Are the Democrats working toward FDR's Second Bill or Rights?

Question

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality

in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by mon

monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Answer 1

Thank you for posting these; they are a pretty good statement of some notions behind neoliberalism, as opposed to classical liberalism (which Americans usually call "conservatism"). I can use these; I owe my mother-in-law an essay on the problems with Democrats and neoliberalism.

Which brings us to the main question. Not many decades ago, the Democratic and Republican parties each had internal divisions between their liberal and conservative wings. Since then, each has become aligned with one philosophy, the Democrats becoming dominated by neoliberalism. (Actually, the Republicans still have a division between classical liberalism and Reaganism, which is sort of an American revival of the Tory party we lost in the Revolution.)

Yes, I think most Democrats consider economic liberty to be significant and its promotion a valid role for government.

There are, of course, many ways to go wrong once you go through that door. Government power is an effective tool, but also potentially dangerous; it requires a great deal of supervision. What worries me about Democrats is that many of them seem to be looking for easy solutions involving sets of programs and positions, and Democratic politicians are in danger of being swayed by the pressure for easy answers. (That in particular applies to the current Presidential campaigns, as well as past ones.)

But there are easy illustrations of the potential benefits of government intervention. I am, for example, on the federal Don't-Call list, which is an egregious insertion of government power into the realm of commercial communication. It should be utterly unacceptable to classical liberals (that is, traditional American conservatives) on principle. It is also extremely beneficial: my personal freedom has been greatly enhanced.

It would therefore be hypocritical for me to claim any attachment to conservative or neoconservative anti-government principles. However, I readily concede that government, like any powerful tool, can be dangerous if misused. I don't believe that means we should abandon the tool, but it means that we should be on the lookout for sloppy users.

Too much of recent politics, certainly among Democrats but also among Republicans, consists of adopting oversimplified "principles" and then fighting over adherence to them. At least FDR was campaigning to build something better.

I note that some others have pointed out that the notion of "rights" may be diluted in his rhetoric. They have a point. But if there's anything inherently wrong with trying to move a society toward those goals, I don't see it.

A while before FDR, some other politicians said that the ENTIRE purpose of governments was to secure the rights of the people, specifically including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." His proposed extension certainly supports those rights.

Answer 2

i think of for the main section FDR's invoice of rights falls under "sell the final welfare" interior the form. FDR did only that, he enacted classes that promoted the final welfare and outfitted the main powerful center type the international has ever seen. i do no longer see those as God given rights, or rights that must be granted with the aid of government yet I do have self assurance they're necessary to a colourful center type.

Answer 3

They may be. It sounds like FDR had an improper notion of what rights are. He was a very unwise man. I can only imagine how much stronger this country and our economic situation would be had he never been elected.

Answer 4

I know that Hillary and Eleanor are pretty friendly

Answer 5

Entitlements are not "rights"