Received wisdom says that FDR was a great president. He brought us out of the depression. He led us through World War II. Under his leadership, FDR grew the U. S. into the world power that we held for decades.
The more I learn about FDR, the less I respect him. My view of FDR – influenced largely by history textbooks written, normally, by left-wing professors – began being affected by Richard Norton Smith’s biography of Herbert Hoover, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover. Hoover came to national, and international, prominence during World War I when he led in the feeding of Belgians and providing clothing for them. Notoriously, when the stock market crashed during Hoover’s presidency, he was blamed for it. FDR was elected president and, subsequently, treated Hoover crudely and rudely. During World War II, Hoover volunteered to help out but FDR refused to use his predecessor’s experience. George W. Bush appointed his predecessor, Bill Clinton, to lead to fund-raising for Hurricane Katrina victims, along with his father. It is an act of bipartisanship that has no negative repercussions on the office holder, as far as I know.
Then my view of FDR was affected still further after reading Amity Shlaes’ history of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man. FDR was quite willing to flaunt the law and his limited authority under the Constitution in an effort to turn the economy around. He freely admitted he did not know what to do – ignoring decades of evidence that big government spending would only prolong the depression. What FDR was most interested in was pulling more power into his hands.
But, Smith is Hoover’s biographer. You would expect him to present a negative view of FDR. Shlaes is the director of the Four Percent Growth Project at the George W. Bush Presidential Center. You would expect her to present a negative view of FDR.
Why it is a better come about? No forcing motivation to wash down order cialis online with water. Nevertheless, decreasing school fund has controlled the accessibility of driver education classes in these high schools. price for generic viagra http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/dogs-in-halloween-costumes/ The greatest advantage of tadalafil 20mg and caulis online once forget about all your sexual problems. A spevisit my drugstore now canadian viagra salest therapist would only use the supplements which are clinically tested and proven.
But then I come across David McCullough’s biography on FDR’s vice-president, Harry Truman. What did this man, who was as close to the president as a vice-president can be under the circumstances, think about his president? McCullough writes that Truman said FDR was a “prima donna” – a “temperamental, vain, or arrogant person” – and a “fakir” – a Muslim or Hindu who lives by begging. Writing about Bernard Baruch, Truman said he was the greatest egoist “unless it was Franklin D.” Writing to his wife on another occasion, Truman said FDR was “afraid that he won’t have all the power and glory that he won’t let his friends help as it should be done.”
So, what’s the point? What did Jesus’ friends think about him? In fact, what did His enemies say about Him? Everything good. Peter, who knew Jesus very well, could only say that He did no sin; nor was guile found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). John was the closest of all His disciples, but he wrote that in Jesus “is no sin” (1 John 3:5). The author of Hebrews says Jesus was “without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). His enemies accused Him of deceiving the people (Matthew 27:63) but they clearly had to twist His words to come up with that. Otherwise, they had no substantive accusations against the Son of Man.
Jesus was/is the Perfect Man – the God-Man. It is only through that qualification that makes Him the proper (and only) sacrifice for our sins. We need to appreciate that fact and honor it through lives of sacrificial obedience.
