is built around the idea that domestic and pacific goals of reform have and will require the spiritual equivalent of martial effort.  Just look at the language FDR uses in the passages immediately following his remark about preserving the democracy that the previous election had restored:

More than four years ago in accepting the Democratic nomination in Chicago, I said: "Give me your help not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people."  The banners of that crusade still fly in the van of a Nation that is on the march.

The supporters of the New Deal are an army on the march, and moreover an army that represents, in its goals, the nation itself.  And what are the goals of this mobilized national army?  Well what else would a democratic and peace-loving people be willing to join a crusade for, but for the fruits of peace itself?  "Above all things, the American people wanted peace," says FDR:
 
They wanted peace of mind instead of gnawing fear  ...escape from the personal terror which had stalked them for three years. ...the peace that comes from security in their homes: safety for their savings, permanence in their jobs, a fair profit from their enterprise  ...peace in the community, the peace that springs from the ability to meet the needs of community life ...escape from disintegration and bankruptcy in local and state affairs  ...peace within the Nation  ...fairer wages, the ending of long hours of toil, the abolition of child labor, the elimination of wild-cat speculation ...peace with other Nations--peace in a world of unrest.
 
Since 9/11 there has been some talk in Democratic circles of using the idea of security as a metaphor for promoting liberal/progressive goals ("economic security" and so on).  But unfortunately this talk tended to ignore the long tradition whereby Democratic goals have been associated precisely with the blessings of peace. 
 
At the center of that tradition is not pacifism or even, in fact, a sentimental reluctance to fight (remember, FDR is talking about the goals of what he calls a political army on the march), but rather the natural preference of the overwhelming majority of ordinary people for a life that is fundamentally stable, cooperative and just.  The people, FDR is saying, do not naturally long for objects destructive of social order and communal life; on the contrary, they mostly want nothing more than to enjoy the fruits of such order and such a life.  The implication is clear: if there are rapacious, destructive forces loose in society (and, as we will see, there certainly are) then they must come from some other quarter.
 
The next thing FDR does is to "call...the roll of honor of those who stood with us in 1932 and still stand with us today."  He describes, in other words, this Democratic "army" to which he has been alluding.  It includes:
 
...millions who never had a chance--men at starvation wages, women in sweatshops, children at looms ...those who despaired, young men and young women for whom opportunity had become a will-o'-the-wisp.  ...farmers whose acres yielded only bitterness, business men whose books were portents of disaster, home owners who were faced with eviction, frugal citizens whose savings were insecure.
 
In short, all those hard-pressed by the long years of prior Republican rule.  And to these he then adds, and welcomes, those who are prepared to stand with them:
 
 [C]ountless other Americans of all parties and all faiths, Americans who had eyes to see and hearts to understand, whose consciences were burdened because too many of their fellows were burdened, who looked on these things four years ago and said, "This can be changed. We will change it."


So that is FDR's political army, the army of the New Deal.  And now, addressing his troops directly, he says the following:
 
We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.

If you were starting to wonder why FDR was spending so much time on all this talk about armies and marching (and if you were maybe getting a little creeped out by it all) here is your answer:  Politics--at least for the people, the broad majority of ordinary citizens--is essentially a struggle.  It may be struggle for the blessings of peace, but it is still a struggle nevertheless, and a mighty one at that. 
 
But if what the people want is so unobjectionable, so mutually-beneficial to so many in society, then why must it be a struggle at all?  Why can't we all just get along?
 
The reason that politics must be a struggle, the reason that we cannot all just get along, is because the good and simple things the that ordinary people most want--some islands of stability in a topsy-turvy world, mutually-beneficial cooperation that bridges social differences, a basic sense that justice is being done by and to everyone--all these good things, despite being good for so many, have their natural adversaries as well.  And those adversaries, moreover, if left unchecked, will always be the ones who have the ear of power:
 
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. ...Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

And with those words FDR turns from what might be called the positive part of his address to the critical part, which happens also to be the heart of the speech.  Up until now he has been so to speak reminding his supporters who they are; now comes the time to remind them who the enemy is.  Various liberal/progressive writers have been quoting different parts of this section of the speech recently, but it really needs to be quoted at length, to appreciate the full force:

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

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.

The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House--by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.

Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate.
 
Who are the enemies of peace--who opposes what the people harmlessly want?  As you can see, FDR does not mince words about this.  They are the forces of "organized money" who, utterly lacking in patriotism and fellow feeling "consider the Government  of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs."   They are the ones who will concentrate their hatred upon any real reformer--and whose hatred any real reformer should therfore "welcome."  
 
Why welcome it?  Because the hatred of interests such  as these is a sign that reform is doing its job--is biting "the forces of selfishness and lust for power" where it hurts.   And when does it hurt them the most?  Above all, when they find they no longer have the "pass-keys" to the back doors of power.  For as long as they have those keys, they can withstand any storm. 
 
But if thos interests really find themelves deprived of those keys, then they will be far from happy indeed--they will in fact be shocked at the inversion of what, for them, is the normal and expected order of things.  And some of them, no doubt, will then become quite "desperate."  Desperate enough to pay for just about any damn fool thing to be said or done, if only it holds out the promise of getting those pass-keys back.
 
Whatever the outcome of the present health care 'debate', the future of Democratic messaging, and of liberal/progressve goals more generally, depends upon our realizing that the situation FDR described in 1936 is no unique or transient historical example.  It is instead part of the grammar of real reform, in the face of deeply entrenched and powerful interests. 
 
The sooner we figure this out--the sooner we figure out how to talk like Democrats again--the better our chances will become of achieving genuine, lasting change in our lifetimes.