[82 Card]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

FDR went full steam with a program that faced fierce opposition. The opposition party persists in vilifying everything he did to this day.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-09-09/o...t-disaster

Opposition was decidedly not fierce.  FDR beat Hoover 472-59 in the electoral college with a 22.8 mms. to 15.7 mms. popular vote.  He may have faced opposition, but the House and Senate were Democrat majority from March 1933 until the end of his Presidency, 73rd through 78th Congresses.  Some opposition.  FDR basically had free rein and used it like a club.

Sure, the Democratic party did well in elections, mostly because Hoover got blamed for the mess. However, unifying the Democratic party behind FDR's program was no small feat. The party was conservative. FDR did not run the first time on anything resembling the program he later adopted. Lining up his own party to do what needed to be done was not assured. The country was not all that unified until a shooting match broke out.

[82 Card]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

FDR went full steam with a program that faced fierce opposition. The opposition party persists in vilifying everything he did to this day.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-09-09/o...t-disaster

Opposition was decidedly not fierce.  FDR beat Hoover 472-59 in the electoral college with a 22.8 mms. to 15.7 mms. popular vote.  He may have faced opposition, but the House and Senate were Democrat majority from March 1933 until the end of his Presidency, 73rd through 78th Congresses.  Some opposition.  FDR basically had free rein and used it like a club.

Sure, the Democratic party did well in elections, mostly because Hoover got blamed for the mess. However, unifying the Democratic party behind FDR's program was no small feat. The party was conservative. FDR did not run the first time on anything resembling the program he later adopted. Lining up his own party to do what needed to be done was not assured. The country was not all that unified until a shooting match broke out.