[QUOTE=haymarket;1059138209]Again sir, you seem to confuse two very different things: when I ask you to explain what you believe about something or where you got this information, I am not disagreeing with such things that they did not happen in any way. I am merely asking you to say where you got this information so that your source can be examined by me to see how they are interpreting something that my indeed be open to a wide variety of interpretations and conclusions. Such is the food issue being discussed here.[/quote
the facts of the matter (what i referenced) are that we had widespread hunger (for the first time in American history that i am aware of - assuming you discount the colonial period), and that FDR during this period deliberately raised food prices by destroying food that people could have eaten. this is hardly a deep plunging analysis of the agricultural aspects of the New Deal (though i would be most happy sitting down and discussing the collectives with you, if you wish); it's just simple reality.
YOU are the one who brings theory into it, by attempting to apply the facts of what Roosevelt did to a theoretical framework that would make them (in technical language) "not-unimaginably-stupid". then Phatz points out to you the huge gaping flaws in that theory and you pretend to a pragmaticism belied by your own arguments.
my undergraduate is in history and i am abooout 4/5th's done with my Masters in poli sci. the two are not nearly so seperate as you indicate. heck, i would argue that much of the second is simply a defined branch of the first.You also seem unaware that there are significant differences in historians and political scientists about the import and impact of all kinds of things in both fields.
which is why it's funny you cite Schlesinger. i might as well cite you Jim PowellKnowledge of basic historical fact is pretty cut and dry. However it can be highly selective as well. Knowing what to select and then interpreting its importance to America and its people is a very different things and that is where people part company.
but it remains irrelevant Because Schlesinger agreed that FDR had little interest in or understanding of economics!
mind you, it didn't stop him (the ole progressive) from claiming that the New Deal was some kind of great shining achievement (on that i'll take exception with him); but on this point, on this point he betrays you, haymarket