Fox News' Wallace falsely claimed "unemployment in 1937, 1938 was higher than it was in 1933"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: During a Fox News discussion about stimulus spending and the role New Deal programs and World War II played in ending the Great Depression, Chris Wallace falsely claimed that "unemployment in 1937, 1938 was higher than it was in 1933." In fact, even without including "emergency" public employment under the New Deal, the unemployment rate in 1937 and 1938 did not surpass the 1933 unemployment rate.
During Fox News' coverage of President Obama's January 20 inauguration, in response to remarks by senior political analyst Brit Hume about stimulus spending and the role New Deal programs and World War II played in ending the Great Depression, anchor Chris Wallace falsely claimed that "unemployment in 1937, 1938 was higher than it was in 1933." Hume responded: "That's right, because whatever [former President Franklin D.] Roosevelt did by virtue of enlarging the American spirit, of giving people hope, his programs -- while unemployment was reduced for a time, it went back up." In fact, even without including "emergency" public employment under the New Deal, the unemployment rate in 1937 and 1938 did not surpass the 1933 unemployment rate. Moreover, according to several prominent economists, the unemployment rate -- which fell every year from 1933 until 1938 -- rose in 1938 not because New Deal stimulus spending failed but rather because Roosevelt did not go far enough in pursuing these policies.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data -- which did not count those in work-relief programs as employed -- the U.S. unemployment rate was 14.3 percent in 1937 and 19 percent in 1938, compared to 24.9 percent in 1933. As Media Matters for America has documented, after World War II, BLS began counting those in work-relief programs as employed.
Several noted economists have defended New Deal policies by noting that the 1937 recession coincided with Roosevelt's implementation of more fiscally conservative policies, including efforts to balance the budget. As Media Matters has documented, these economists include Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker, and University of California-Berkeley economics professor Brad DeLong.
Wallace's false claim that unemployment was higher in 1937 and 1938 than it was in 1933 recalls other media conservatives who have cherry-picked unemployment figures during the 1937-38 recession to assert that the New Deal did not reduce unemployment, as Media Matters has noted.
From Fox News' coverage of the January 20 presidential inauguration:
WALLACE: All right. Let's talk, because -- let's pick up on what [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-SC] and [Fox News chief political correspondent] Carl Cameron were talking about. This economic stimulus package -- $825 billion now, but I think most people think it's going to grow.
Brit, do you think there's going to be a fight, or given the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, that he basically is going to get what he wants?
HUME: He may get what he wants, but there will be a fight. And he will have a fight with Republicans over the composition of it, or at least the Democrats will have a fight because they -- clearly, a great deal of what the Democrats are talking about in this bill that they have advanced, which Obama has not yet really endorsed, is stuff that is not stimulus.
It may be valuable in some ways, but it looks -- a lot of it looks like just ordinary spending of the kind that members of Congress like. And whether it will be effective in generating the kind of instant economic activity or nearly immediate economic activity is very much open to question.
And there's also this: If you look at this whole issue of fiscal -- of stimulus -- stimulus generated by spending -- it's fair to ask the question of whether it has ever worked -- ever. You know, I remember when I was covering the Congress and there would be a downturn, and they passed what they intend to be a -- the book on it always was that by the time the projects got up and running, the recession would be long over, and that's what happened time and time again.
Liberals and Democrats often point to World War II, which certainly entailed a huge burst of deficit government spending, as having lifted us out of the Great Depression, which it certainly did. But that also involved the con -- excuse me -- conscription into the armed forces of some 12 million people. That got them off the unemployment rolls -- that fights unemployment pretty effectively -- and so on. And it was also a national mobilization.
WALLACE: The fact is that the economy and unemployment in 1937, 1938 was higher than it was in 1933.
HUME: That's right, because whatever Roosevelt did by virtue of enlarging the American spirit, of giving people hope, his programs -- while unemployment was reduced for a time, it went back up. And his programs are now seen, I think, widely as having failed to lift the country out of the Depression. The war did it.
That has become a kind of model in the minds of many that -- who would argue with you that fiscal stimulus can work, witness World War II. But other examples do not abound, and World War II is not a particularly good analogy for where we are today.
do history and facts have a liberal bias?
Fox's war against facts and liberal social programs never stops amazing me.
Part of their confusion is that in 1937, Roosevelt held what the federal government called an "Unemployment Census" where if you didn't have a job, you went to the Post Office and filled out a yellow card and sent it in telling Uncle Sam the same.
This Census also included the "partially unemployed," and here's where the figures get confusing. It was an unofficial survey-- highly popular-- but for years it has been a source of confusion and obfuscation.
But what's worse - that they keep lying, or that they know their audience will never fact check them?
Or that those who should know better (others in the media) will repeat the theme ad infinita?
Per the question and reply session on Sunday's thread, if there is interest, email me at oldervoter@charter.net and I'll provide links.
Yep, it's a pre emptive strike against the Obama recovery. Actually the numbers show that FDRs plan worked because unemployment only went up when he cut back on the programs.
SHAGGLES, You are so right. The WINGNUTS and FAUX NOISE have been pushing this line of thought ever since they lost the 08 election.
So what happens when facts conflict with an agenda?
I would have let such a thing pass if he said "If I recall..." as there he's at least giving himself room to be wrong. Instead it's the assertive claim stating it as an undeniable fact.
And, I know this is totally off-topic, but for this one story I was writing, I was thinking of having a US Senator based off a right-wing talk show host. But I don't know which one I should use. Fictional character, but based off the rhetoric and rantings and philosophies and personalities of a real right-wing host. I was thinking either Mark Levin or Michael Savage, as either one can allow for some great lines and memorable moments, but I am open to other suggestions.
"So what happens when facts conflict with an agenda?"
Obviously, you "fix the facts and intelligence around the policy" or agenda.
You're right, Shag, they're not going to let it die, so this meme has to be scrubbed with bleach every time it rears its moldy head.
It seems to me, Wuss, that Rush is about an inch and an ounce from being a right wing Huey Long right now. A little massaging (unfortunate and ugly image: apologies), and you've got your Claghorne.
Just remember this line from the brilliant (and prescient) film "Broadcast News"..."What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit."
Wallace is just another hack for Faux News. He is counting on the ignorance of his viewers, in which he is probably right. Few of the rabid fans of Fox have a working knowledge of history, anyway. He can say anything he pleases and it will be believed by the hoards of nightly participants. Why do you think this excuse of a news channel is still on? Remember: 20% of its fans still think Georgie did a great job. (I am sure there are more, but are too ashamed to admit it.)
Why do you think this excuse of a news channel is still on?
They have a loyal audience and a marketplace for its format. Why is that so hard to understand that somepeople watch FOX not for political reasons but the good looking women who anchor during the day?
Guess I'll have to start watching during the day. I likes lookin' at good-lookin' womens, even if they are nut-cases.
Believe me, we totally understand that. That's the problem, Casey. Those fox anchors could be screaming about a major market meltdown and the only response they'd get is "blah, blah, blah blah blah" Ug. must look lower. "blah blah, blah...". Or more precisely, it's like listenening to Charlie Brown's teacher and getting a visual at the same time. It doesn't speak well about the nation as a whole when we have percentage of the electorate who can't move beyond that mindset.
Wallace is just another hack for Faux News. He is counting on the ignorance of his viewers, i
I think you have given him too much credit. He probaby doesn't know he is wrong. He is simply keeping his boss happy, he agrees with his co-workers and has remembered the material in his show-prep folder.
I've learned about the Great Depression and the FDR administration from my grand parents, my mother and father and all of my aunts and uncles. My grand parents lost everything during the collapse and their children went on to either fight in Europe or the south Pacific or work in the munitions plants.
No one from my very large extended family ever had a bad thing to say about FDR. Everyone of them went to their graves saying that FDR not only saved their families, but saved this country.
I'll take their word over the word of the confirmed, pathological liars at Fox.
Future generations will judge the Bush administration the same way. Not by what some Fox News fool says but by those effected by the policies of the Bush administration.
Future generations will not learn from the twenty-percenters but from the majority.
WK, the media has their opinion on "Bush through the historical prism" pretty well established, from what I've seen. It's two parts;
1. An accurate picture of the president can never be seen until years or decades after his term.
2. Historians will see Bush as a great president.
Another self-contradictory delusion custom made for the wingnut faithful.
http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/history.jpg
Perfect, Wookie. Thanx.
The Roosevelt Depression started in 1933.
The Carter Recession lasted until 1983, then flared up again from 1991-92.
The Bush Economic Boom lasted from 1993 to 2001, and was followed by the Clinton Recession.
Bill Clinton was responsible for protecting us from terrorist attack from January 20, 1993 to September 12, 2001.
The Democrats created the current economic crisis by deregulating the mortgage industry. What does America need to recover? Less regulation.
Got all that?
The wingnuts aren't going to be satisfied simply bleating on a daily basis that the New Deal "didn't work." They are now moving on to the argument that it made matters worse. Before they are done, they'll be carving into stone that the New Deal Programs gave us 50% unemployment, created the Japanese Car Industry, opened our borders to illegal immigrants and were the No. 1 cause of the Holocaust.
Conservatism is defeated.
Their lies didn't use to be so transparent. Back in the day you used to have to marshall significant data to expose some logical error. Now they just state that up is down.
i will agree that we cannot just spend without consequence. we do have things that were not available in the 30s, unemployment payments and food stamps for example. but what wallace is very clearly doing here is saying we were worse off because of roosevelt. you can debate his policies, but what is not debatable is the catastrophic situation that he was given by hoover. the question should not be how far did roosevelt pull us out of the hole we were in, but how hoover's policies got us there to begin with.
For those that think the economic mess can be laid entirely upon Bush, what do you say to the fact that regulations on banks prohibiting commercial banking and investment banking in the same firm were repealed under Clinton. In addition, deregulation of complex financial instruments known as derivatives were strongly pushed by Robert Rubin, Greenspan, and Larry Summers during Clinton's presidency. Any of those names ring a bell?
Could it be that maybe these frankly, idiotic deregulations played a role in the current economic fiasco? The answer is yes.
One of the most important achievements during FDR's term was this legistlation that was repealed under Clinton. How come no one ever discusses the deregulation that Clinton allowed to happen? It's all somehow Bush's deregulations that caused the problem.
I'm not defending Bush, just please look around.
From what I've seen by posters at this site, and in my personal life, Clinton is held accountable for his part in continuing the conservative deregulation mess. It's more the conservatives who try to absolve Bush, daddy Bush & Reagan from any part in it.
I think we need to hammer at this the way Fox is. As someone in another thread said about this very same task that Fox News is now trying to do, they are not going to stop hammering this issue until excessive repetition makes people believe it's true.
They will not stop, and I think Media Matter should do a special piece on it.
Fox News is sooooo irrelevant. They are brain dean and they are in a state of denial.....Rush Limbaugh would rather see the country fail rather than have our President be successful....Wow! How Unpatriotic is that?
I heard Rep John Boehner this morning on NPR spouting off about how "Democrats think government is the solution to everything" while Republicans think it should stay out of just about everything in order to keep the economy healthy.
Not only are Righties incapable of interpreting any amount of historical data, but they can't even open their eyes and see what's going on around them. Clearly, Boehner in the legislature and Wallace in the media are examples of shills kept in position due to cronyism and patronage: If I got my facts and conclusions so consistently wrong I would lose my job pronto.
"Democrats think government is the solution to everything"
That one's in the wingnut strawman top 10, Sir Loin. For those on the right, the only people in the world in a profession that they have absolutely no interest nor faith in, the idea of a functioning government is too bizarre to understand in any other terms.
The WINGNUTS would like to take us back to the days of COOLIGE and HOOVER. They cant see that those polocies led to the disaster that was the great DEPRESSION.