FDR by Jean Edward Smith

Carl Leubsdorf
The Dallas Morning News (MCT)

Masterful profile of FDR reminds us of his powerful legacy.


Publisher: Random House
ISBN: 1400061210
Author: Jean Edward Smith
Price: $35.00
Length: 880
Formats: Hardcover
US publication date: 2007-05

Why another biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the subject of more than any modern president?

Jean Edward Smith, a Marshall University professor best known for an acclaimed biography of Ulysses S. Grant, explains his decision to write one this way:

Sixty years after FDR's death, he says in the preface, "The Great Depression, the New Deal and World War II are fading memories. The extent to which the United States was threatened is scarcely remembered. The national sacrifice is forgotten. All the more reason to recall that cheerful man who could not walk, who could not stand unassisted, yet who remained supremely confident as he calmly guided the nation into a prosperous, peaceful future."

And Smith, taking full advantage of the many FDR sources from earlier biographies to the papers of the era's principals, has written a marvelous book, though it surely helps to have so engaging a subject.

Little is factually new, but he provides superb perspective and captures the upbeat persona of the man whose leadership saved the nation from economic collapse, defeated Nazi tyranny and created the prosperous powerhouse that is the modern United States.

While many specifics are familiar, it is easy in this day of big presidential staffs and delegated authority to forget the extent to which presidents such as FDR shaped the substance and strategy of their presidencies. He was not only, in George W. Bush's term, the Decider but the Deviser of measures from the dramatic 100 Days of 1933 to the Lend-Lease agreement that kept Britain afloat in World War II.

But Smith goes beyond policy successes to present the man, making clear his ambition for the presidency far preceded his 1921 polio attack and demonstrating his lifelong skill in working with and playing off both allies and rivals.

He outlines the gulf that developed between Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor, even before his romance with Lucy Mercer. He makes a strong case that, while a major figure during his White House years, Mrs. Roosevelt was never part of the governing process and, politically, as much handicap as asset.

She rarely dined with her husband, even when both were home. Her main ties were to liberals who were his most faithful supporters, and her enemies were conservatives, including Southerners whose support became ever more crucial as the GOP reclaimed some of its earlier power in the North.

Despite his generally positive tone, Smith does not overlook the president's shortcomings, many of which he attributes to his tendency to follow instincts that, while usually good, sometimes led him astray.

He derides FDR's ill-fated effort to reshape the Supreme Court as politically ill-conceived, tactically mishandled and based on the false premise that the court was dominated by anti-New Deal reactionaries. In fact, he writes, it overthrew key New Deal measures because of poor drafting and questionable legal precedents.

Smith doesn't temper his criticism. With the court plan, he writes, FDR "shot himself in the foot." When he foolishly tried to cut the budget amid an economic slowdown, "he shot the country in the foot." And his frustration prompted a third error, a failed effort to purge recalcitrant Southern Democrats. It's all remarkably similar to the second terms in which other presidents overreached after winning re-election.

But he more than rose to the occasion when events conspired to give him what none of the others were able to have: a third term and, though brief, a fourth.

Despite "one of the shabbiest displays of presidential prerogative in history," approving the forced evacuation of West Coast Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, he provided wartime leadership Mr. Smith likens to Lincoln's in leading the Free World to victory despite declining health and diminishing domestic political support.

The only real problem with this book is that it's 636 pages long, plus 154 pages of footnotes and 35 of bibliography. That's a lot for even the most dedicated devotees of U.S. history, but those who take the plunge won't be disappointed.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.