FDR and his little dog, Fala

Yesterday I wrote about Franklin Roosevelt and new research on Prohibition’s role in the 1932 election.

If you want to see with your own eyes an example of what an incredibly talented politician FDR was, I highly recommend spending three minutes watching this clip of his famous 1944 Teamsters Dinner speech. 

Before you watch it, however, here’s the background to the “Fala controversy.” In September 1944—two months before the presidential election—GOP Congressman Harold Knutson of Minnesota claimed that FDR had sent a U.S. Navy destroyer to pick up the president’s dog, Fala, in Alaska. According to Knutson, Roosevelt mistakenly left the dog behind during a wartime trip to the Aleutian Islands, resulting in a rescue mission that cost taxpayers $20 million.

There was no truth to Knutson’s claims, and the Fala controversy seems ridiculous now. But it unfolded at a deadly serious time. In September 1944 the U.S. military was engaged in heavy combat against the Germans in Europe and against the Japanese in the Pacific. World War II would ultimately cost over 416,000 U.S. troops their lives (a death toll exceeded only by the Civil War) and kill tens of millions of people around the world.  

At such a grave time, the allegation that the president had redirected a warship for personal reasons was politically explosive, especially in an election year. Knutson and congressional Republicans thus saw the Fala story as a way to persuade voters that Roosevelt, who was seeking an unprecedented fourth term as president, had grown out of touch with the people.

Remarkably, the Fala controversy generated national news coverage for much of September 1944. It became such a big story that Admiral William Leahy (the top U.S. military commander during WWII) had to issue a public statement assuring Americans that the Navy had not sent a destroyer to pick up Fala. As the admiral explained, “the story about Fala, the president’s dog, is made out of whole cloth. The dog was never lost.” Fake news was thus a problem in 1944 too.

But Roosevelt knew he had to directly address the issue himself. He chose the Teamsters dinner in part because it was broadcast nationally on the radio. Here’s the text of his Fala remarks, which demonstrates as much as any other speech how politically skilled Roosevelt was: 

“These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala. Well, of course, I don’t resent attacks, and my family [members] don’t resent attacks, but Fala does resent them. You know, Fala is Scotch, and being a Scottie, as soon as he learned that the Republican fiction writers in Congress and out had concocted a story that I had left him behind on an Aleutian island and had sent a destroyer back to find him—at a cost to the taxpayers of two or three, or eight or twenty million dollars—his Scotch soul was furious. He has not been the same dog since. I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself—such as that old, worm-eaten chestnut that I have represented myself as indispensable. But I think I have a right to resent, to object to libelous statements about my dog.”

To get the full effect, I enthusiastically recommend watching the film footage. You can find it here or here (the second clip includes the great last line, which the first clip edits out). FDR’s deadpan delivery is absolutely priceless, as is the audience’s reaction. Roosevelt went on to win the 1944 election, carrying 36 of 48 states and defeating Tom Dewey by more than 3 million votes (a margin of about 53% to 46%).

There are two other interesting points about the controversy worth noting. First, when FDR gave the Fala speech, he was dying. In July 1944 his physicians had secretly concluded that Roosevelt’s advanced heart disease would kill him before he served out another term. His blood pressure readings in 1944 averaged 206/118 and often reached as high as 240/130. By 1945 his blood pressure was 300/190. At the time medical science lacked effective treatments for hypertension (modern blood pressure medications would not become available until the 1950s) and FDR had no opportunity to exercise as he was confined to a wheelchair by polio. The tragic result was he died of a cerebral hemorrhage on April 12, 1945. He was only 63.

The fact that he could still put on such a strong performance as the Fala speech reflects what a natural he was on the public stage, even in the closing months of his life. 

Second, Roosevelt may have gotten the idea for the Fala speech from the legendary director (and actor) Orson Welles. Supposedly Welles told FDR a joke about the Fala controversy and Roosevelt decided to work it into his speech. Whatever the actual origin of the Fala speech, it was an inspired idea. 

For more on Roosevelt—as well as his wife Eleanor and his (distant) cousin Theodore—I cannot recommend highly enough Ken Burns’s superb PBS documentary, “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.” It is the best documentary ever done on the Roosevelt family. 

Also, if you are looking for a book on FDR’s personality, family history, and his battle against polio, you cannot do better than Geoffrey Ward’s superb two volume biography, Before the Trumpet: Young Franklin Roosevelt, 1882-1905 and A First Class Temperament: The Emergence of Franklin Roosevelt, 1905-1928. In my opinion, no one has ever surpassed Ward’s outstanding account of FDR’s early life.

Incidentally, Fala is buried on the grounds of the FDR Library, not far from Franklin and Eleanor's graves.

Comments

[anon]

Democrats are so cool. They are suave, sophisticated, brilliant, funny, clever, endearing and morally superior in every way. Why, they get Nobel Prizes based on brief, unremarkable Senate terms! Democrats' every foible is just a Republican hoax: the product of lies told by those evil, reckless, ignorant, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, criminal angry white men, who are incapable of human emotions, or even a modicum of human decency.

The story above is further proof. Those evil Republican leaders were not content with attacks on the President, or his wife, or his sons.

Can you imagine? Attacks on the wife, and the sons???

Those evil Republicans made up stories out of whole cloth to embarrass the President.

The PRESIDENT!!! And his WIFE. And HIS SONS.

My, my. How low could they go?

[anon]

A few additional points, to the expected response that FDR was elected to four terms as president.

1. The Great Depression
2. WWII

As for the "telling" significance of the four terms:

1. The 22nd Amendment, passed almost immediately after FDR's fourth term ended (ratified by the states somewhat later, but not much).

As for reelection being proof of superiority as president:

1. RMN
2. GWB

As for competence, and what a brilliant, superior president he was (yes, I am aware of the "consensus" among liberal historians about this):

1. Concentration camps here in the US
2. Failure to properly address death camps in Europe
3. Many would say no effective response to the Great Depression until WWII essentially restarted the economy,
4. Many other serious and cogent critiques.

FDR had good qualities, and many, many bad ones. The fact that Ken Burns or someone like that lionizes him doesn't prove anything.

A serious scholar looks a both "sides" (good and bad) and doesn't "take sides" (by spinning and neglecting to mention negatives for one on your "team" and demonizing those who aren't).

[[M][@][c][K]]

anon - you might prove less of an ignoramus if you you know the difference between FDR's sons and that of the man you worship.

That's be James Roosevelt - Captain later Major Marine Corps, Marine Raider, participated in the Makin Island Raid, Navy Cross and Silver Star (and it appears he did earn them), Franklin Jr. Lt.Cdr. US Navy, Silver Star (earned) commanded a destroyer escort in combat in the Pacific, etc., John, Lt. Cdr. Bronze Star, sea combat on USS Wasp ...

and then there are the Trumpkins who, who, who ummm, hmmm, ah, uh-no, well, hmmmmm

[anon]

Very telling rebuke, Brackets.

As usual, right on point, and ever so polite.

Yes, yes, I know: you don't think you need to refrain from calling others "ignoramus."

You must be a very effective litigator!

And, as for your point? Oh never mind. Doesn't matter.

But, you might want to cite the "fake news" about James. I certainly wasn't referring to any.

Now that you mention it, however, took a look at "Wiki" : not the best source, but then, neither are you.

"As president of Roosevelt & Sargent, he made a substantial fortune (about $500,000, or more than $9 million in 2018 dollars). He resigned from the firm in 1937, when he officially went to work in the White House, but retained his half ownership ... Roosevelt was a close protege of Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.. In fall 1933, the two journeyed to England to obtain the market in post-prohibition liquor imports.[1] Many of Roosevelt's controversial business ventures were aided by Kennedy, including his maritime insurance interests, and the National Grain Yeast Corp. affair (1933–35). Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. threatened to resign unless FDR forced James to leave the latter company, suspected of being a front for bootlegging.[4] James Roosevelt was instrumental in securing Kennedy's appointment as ambassador to the United Kingdom.[5] ... In July 1938, there were allegations that James Roosevelt had used his political position to steer lucrative business to his insurance firm. He had to publish his income tax returns and denied these allegations in an NBC broadcast and an interview in Collier's magazine. This became known as the Jimmy's Got It affair after Alva Johnston's reportage in the Saturday Evening Post. Roosevelt resigned from his White House position in November 1938. During his Hollywood period, Roosevelt became involved with Joseph Schenck, a movie mogul who was later caught participating in a payoff scheme that was intended to buy peace with movie industry labor unions.[7][8] In 1942, Schenck pleaded guilty to one count of perjury and spent four months in prison before being paroled.[9] In October 1945, Harry S. Truman granted Schenck a presidential pardon, a fact which did not become known to the public until 1947."

Yep. See what you mean, Brackets.

[anon]

BTW. There is much, much more.

[[M][a][c][K]]

And....

There is so much of the activity of the Trump sons, Donald, Ivanka and the son in law that mak3 thes3 at best peccadillos - but with noth8ng redeeming, no acts of decency, public service, kindness - just....

But whine on...

[brianfrye]

Interesting. Kind of reminiscent of Nixon's angle in the Checkers speech. I suspect that was not an accident?

[Anon]

FDR was a political genius of the highest order. Trump is a two bit con man. Please try not to conflate the two

[anon]

"Roosevelt joined IOS despite the overseas firm's concurrent investigation by the SEC for numerous irregularities. In Geneva in May 1969, during the unraveling of IOS, Roosevelt's third wife, Irene Owens, stabbed him "eight times" with his "own Marine combat knife"[17] while he was preparing divorce proceedings.[18] When fugitive financier Robert Vesco obtained control of IOS from Bernie Cornfeld and absconded with approximately $200 million, Roosevelt initially stayed on under Vesco. Roosevelt later wrote that "As soon as I saw the situation for what it was, in 1971, I resigned my position."[19] However, this episode resulted in federal charges being laid against Roosevelt and several others, and in a Swiss arrest warrant. Roosevelt returned to California, settling in Newport Beach, and charges were dropped. He became associated with the Nixon Administration in several capacities and remained friendly with Richard Nixon until his death.[20] Despite having been a liberal Democrat all of his life, Roosevelt joined Democrats for Nixon and publicly supported President Nixon's 1972 re-election,[21] and also supported Ronald Reagan in 1980[22] and 1984.[23"

You don't even know whose side you're on, Brackets. This is the guy you praised and apparently thought was a saint, and whose "peccadillos" you have blithely excused/ignored. (Or, more likely, you had no idea about the person you were speaking about while you were hurling the "ignoramus" charge at me: you clearly didn't know and didn't understand what FDR was talking about.)

Talk about leading with one's chin. This really is hysterically funny.

Hey, Brackets, now that you know who your war hero actually wound up supporting, care to start spewing your venom at him instead?

C'mon now. LEt's have some of that really good spew from you.

[anon]

Uh oh.

Here's Johnny.

"In 1947, John Roosevelt changed his political affiliation to Republican, a gesture his mother interpreted as an attempt to win support from his wife's family, his father-in-law being a staunchly Republican Boston banker.[11] But in 1952, he went beyond paper registration, actively supporting Dwight D. Eisenhower's bid for the Presidency against Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson, for whom his mother was just as actively campaigning. His defection from the Democratic Party and his subsequent leadership of Citizens for Eisenhower - he vocally defended Eisenhower's running mate, California Senator Richard Nixon, against attacks by his mother - caused considerable family friction."

[Anthony Gaughan]

That is exactly right, Brian. According to Evan Thomas's biography of Richard Nixon, one of the first things that came to Nixon's mind when he was working on his Checkers speech was FDR's Fala speech.

It's interesting to note, however, that Nixon chose a maudlin tone for his Checkers speech, rather than adopting the humorous approach FDR took in the Fala speech. Consequently, as Thomas points out, "After the Checkers Speech, self-righteous self-pity became indelibly associated with the Nixon speaking style."

But it's also true that the Checkers speech worked just as effectively for Nixon as the Fala speech did for FDR. After all, the Checkers speech kept Nixon on the GOP ticket in 1952. So canine-related campaign speeches have a pretty successful track record, at least as far as embattled presidential candidates are concerned!

Thanks for your comment!

[anon]

For all the Democratic lemmings who slavishly follow the next party line and "pretty face" (see, "Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar [who] ripped former President Barack Obama in an interview published Friday, belittling his “pretty face” and saying his agenda of hope and change was an illusion"), here's something to consider about the hero worshipped above.

If you have no idea what to stand for (other than pure hatred of white men), you'll love this:

"Ocasio-Cortez, 29, berated the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt's massive public works program worshiped by Democrats, as 'an exercise in racism,' arguing it made life and home loans easier for whites but left African Americans and Latinos behind."

In all leftist societies, history needs to be constantly rewritten. The Friend yesterday is the Enemy today. See, Orwell, and his brilliant description of IngSoc (English socialism). They never knew who to target with the periods of hate each day in which they engaged.

How much more of this garbage will you swallow? Will just one of you break ranks and post something insightful and critical of a Democrat, instead of the usual blather and pablum about how great every Democrat is, and how awful is anyone else who won't tow the party line?

For example, sir, do you agree with new Democratic demagogue AOC about FDR? Or, will you renounce such blatant ignorance expressed about the object of your hero worship? Can you worship the new boss if she throws the old icon under the bus?

[anymouse]

"...how politically skilled Roosevelt was."

Fred Korematsu was unavailable for comment.