Boy life in the 1920s was great wasn't it?

Conservative paradise. The 1920s had a tiny bit of regulation (brought on by the progressive movement and "The Jungle") but not nearly as much as it would gain later. If only we could go back to those wonderful times before Franklin D. Roosevelt.

At least that's the take of Raymond J. Keating, writing for the Small Business and Entrepreneurship council. He makes fun of a plan by which Thanksgiving was briefly the third Thursday rather than the fourth, because businesses convinced President Roosevelt that it would extend the shopping season. Congress passed a law mandating it be on the fourth Thursday and that was that.

FDR's "Thanksgiving economics" turned out to a real turkey. But it was emblematic of the misguided economic thinking put forth throughout his administration. FDR's economics was about putting more control and resources in the hands of politicians and government bureaucrats. His policies and often his rhetoric attacked the businesses, investors and risk takers that create economic growth and jobs. That simply led to a deeper and more prolonged economic downturn. Rather than engaging in pointless efforts like changing the date of Thanksgiving, it would have been far more productive for FDR to roll back the enormous tax and regulatory burdens that he and his predecessor (Herbert Hoover) had placed on the private sector.

This isn't an entirely accurate depiction of Roosevelts policies by the way. It helps Mr. Keating's argument for us to forget that corporations were guilty of some real atrocities in the 1920s and 1930s. On March 7, 1932, for example, Thugs under the employ of General Motors shot down peaceful Union protesters. Unions weren't even allowed to exist in 1932, incidentally. Workers had no recognized rights.

But the larger point is a fundamental difference in the way Mr. Keating looks at the world and the way others might look at it. Compare and contrast the following two statements.

The American entrepreneur is the fundamental force in our society. He alone is responsible for creating America's success and therefore all other societal concerns should be suborned to his needs.

The American worker's ingenuity and labor is responsible for creating the prosperity we all enjoy. Without the hard work done by the American Working Man and Working Woman, America would be nowhere. We should therefore protect him and her, economically and physically.

Fundamentally different. Personally I would say that both miss the mark, although the first one misses it by more. Particularly when you realize that by Mr. Keating's standards an entrepreneur's needs are pretty much whatever he would like. Anything that cuts into an entrepreneur's profits should be done away with, regardless of how that would hurt other American citizens.

But they both miss the mark a little, in the sense that we need everybody in society. It reminds me a bit of a scriptural reference.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

Granted this passage (1 Corinthians 12:14-20) is meant to refer to Christ's church, but the point I think is equally applicable to American Society. There are people who want to lop off a part of our society under the assumption that that would make us better. Get rid of those snooty professors? First thing we do is kill all the lawyers? You get the idea. The truth is that we need everybody in America, and therefore America needs to work for everybody. To quote Toby Ziegler from the West Wing. "We have to say what we feel. That government--no matter what its failures were in the past, and in times to come, for that matter--the government can be a place where people come together and where no one gets left behind."

Anyway something to think about.