An Antidote to the FDR Cult
A new biography presents Franklin Roosevelt as one of the greatest scoundrels of American political history.
FDR: A New Political Life, by David T. Beito, Open Universe, 400 pages, $29.99
If there were any doubts that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of the greatest scoundrels of American political history, David Beito's new biography should settle the issue. Beito—whose previous book, The New Deal's War on the Bill of Rights, did yeoman's work exposing Roosevelt's depredations against civil liberties—has now written FDR: A New Political Life, and it should help FDR get the villainous reputation he deserves.
Treachery was the consistent theme of Roosevelt's political life. During his 1932 presidential campaign, FDR signaled that he would not take the United States currency off the gold standard, but he wasted no time in betraying that pledge when he took office. On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt commanded all citizens to surrender their gold to the government. No citizen was permitted to own more than $100 in gold coins, except for rare coins with special value for collectors. Anyone who possessed more than 5 gold Double Eagle coins faced 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. If you distrusted the government and sought to retain your gold, Roosevelt condemned you as a "hoarder." But after the confiscation, FDR announced that gold would be henceforth valued at $35 an ounce, not $20 an ounce—thereby providing a windfall for the government.

FDR and his brain trust believed in the boundless concentration of power. The New York Times reported on March 12, 1933, that Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and a group of farm lobbyists urged Roosevelt to ask for "farm dictator powers" to solve the agriculture crisis. The Roosevelt administration intentionally set U.S. crop prices far above world market prices, destroying farm exports and then claiming that the government needed boundless power over farmers to protect them against surpluses. Within a few years, the Agriculture Department (USDA) was dictating exactly how many acres of grain each wheat farmer could grow. An Indiana farmer exceeded his quota to grow wheat to feed to his hogs. The Roosevelt administration hounded him all the way to the Supreme Court, claiming it needed a free hand to "suppress…a public evil."
Rexford Tugwell, Wallace's no. 2, idolized Soviet dictator Josef Stalin's collective farms, declaring in 1934: "Russia has shown that planning is practical….The success and enthusiasm of Sovietism almost guarantees an unlimited rise in Soviet standards of living." This was after an artificial famine in Ukraine killed millions of peasants who had not surrendered their land. Tugwell also lauded fascism as "the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious." In 1934, the top Nazi newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, hailed "Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies….The president's fundamental political course still contains democratic tendencies but is thoroughly infected by a strong national socialism.'"
Roosevelt sought to leave no vote unbought. Priming for the 1936 election, he launched the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which paid more than 4 million people in 1935. The WPA, popularly known as "We Poke Along," aimed to hire as many people as quickly as possible for labor-intensive projects. The agency quickly gave leaf raking a bad name.
Beito highlights the WPA's role in constructing concentration camps for Japanese-American detainees, noting that this was "perhaps the most gigantic single 'WPA project' of all time." The agency's employees built guard towers and spotlights to prevent any escapes, and they helped staff the camps. After World War II ended, the Japanese-American roundup was recognized as one of the greatest civil liberties atrocities of the 20th century. The fact that it took only a few memos to shift legions of WPA workers from leaf raking to concentration camp guards should be a red flag for future mass employment schemes.
In late 1938, synagogues across Germany were shattered in violent Nazi rampages known as Kristallnacht. Many Americans favored permitting far more German Jews to seek refuge in the United States, but "Roosevelt's reaction to Kristallnacht was timid and lethargic," Beito notes. "Presidential indifference" to refugee relief undercut legislation that would have opened the doors to 20,000 Jewish children from Germany.
H.L. Mencken, writing in The Baltimore Sun, scorned the Roosevelt administration's foot-dragging and declared that it would be "much more honest and much more humane" to immediately admit all 400,000 German Jews here, stating that there was "no reason whatsoever for believing it would be impossible to absorb them, or even difficult."
A seven-acre, 300,000 square foot monument to FDR near the Lincoln Memorial showcases a quote from his 1936 reelection campaign: "I hate war." But as Beito points out, "In the two years after the breakout of [World War I in 1914] in Europe, Roosevelt tirelessly pushed for U.S. intervention in that conflict." Roosevelt declared in 1916: "We've got to get into this war." President Woodrow Wilson himself was reelected in 1916 on a campaign slogan, "He kept us out of war," and then promptly dragged the U.S. into that bloodbath.
By the late 1930s, FDR was usually not openly bellicose—in part because so many Americans were still bitter about the frauds that permeated U.S. involvement in the first World War. In 1940, Roosevelt promised during his campaign for an unprecedented third presidential term: "Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." But FDR was working tirelessly to find a pretext to drag America into World War II.
Beito notes that Roosevelt "repeatedly fumbled on pursuing prospects for peace in negotiations with Japan. The main consequence…was to push Tokyo further into the hands of the Axis. This was followed by FDR's failure to aggressively pursue Japan's proposals for a summit or, more fleetingly, to evacuate China….He was responsible, both through inattention and inflexibility, for needlessly heightening the likelihood of a Pacific war." Beito believes that FDR did not know that the Japanese would attack at Pearl Harbor, though he and his top officials expected some Japanese military attack elsewhere in Asia at that time. But thanks to FDR's "fixation on the North Atlantic, [he] had starved both Pearl Harbor and other U.S. forces in the Pacific of needed resources, such as observation planes."
How many American soldiers and sailors died because of FDR's missteps during the war? In the final years of the conflict, he gave a huge boost to Nazi propaganda when he floated plans to subjugate the German people permanently by banning all factories and even airplanes in the conquered territory. The president told Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., "We either have to castrate the German people or you have to go to treat them in such manner so they can't just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past." FDR declared that after the war, every German "should be fed three times a day with…Army soup," adding that "they will remember that experience all their lives." Cordell Hull, Roosevelt's long-serving secretary of state, condemned the Morgenthau plan (as it became known) as an "extreme starvation plan." The combination of the Morgenthau Plan and the bombing of civilian areas in Dresden, Hamburg, and other German cities, killing nearly 600,000 civilians, may have spurred more Germans to want to keep fighting than to stop.
Japan continued fighting long after the war was lost, in part because the Roosevelt administration demanded unconditional surrender. After the U.S. obliterated Tokyo with fire bombing that killed almost 100,000 people, and then slaughtered even more with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government flip-flopped. Beito notes, "Ironically, though the final surrender was labelled 'unconditional,' it only came after Truman assented after the bombs to a condition that the weary Japanese had insisted for months: keeping the emperor."
FDR's final betrayal occurred in January 1945, when he met at Yalta with Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to make plans for the postwar world. Yalta became a synonym for the abandonment of oppressed people when Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to let Stalin occupy almost half of Germany and all of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. The "good war" begot more than 40 years of Communist tyranny in those lands.
Throughout the war, FDR had brazenly described his Soviet ally as one of the "freedom-loving Nations"; on returning from Yalta, he boasted to Congress: "As the Allied armies have marched to military victory, they have liberated people whose liberties had been crushed by the Nazis for four long years." At that point, U.S. officials already knew that the "liberated" peoples of Eastern Europe were being savagely oppressed by the Red Army.
Intellectuals, academics, and most of the media slapped a halo over FDR to consecrate both his welfare state and his warring. FDR: A New Political Life is an antidote to that servility to Leviathan.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Waiting for Molly G to declare FDR was simply misunderstood and only had the best intentions.
Very similar to Brandon.
"Japan continued fighting long after the war was lost, in part because the Roosevelt administration demanded unconditional surrender."
In larger part because the Japanese military leaders thought that they could still, if not win, then not lose. That included the attempted palace coup to prevent the recording of Hirohito's surrender address from being broadcast. The Japanese central government never had complete control over what the Japanese Army was doing in China (much of their policy was made by the Army command). Japan's government between the wars and during WWII was an absolute mess. Also, the "unconditional surrender" requirement came into being because the press threw a fit over Eisenhower making a deal with a Nazi sympathetic French Admiral so the Vichy French forces would not resist the Allied landings in Vichy French controlled North Africa during Operation Torch. The extreme distaste for cutting any deals with "Nazis" has a long history.
Yes. FDR was a villain in many ways, but unconditional surrender was a direct result of WW I ending in a truce instead of occupation, with Hitler and others blaming their military loss on backstabbing by Jews instead of their military losing. No one wanted a repeat of that.
The Japanese "peace feelers" wanted a truce to preserve the status quo; they would keep everywhere they still had troops, including China, Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Indochina .... that was not peace.
Getting his knickers in a twist over the atom bombings is another sign the review author is not serious. The Japanese army had killed 200,000 people in each of the last four months. They would have kept on doing so, and millions would have died in the invasion. The atom bombs probably saved 5-10 million Japanese lives.
Yalta was a disaster, but not because FDR and Churchill didn't negotiate hard enough. Stalin occupied those countries. Nothing could have been done to kick him out.
It is annoying to claim that one's opponent in foreign policy would be reasonable if not for you provoking him, without examining what the opponent was advocating for and doing.
There is a lot of moral compromise the Western Allies had to do with the Soviet Union, but to push Stalin on those more than they did risked going to war with the Soviets, which the war weary Western Allied populations would not not have gone for. Sometimes morality and honor have to give in to what is achievable or not.
Totally agree with your arguments. I don't know how much of this is in the book, and how much is wishcasting from a Reason contributor who gets his history lessons from Tucker Carlson guests.
"Nothing could have been done to kick him out."
As I recall, Patton had a pretty good idea.
Churchill (with access to the best intelligence sources) had much the same idea as Patton (drive Stalin back), and asked his planners to investigate the idea ("Operation Unthinkable"). They told him it could not be done even with full American support, something that could not be be counted on. Even after Western armies approached the German frontier in late 1944, the Germans needed two thirds of their armies on the Russian front. (2) Churchill was severely disappointed that he could do nothing for the Poles, in whose name Britain accepted war in 1939.
"The Japanese "peace feelers" wanted a truce to preserve the status quo; they would keep everywhere they still had troops, including China, Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Indochina .... that was not peace."
Every source on my shelves suggest this was the intent and, further, to continue the conflict in the hope of some fantasized 'agreement'.
"Getting his knickers in a twist over the atom bombings is another sign the review author is not serious. The Japanese army had killed 200,000 people in each of the last four months. They would have kept on doing so, and millions would have died in the invasion. The atom bombs probably saved 5-10 million Japanese lives."
I have asked every summer if anyone opposed to the use of the nukes can propose a more humane alternative, one which would have ended the war with fewer casualties.
I've yet to get an answer, and I've now been asking the question for at least 20 years, after considering the issue for a very long time.
According to the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0020_SPANGRUD_STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.PDF at pp. 106-07), U.S. air supremacy over Japan would have promptly ended the war without the atomic bombs and without an invasion, even if the U.S.S.R. hadn't entered the war:
"[I]t seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported
by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is
the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have
surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
The atomic bombs were a noisy sideshow, completely unnecessary. The Red Army was a vastly greater factor in ending the war. Stalin always had ambitions to the east, but unlike Hitler he was smart enough not to get into a two-front war. Once the Nazis were decisively defeated, he started moving troops to the Soviet far east. When the USSR declared war on Japan, those troops were much closer than US forces. Japanese defenses were concentrated in the southeast, since that's where they expected a US invasion to come from. That left the northwestern approaches wide open. Having seen the Soviets in action, the Japanese decided they'd rather take their chances with Uncle Sam instead of Uncle Joe.
The idea that the A-bombs were the deciding factor was US propaganda that the Japanese were happy to support. The Cold War was already underway and we had the Bomb and the Soviets didn't, so naturally the US wanted to play up its devastating power. The Japanese government played along, both to keep the occupying forces happy and because "We lost to the enemy's god weapon" was a lot less embarrassing than admitting they'd picked a fight they couldn't possibly win.
Allowing an enemy to surrender on terms doesn't mean giving them everything they want, just the minimum they'll accept to stop fighting. Deposing the emperor was a deal breaker, withdrawing from occupied territories wasn't. If the war had ended earlier it could have saved many lives, both Japanese and American. It could have also freed up US forces that might have given us a stronger position in Europe, possibly making Stalin's stranglehold on eastern Europe less complete.
Worst president ever. It really is sick how he's still held up as some kind of hero. Fuck FDR.
I dunno, the last guy gave him a real run for the title, in about 1/3 of the tenure.
This is third-rate anti-Roosevelt propaganda that one would have thought went out circa 1952. Roosevelt was easily elected to four terms, and Truman won a fifth. Eisenhower deliberately accepted the New Deal because he believed in it. Ronald Reagan, in 1960, predicted that Medicare would lead to the end of freedom in the U.S. In 1983, Reagan engineered a massive tax increase to "save" Medicare. Obama tamed the 2008 recession through the Keynesian spending that Roosevelt half-heartedly initiated. (He should have done more.) Trump, of course, presents himself as the Big Daddy of Big Daddies.
Reason demeans itself by publishing such trivia.
* * * Warning, Independent thought detected. * * *
Please remain at your location until Reason.com security personnel arrives.
*** Warning: Statist, redistributionist, government dependency detected ***
You’re both pathetic.
You misspelled "bullshit", for instance: "...Obama tamed the 2008 recession through the Keynesian spending that Roosevelt half-heartedly initiated..."
""You want to know what fascism is like? It is like your New Deal!" - Benito Mussolini
FDR was the closest thing the US came to a dictatorship by a man who saw himself as indispensable. The fact that Roosevelt had the charisma to win four presidential elections is not a demonstration that his policies were good, just that he was good at political hustling.
FDR's policies lengthened and deepened the Depression, and Obama's policies did the same with the '08 Recession.
To be fair, FDR's policies were mostly Hoover's policies, and Hoover was responsible for the first four years of the Great Depression. Contrast 1929 with 1920, which actually started out worse by some measures because Woodrow Wilson had take over control of so much of the means of production during the war, but was over in 18 months because Wilson had a stroke which his wife hid from his staff and the public, so the new Fed's reaction was restrained, unlike 1929.
FDR doubled down on Hoover's stupidity, but Hoover started it, using Wilson's tools.
No, they were not. Hoover was an interventionist, which did make things worse. FDR was on another level of intervention and authoritarian control over private economics.
Yes they were. FDR railed against Hoover's plan and spending, then doubled down on them.
You want authoritarianism from Hoover? He was Commerce Secretary and created the FCC with the express requirement that spectrum allocation be "in the public interest", requiring censorship of distasteful programming, including especially political opponents.
Read Political Spectrum by Thomas Hazlett. Read a review of it here: https://www.hoover.org/research/how-electromagnetic-spectrum-became-politicized
Hoover wanted just as much to run things as FDR did. He just didn't think as big.
The fact that FDR even ran for a fourth term was just one more example of his irresponsibility. By fall of 1944 he had one foot in the grave and knew it. If he insisted on running he should at least have insisted on his choice of VP. Because FDR didn't like or trust Truman, he was largely shut out and woefully unprepared when he inherited the presidency two months into that fourth term.
During his 1932 presidential campaign, FDR signaled that he would not take the United States currency off the gold standard, but he wasted no time in betraying that pledge when he took office.
"Betraying that pledge" is almost evidence that the author is ignorant of history (and economics). The fact is on the day before he took office, banks in 37 states (and de facto all 48) - and the entire Federal Reserve system and all national banks - were already shut down with no ability to reopen. There was no 'gold standard' anymore because a 'gold standard' has nothing to do with actual physical gold. A 'gold standard' is about banknotes supposedly backed by gold - which disappears the nanosecond banks themselves don't trust each other (or are committing fraud). It is the banks who broke the gold standard - not FDR. To restore that trust - and restore money to circulation - all 10,000+ banks in the US would have needed to be audited - by a credible entity and decisions enforceable in a court.
You have four days before there is 100% unemployment (no payroll) and people start dropping dead because of lack of water and food. Fix the problem NOW dickhead.
Your statism is showing. Government almighty to the rescue when government almighty caused the problem in the first place.
Cool. So they got a sermon on the proper role of government - and their faults as a voter re all their previous choices - and then 'Let them eat cake!"
Should've been reading Paul Johnson who has been hammering on FDR, justly, for years.
What is far more interesting than the shit spewed here is - how FDR (and likely the country) himself changed from early 1930 to his Presidency.
In early 1930, he made a radio speech on 'home rule":
The doctrine of regulation and legislation by "master minds", in whose judgment and will, all the people, may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last ten years. Were it possible to find "master minds" so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudice; men almost godlike in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizons, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.
Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the states is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever they seem in danger.
So - what changed between early 1930 and early 1933?
FDR wanted to win the 1932 election, and the best way was to yap about Hoover. Once elected, he doubled down on Hoover's programs and took credit.
FDR is the worst american president and it's not even close.
This guy gets it. FDR made the depression worse and longer, stole everyone's gold, got the modern welfare state going and put an end to any credible pretense of constitutional government, probably for good.
^+1. One of Shlaes books details how his continual meddling caused the depression to continue long after history suggested it would absent that idiot.
I dunno, Wilson is a very strong number two. He dragged us into a completely avoidable war, not to mention little things like resegregating previously integrated government agencies and making Jim Crow official policy in the military. Just think of how much more damage he could have done in a third term. He fully intended to run again in 1920, but the party shut him down after learning just how bad his stroke really was.
"A seven-acre, 300,000 square foot monument to FDR..."
Redundancy alert!
Yes, 7 acres is about 300,000 square feet. What's the point of saying it twice?
2.8 hectares, 33,333 square yards...
Just read this about 9AM this morning!
As a late convert to Keynesianism I find FDR to be an extremely mixed bag.
I think he had authoritarian tendencies and flirted with both socialism and fascism. But we were also in the midst of the most devastating economic Depression in history, with no easy way out, and a legitimate emergency situation. Desperate times end up with desperate measures. Capitalists were blamed for the Depression, and the failures of capitalism to provide basic human necessities were laid bare when people were starving and out of work. People all over the world were turning to radical solutions to a critical situation. The fact that we ultimately preserved democracy and capitalism in that environment may be a credit to FDR's flawed leadership, even though he tested its boundaries as well.
Nazi Germany was able to claw their way out faster because authoritarianism allowed them the means to implement economic programs without checks on power or consent of the governed, especially when they started expanding territory and exploiting slave labor. There was some initial positive response in the economic and political communities to fascism as an emergency response to situations like that, which quickly faded as their brutality and imperialism wiped out the accolades for their short term economic success (largely funded by debt).
I think many of the powers FDR added to the government should have been established through constitutional amendments instead of executive orders. I do think FDR was ultimately right about the need for Social Security and Medicare, unemployment insurance and other provisions of basic needs as a means to stave off socialism and preserve capitalism, and about Keynesian economics in general, which were mostly folded into what became mainstream economics, with revisions from neoliberal criticisms.
"As a late convert to Keynesianism..."
So, anything you post on economics is known bullshit. Makes it easy.
On this we agree!! See i knew we were friends..
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
Blase dismissal is not an argument.
I was a free market libertarian and anti-Keynesian for decades. I tried every which way to justify how cutting government, cutting taxes and making markets freer could solve problems of need, protect the environment, provide health care to all, stabilize markets, avoid recessions and debt. I tried arguing that the problem was the corporate entity socializing risk and how insurance could operate as better regulators than government because they had profit incentive not to to be wrong.
The fact is the gold standard is fucking stupid, balanced budgets are fucking stupid that exacerbates down cycles, and raw capitalism has no incentive to provide basic needs for everyone. Corruption, fraud and corruption being in the short term interests of destroys any rosy view of markets operating ethically and consistently. Trickle down is a false religion, and the opposite of how markets actually work, and progressive taxation is way better for the economy, since people with less with almost surely spend all the money they get back into the economy while the wealthy will simply horde more than they will ever possibly need.
You don't like Keynesianism? Fine. But raw, unmitigated capitalism, rampant inequality where basic needs aren't being met and labor exploitation is the fastest route to socialism, as shown by what happened in the late 1800s and early 1900s. So how do you fix that?
To be fair, I am NOT saying that the economy we have is Keynesian. It is actually perverse-Keynesian, with no structural controls to enforce stable monetary policy or fiscal policy we end up with endless inflation and debt. We don't cut spending and build up a rainy day nest egg and damper the peaks during bubble/hot market years. The Fed is arbitrary and reliant on the good graces of wise managers instead of being built upon some kind of algorithmic measure to determine the optimal money supply.
That is neither here nor there to whether the broad points Keynes made were correct or not, and the general consensus of mainstream economists have generally adopted a neo-Keynesian approach (revised with neoclassical critiques) because it stands up to scrutiny.
"Blase dismissal is not an argument."
Statement of fact is; Keynesianism is every bit as well proven to be total and complete bullshit as Marxism, for the same reasons, and if you don't understand that,
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Whenever I begin to form a high opinion of Reason, one of these 1953 reprints from the John Birch Society newsletter shows up.
"...Ironically, though the final surrender was labelled 'unconditional,' it only came after Truman assented after the bombs to a condition that the weary Japanese had insisted for months: keeping the emperor..."
This is just barely removed from an outright lie; the sub-text suggests that they would have surrendered earlier if the emperor were allowed to remain.
Beito needs to read Frank's "Downfall", Pg 344: "In the Magic Far East Diplomatic Summary for July 22, Togot (Foreign Minister at the time, and a 'peace advocate') expressly rejected=d the advice of Ambassador Sato (Ambassador to Russia at the time attempting to get Russia to mediate) to accept such and offer."
Note this is within weeks of the end; not even by then were such terms acceptable.
Further a stroll through Bix "Hirohito..." would inform him of how it took Hirohito to demand the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration upon the Japanese government.
No love of FDR here, but let's stick to the facts.
*Togo*, not Togot.
FDR is noted among the worst president in American history, next to Lincoln, Wilson, LBJ, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, Almost forgot...Harry Truman, signed the act that created the See Eye Aye.
FDR's economic policies worsened and prolonged the depression and NO... the war did not end the depression. FDR colluded with that fat drunken, alcoholic Churchill to start war with Japan. FDR created one of the biggest bureaucracies ever.
And George Patton was right. We fought on the wrong side.
Slimy pile of Nazi shit heard from. Where's your S/S uni, asswipe?
FDR wanted to fight the Nazis, not Japan. He was just lucky that Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the US when he didn't have to.
The great James Bovard writes a review that gives FDR all the shit he deserves.
I'm reading this book and it's excellent, mainly because it talks about all the treacherous and unsavory stuff FDR did throughout his career that we were never taught in any school or in the other hagiographic histories about how he saved us from the Depression, etc.
I grew up in a mixed-political household -- my mother revered FDR and my father reviled him. I went to Catholic grade and high school and I thought FDR was the only non-catholic saint.
Turns out he was a standard political sleezeball angling his way up to the White House -- two-faced, no principles, bigoted, went after gays in the Navy, helped Wilson segregate DC, cheated on Eleanor, a total moron about economics who had no idea how moronic he was and didn't care. He was happy to weaponize the justice department and other federal tools, willing to do whatever it took to hurt his political opponents and help his allies. Sounds kind of familiar.
Haven't even gotten to the gold grab, the Court packing scheme, the Japanese internment and placating his racist pals in the Solid South by doing things like leaving blacks out of New Deal programs. Or Yalta.
FDR is probably the best example of how a mediocre president with the correct politics is built up, polished and protected by major media and historians and culture for 90 years.
But what do I know? I voted twice for Nixon.