“That One” & “That Man”
Professor John Q. Barrett teaches constitutional law and history at St. John’s University School of Law in New York City. He discovered and edited Justice Robert H. Jackson’s previously unknown, never published memoir That Man: An Insider’s Portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Oxford University Press).
Senator McCain’s finger-pointing, no-look reference to Senator Obama during the October 7th presidential debate as “That One” was more than odd. It was, as most detected, a manifestation of disrespect. What commentators have not noticed is that McCain’s phrase echoed and probably descended from one of the most notorious in the regrettable American history of presidential hate politics.
McCain’s “That One” is a very slight variation on “That Man,” the phrase that haters of President Franklin D. Roosevelt used, particularly during his first two terms (1933-1940), to express their loathing. Born in 1936, McCain no doubt heard some of this talk during his boyhood and he might have absorbed the lingo.
FDR biographer Geoffrey Ward has explained the origins and context of the phrase: President Roosevelt “made bitter enemies of the wealthy Protestants among whom he had lived most of his life. He had raised their taxes, regulated their business practices, threatened their dominance; he was, they said, a hypocrite, untrustworthy, demagogic, a ‘traitor to his class,’ and many of them, hating his name too much even to utter it, simply called him ‘That Man in the White House.’ ”
“That Man” attitudes carried, most regrettably, the whiff of violence. In early 1933, when Roosevelt was president-elect but not yet inaugurated, an assassin shot at him in Florida and barely missed. Six years later, a writer shared this description of mainstream, if private, imaginations of violence: “In the cabañas at Miami Beach the sun-tanned winter visitors said their business would be doing pretty well if it weren’t for THAT MAN. In the country-club locker room the golfers talked about the slow pace of the stock market as they took off their golf shoes; and when, out of a clear sky, one man said, ‘Well, let’s hope somebody shoots him,’ the burst of agreement made it clear that everybody knew who was meant.”
The Roosevelt-haters were in the tradition of other representatives of older, exclusionary orders who feared the future and the American people. As historians Henry Steele Commager and Richard Brandon Morris once explained, “[m]any of Roosevelt’s contemporaries reacted to ‘That Man’—and to the New Deal—the way the Federalists had reacted to [Thomas] Jefferson and the Whigs to [Andrew] Jackson. They saw dictatorship and revolution where the majority of Americans saw leadership and a democratic resurgence.”
Of course FDR was not weakened by this venom. He resisted it and, indeed, he famously used it to his advantage in a speech on the eve of the 1936 election. “We have not come this far without a struggle,” he told a Madison Square Garden crowd, “and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle. For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent. … We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.” [For text and audio of this FDR speech, October 31, 1936, click here.]
Just three days after that Roosevelt speech, the American people had their say. The strong majority—including, in 1936 as in 1932 and later in 1940 and 1944, enthusiastic FDR supporter Ronald W. Reagan—rejected “That Man” attitudes. “That One” and similar poisons deserve the same disposal.
comments powered by Disqus
John Tarver - 10/18/2008
I was born on FDR's 50th birthday, when he was still Governor of New York, so until I was 13 I knew no other President. (His army of clerks once sent me a letter, I suppose along with all other children born on his birthday.) His life was a sad reflection of America's lack of political sophistication, the indelible image of the starving masses waiting on a Savior to feed them. Strange how FDR's spin, his tale of redemption and revival, has survived. But, accept the fact that we never learn.
William J. Stepp - 10/17/2008
Exactly. It's bizarre that the author impugns those who he thinks allegedly would have used violence (or would have endorsed such action) against Roosevelt II, but ignores the very real violence the U.S. government used then against its own citizens, as well as those of other nations.
The New Deal was a colossal failure; it worsened and delayed recovery from the Great Depression. Worse, its malign legacy still exists and has been a major driver in the continuing growth of the American state, one of the world's worst criminal organizations.
Btw, Truman, Roosevelt II's veep, called Republicans "Nazis" in 1948.
I suppose there's no implied violence there from the lips of the little Jap killer and failed haberdasher.
But in the land of the Politically Correct, it's okay if Dems do this. What's not okay is if Republicans answer back in kind.
(For the record, I'm a libertarian and am an equal opportunity opponent of both Dems and GOoPsters.)
Chris Peck - 10/16/2008
FDR worship on the left is scary. Let's not forget that this is the man who created a born-again American dictatorship which killed over 400,000 of our nations young men and women. Not to mention the imprisonment of over 120,000 patriotic American citizens.
- Historian Fernando Prado on quest to find remains of Cervantes
- Historian shines a light on the dark heart of Australia's nationhood
- Female historian says human rights museum censored her
- Japanese historians slam sex-slave apology review
- Stephanie Coontz: "Marriages require much more maturity than they once did."