Kabeláč, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich under Hrůša at Severance

During the early 1940s, George Szell was one of many musicians displaced by the war in Europe and living in the United States.  Arturo Toscanini, by then a living legend and head of the NBC Symphony, invited Szell to guest conduct his orchestra in 1941.  Szell led two concerts, one of which can be heard here.  The rehearsals for those concerts were fraught, as Toscanini did not approve of Szell’s rehearsal technique and let Szell know in explosive terms.  But the quality of the NBC performance under Szell speaks for itself.  Contrast that with Szell’s own behavior two decades later.  By then, Toscanini was dead, Szell was music director of the Cleveland Orchestra and had raised their standards to the point that Cleveland was considered to have the best orchestra in the United States – perhaps even the world.  Leopold Stokowski, as much a living legend as Toscanini had been and a polar opposite to Szell musically, visited for a series of guest concerts.  Szell was present at the first rehearsal as the mercurial conductor began altering balances and encouraged the strings to bow freely.  The orchestra manager, sitting next to Szell, feared Szell may explode much as Toscanini had done in 1941.  Instead, as Stokowski began conducting a Cleveland Orchestra that suddenly sounded like the pre-1936 Philadelphia Orchestra, Szell looked toward the manager and smiled.  In Szell’s smile was the implication that “his” orchestra could turn on a dime and serve the musical needs of any conductor. 

Last night’s concert, under guest conductor Jakub Hrůša and dedicated to 20^th Century music, proved the Cleveland Orchestra can still turn on a dime when needed.  Whether the results were to the advantage of the music depended on the composition and listener’s taste. 

The first work, by Czech composer Miloslav Kabeláč, was entirely new to me and new to the orchestra.  Mystery of Time is essentially a mood piece, beginning quietly and slowly and building in volume and speed until a raucous conclusion.  Parts of the work reminded me of Howard Shore’s score to Silence of the Lambs which was, of course, composed decades later – so Shore may have been influenced by this piece.

The Hamburg Steinway was then brought on stage for Stravinsky’s Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra, featuring soloist Emanuel Ax – a genial and welcome presence here.  I’ve only heard this work once before, in a less than convincing recording under Robert Craft’s direction with soloist Philippe Entremont.   Hrůša and Ax brought a more unified conception to the work – which can sound disjointed in the wrong hands – which sacrificed nothing in terms of spontaneity and wit.  The performance was warmly received and Ax gifted the audience with an encore: Chopin’s Waltz in A minor, poetically played.

The second half of the program was dedicated to Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony – a work which the orchestra has played since it was “hot off the press.”  The story of this work’s composition is so well known it hardly needs repeating, but here it is:  Shostakovich’s previous works, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District and The Limpid Stream, were met with official disapproval, which in 1930s Russia carried significant threat.  He set aside his Fourth Symphony, then in rehearsals, and began composing on the Fifth, which was touted in the state-controlled press as “a Soviet artist’s creative response to justified criticism".  The work’s premiere was triumphant and restored Shostakovich’s reputation among Soviet power-brokers.  It is a work of the most profound suffering, with every appearance of major key relief a trap-door into more heartbreak, until the finale where there appears to be a sense of victory – at least on the surface.  It wasn’t until decades later that it was revealed that the symphony’s “triumphant” coda was intentionally hollow – a depiction of a man being told he’s never had it so good while being savagely beaten.  The work’s conclusion is thus, in many ways, similar to the protagonist’s “love” for Big Brother at the end of George Orwell’s 1984 – after being brainwashed into believing that love is hate, and vice versa.

Hrůša’s interpretation was one that emphasized the work’s extremes.  I’ve never heard the Cleveland Orchestra play so quietly or loudly: softly enough that they were barely audible even on the main floor; loudly enough that some players were pushed beyond their normal tonal capacity.  While this served to bring out certain elements of the piece, in particular the jingoism of the second movement, there were a number of wrong notes from woodwinds and brass, as well as faulty balances.  On the other hand, there were elements of the scoring that I’d never heard before, in particular during the climax of the work’s searing Largo.  Further, Hrůša emphasized the dissonance in some of the part-writing that other conductors, in particular Stokowski and Bernstein, glossed over.  This was not a heartfelt Shostakovich Fifth, of the sort led by Stanisław Skrowaczewski in 2015, but a raw performance which uncovered the brutality of Stalin’s Russia.  It was one of many legitimate approaches to this complicated work, which held the audience’s attention and roused them at the end.

Sony's Complete Toscanini

Over fifty years after his death, it must be difficult for audiences to grasp the importance of Arturo Toscanini's contribution to music. George Szell summed it up best, in reaction to hearing Toscanini in 1930: "This was orchestral performance of a kind new to all of us. The clarity of texture; the precision of ensemble; the rightness of balances; the virtuosity of every section, every solo player in the orchestra - then at its peak - in the service of an interpretative concept of evident, self-effacing integrity, enforced with irresistible willpower and unflagging ardor, set new, undreamed-of standards literally overnight." Today, we take for granted what Szell marveled over, and that's mainly thanks to Toscanini and his successors - including Szell. Thus, it's no exaggeration to say that Toscanini initiated the modern era of conducting.

Click here to read the rest of my review

How falsity becomes “fact”

I stumbled upon this short bio of Vladimir Horowitz at Arkivmusic. Probably written by a Steinway press agent (Arkiv is a subsidiary of Steinway), it’s chock full of inaccuracies. Sad thing is, many will consider this blurb an “authoritative source” even though the frequently dissed Wikipedia has a superior article on Horowitz. The full text is below with my remarks in red.

A pianist of legendary fame and stature, Vladimir Horowitz was born in Kiev, Ukraine. (According to some sources, Horowitz was born in Kiev, according to others, it was Berdichev. There are conflicting documents on this matter, and Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire at the time of his birth.) His mother, herself a professional pianist, provided his first instruction at the piano and was the first to recognize his extraordinary talents; he studied further at the Kiev Conservatory. His first public appearance was a recital in Kiev on May 30, 1920, (this was his graduation recital at Kiev Conservatory, which may or may not be considered a "public appearance") and in 1922 he gave a series of 15 concerts in Kharkov for which he was paid in food and clothing. Although Russia was still reeling from the revolution of 1917, Horowitz fashioned successful concert tours in major cities such as Moscow, Leningrad, and Kiev -- marking the beginning of a performing career of unflagging and spectacular success. (There is no mention here of Horowitz's most significant success from that era: 23 recitals in Leningrad {then called Petrograd} playing 11 different programs.)

His first international appearance came with his 1926 trip to Berlin (his Berlin debut took place on December 18, 1925, Horowitz playing the Tchaikovsky First Piano Concerto with the Berlin Symphony under Oskar Fried) soon after which followed concerts in Paris, London, and New York. Further appearances in the United States solidified his reputation as an exceptional virtuoso, and the country which was to become his adopted home embraced him warmly. He was invited to the White House to play for President Hoover in 1931, and in 1933 he married Wanda Toscanini -- the daughter of the famous conductor Arturo Toscanini, who would soon conduct Horowitz and the New York Philharmonic Orchestra in performances of the Beethoven piano concertos. (Here, the writer has his chronology reversed: Horowitz played under Toscanini on April 23, 1933 – and it was only in the Beethoven Emperor Concerto. He married Wanda on December 21, 1933.) Horowitz permanently settled in the United States in 1940 and achieved citizenship in 1944.

Wanda Toscanini assumed a gentle stewardship (Gentle, are you kidding?) of her new husband, who was in fragile physical and emotional health. Often seized with an irrational fear of failure, Horowitz found the life of touring threatening to his equilibrium. He withdrew from the concert stage for several periods during his life, and made only rare appearances after 1970 (actually, his appearances from 1965 were pretty rare). When Horowitz did schedule a concert, it often took the persuasive powers of his wife and friends to keep him from canceling at the last minute. (If this is referring to the post-1970 era, it’s incorrect. Horowitz rarely canceled after 1970, most notably in the aftermath of his daughter, Sonia’s, death in 1975, and when he underwent prostate removal surgery in late-1978. In both cases, the concerts were rescheduled and performed.) His nagging, and often overpowering, insecurity led him to seek shock therapy in 1973, but though he seemed to achieve some benefit from treatment, he was never free of anxiety when playing in public. The one exception to this trend was when he appeared as accompanist to another artist, which he often did with baritone Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, and violinist Isaac Stern. (He played with the listed performers only once, at a Carnegie Hall benefit concert on May 18, 1976. If that’s often then I’m a vegetarian.) Because of his long absences from the concert stage, Horowitz's popularity was largely sustained by his recordings.

Perhaps the most significant single event in Horowitz's long career was his long-overdue return to the Soviet Union (his first since his departure in the 1920s) for a series (Does two concerts count as a series?) of concerts in 1986. The resulting tour became a major political event, coinciding as it did with an era of new understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union, and it resonated powerfully with Soviet audiences. Revitalized by the Soviet tour, Horwowitz (<-don’t they have a proofreader?) signed a new contract with Sony, (He was still revitalized by the tour three years after the tour ended, and two years after he stopped giving concerts? In fact, he signed with Sony because the head of Deutsche Grammophon, Gunther Breest, went to work for Sony and Horowitz went with him.) the contract included provisions for recording him at home on his favorite piano. He made his last such recording on November 1, 1989; on November 5 he died of a massive heart attack.

As a performer, Horowitz had huge resources of speed and power, and a clean articulation. His performances were brilliant, exciting, and often mystifying to those who found his technique enigmatic (he played, for instance, with unusually straight fingers, laying them nearly flat on the keys). Though his performances were frequently criticized for their willfulness and self-indulgent nature, there was an undeniable charisma to his playing that endeared him to most everyone who heard him.

The Slow, Sad Death of Sony Classical

During the 20^th Century, there were two great American Classical Music record labels, Columbia and RCA.  Columbia had sub-labels like Epic and Odyssey, and RCA had Gold Seal.  Columbia’s artist roster included conductors Bruno Walter, George Szell, and Eugene Ormandy – to name but three, along with pianist Rudolf Serkin and, for an eleven-year period, Vladimir Horowitz.  RCA had Arturo Toscanini, Fritz Reiner, Charles Munch, Ormandy after 1968, violinist Jascha Heifetz and pianists Artur Rubinstein and Van Cliburn – along with Horowitz for most of his career. 

Columbia and RCA fought for supremacy in the American classical market.  They also marketed to Europe, but the United States was their priority - and they endured through competition with European labels including Decca/London, Deutsche Grammophon, and Philips, along with American upstarts like Mercury records.

As older generations of performing artists died, new ones rose to prominence – for example, Leonard Bernstein, who was a Columbia artist until defecting to DG.  Horowitz’s pupils Byron Janis and Gary Graffman were RCA performers until the label dumped them in favor of Cliburn, who had just won the 1958 Tchaikovsky Competition.  Janis went to Mercury records, while Graffman went to Columbia – and subsequently helped persuade Horowitz to join him there after the elder artist became disenchanted with RCA’s approach to recording and marketing. 

It was during this period, the 1950s and 1960s, that both RCA and Columbia were recording large swaths of the Classical repertoire in stereo, with their labels boasting of “Living Stereo” and “360-degree sound.” 

The 1970’s saw a precipitous drop in Classical record sales.  The issue was mainly that the core repertoire had been recorded umpteen times and listeners saw little reason to buy, for example, Rubinstein’s 1971 recording of Rachmaninoff’s Second Piano Concerto with the Philadelphia Orchestra under Eugene Ormandy when they had a perfectly fine version with Rubinstein and the Chicago Symphony under Fritz Reiner from 1956 – in “Living Stereo” to boot.  If memory serves, the 1956 recording sold some 250,000 copies, whereas the 1971 remake sold a mere 13,000.  “Advancements” from both RCA and Columbia including Dynagroove, Quadrophonic sound, and gimmicked microphone placement resulted in some atrocious sounding records – particularly from RCA.

But there were two changes which briefly revived sales industry-wide: the advents of digital recording and the Compact Disc.  Suddenly, the core repertoire was being recorded again with unrestricted dynamics and without tape hiss.  Telarc Records, the Mercury records of the 1980s-1990s, recorded a good deal of that repertoire with the Cleveland Orchestra.  RCA’s big names, Rubinstein, Ormandy, Horowitz, had either died, retired, or defected to other labels.  Columbia’s biggest name at the time, Leonard Bernstein, switched allegiances to Deutsche Grammophon, as did Rudolf Serkin.  Glenn Gould was dead.  For new recordings RCA and Columbia largely had to rely on solid performers who, with the exception of Yo-Yo Ma, never really caught fire with the public like the old-timers had: Emanuel Ax, Murray Perahia, Paavo Berglund.

In 1989 Sony Classical bought Columbia Masterworks and, as their first coup, signed Vladimir Horowitz for what turned out to be his last recording – and what a fine recording it is both in terms of recorded sound and performance.  By then, RCA – once such a corporate giant that it owned the NBC radio and television networks – was part of the Bertelsmann Music Group and was struggling.  Much of their business was driven by reissues of varying quality from their back catalogue.  As someone who worked at a Classical record store (the Music Box at Cleveland’s Shaker Square) in the 1980s, I saw early on how the back catalog continued to have market potential.  One day in 1985, we received four copies of Artur Rubinstein playing Tchaikovsky’s and Grieg’s Piano concertos on CD – recordings which originated in the 1960s.  My manager scoffed and said “these will never sell – CD collectors only want pure Digital recordings, not this analog crap.”  In fact, all four copies sold within a few days while newer digital recordings of the same repertoire languished.    

During the 1990s, both RCA’s and Sony’s releases included a combination of new material and reissues.  RCA’s included Toscanini’s complete authorized recordings (which included a cabinet for those who purchased the complete edition), a 22-CD set of Horowitz’s RCA recordings, and, in 1999, a 107-CD deluxe edition of Rubinstein’s complete RCA recordings – which reportedly broke the bank and sold poorly until the CDs were issued individually.  During much of this period Sony was headed by Horowitz’s old manager, Peter Gelb.  Under his directions, Sony’s new releases, controversially, included non-Classical “crossover” material with artists including Yo-Yo Ma recording an album of Americana; electronic composer Vangelis recorded an album; and James Horner’s score to the film Titanic which – whether or not one agreed with including film scores under a Classical label – sold like gangbusters and made a lot of money for the label.  During this era Sony’s reissues included a well-engineered reissue of Horowitz’s complete Columbia recordings and a lavish box of composer Igor Stravinsky’s recordings.   

It was also during the Gelb era that RCA found itself in a position to be acquired and, fortuitously, it was Sony which took RCA over.  Suddenly, America’s two largest classical labels were one enormous label.

With access to both the RCA’s and Columbia’s deep back-catalogues, Sony produced some excellent boxed sets which have done their core artists proud: not just the big boys like Toscanini, Bruno Walter, Szell, Rubinstein, Heifetz, Horowitz, and Glenn Gould; but Pierre Boulez, Robert Casadesus, Cliburn, Graffman, Janis, William Kapell, Murray Perahia, Charles Rosen, both Rudolf Serkin and his son Peter, André Watts, and others too numerous to mention. 

A selection from some of Sony Classical's many 

Original Album boxed sets. 

(The Horowitz photo includes a few DG recordings.)

During this period, many claimed these issues were folly and that the era of the CD was over as the era of streaming approached.  But sales of both CDs and LPs increased during COVID, and most of the boxed sets mentioned above sold out almost immediately upon issuance – necessitating reprints and creating a lucrative resell market on eBay and other sites.

Then, last year, there was a bloodbath at Sony.  Those with knowledge of the of the label’s storied history and the ability to restore the historic recordings were given the ax.  No reason was given for this evisceration – and given the documented strong sales of these boxed sets, it’s difficult to believe they were losing the label money.  So, the reissues came to an end – and at the most inopportune moment.  Collectors were awaiting the final box of Sony’s multi-part Ormandy set comprising his post-1968 RCA recordings.  Pianophiles were also hoping that Sony would, finally, issue Horowitz’s complete privately recorded Carnegie Hall recitals from 1945-1950 – which have been floating around on the internet in poor sounding transfers.

Sony’s classical department has now been downsized so that what was once a Mississippi River of releases has slowed to a trickle.  The back-catalogue is now ignored and at this rate, Sony’s Classical division is seems poised to downsize itself out of business in the very near future. 

Toscanini in London

EMI has issued a six CD set of Arturo Toscanini conducting the BBC Symphony.

Click here to read my review.

Cancel Culture, McCarthyism, and Russia’s war on Ukraine

 

Only someone with his head stuck in the sand would be unaware of Russia’s invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Only those under the sway of Vladimir Putin’s propaganda machine or blinded by their own prejudice would have anything but sympathy for what the people of Ukraine are suffering right now.

The backlash from the West has been immediate.  Vladimir Putin has managed to do in two weeks what President Biden was unable to do in 13 months: the once-fraying NATO has unified and the Western Alliance has solidified.  The sanctions with which Russia now finds itself saddled are bound to cripple the already struggling Russian economy, and will hopefully awaken the Russian people to the extent to which Putin has led them down a false path.  From a military standpoint, despite Russian brutality, the effectiveness of Ukrainian resistance has exposed weak points in Russian strategy, unit cohesion, and equipment.  But the effects of the past few weeks have gone beyond the geopolitical and military.

A number of Russian classical music performers have found their careers in the West curtailed and appearances cancelled.  While some would pooh-pooh this development as symbolic, it’s worth noting most of the money these performers earn comes from concertgoers in Europe and the United States.  The most noteworthy performers in this case are conductor Valery Gergiev, soprano Anna Netrebko, and pianists Denis Mastuev and Valentina Lisitsa – all of whom have been vocally supportive of Putin’s regime, with the particularly atrocious Lisitsa describing Ukraine as a Nazi regime (despite Ukrainians electing a Jewish President).   

Putin with piano banger Denis Matsuev

Putin with Anna Netrebko

Putin with Valery Gergiev

Other Russian musicians have also suffered fallout because of Russian’s invasion of Ukraine.  The most visible case is the young pianist Alexander Malofeev.  The Vancouver Recital Society cancelled an upcoming performance of his.  It’s not a question of either logistics or transportation: Malofeev's concert was not scheduled until August.  The young pianist has spoken out, at considerable risk to himself and his family, against Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.  Malofeev’s behavior and circumstances are not at all comparable to those of Gergiev, Nebtrenko, Mastuev, or Lisitsa – who deserve the contempt and cancellations that have been heaped upon them.  But Malofeev?  Not the same at all.

Alexander Malofeev's post after VRS's cancellation

I believe VRS’s decision was an overreach.  At the very least, VRS owes the music lovers of Vancouver an explanation for their decision.  Which specific board members voted for or against this action?  Which patrons/donors instigated and pressured the board into making this decision?

I am as opposed to the actions of the Putin-led Russian government as anybody, and I was warning others about Putin when President George W. Bush “looked the man in eye” and “found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy”. Russia’s actions over the past weeks cannot be excused by any rationale, regardless of what North Korea, Venezuela, Serbia, and some on the American Right (and a few on the far-Left) say.

Malofeev’s career will thrive despite this cancellation.  It may even benefit from it in the longer term, as some are learning of him for the first time.  Yet I note that there are those who haven't said squat about what Putin has done over the decades, yet are wringing their hands about this.  Also, those crying "cancel culture" when this is hardly an example of that phenomenon - because Malofeev (unlike the four stooges I mentioned above) hasn't done anything to warrant being cancelled.  Nor is it McCarthyism - and those claiming it is have little notion of what Joseph McCarthy actually did to destroy innocent people's lives.

First, what is cancel culture?  It stems from the decision to withdraw support from public figures – performers, sports figures, politicians – who have done something to offend sensibilities.  The offensive act can be anything from physical violence to sexual impropriety or even a clumsily phrased but well-meaning statement.  Malofeev has done none of these things, so that term does not apply here. 

What was McCarthyism historically, as opposed to its recent use as a label thrown on anything some group doesn’t like?  Joe McCarthy was a Republican from Wisconsin who was a senator from 1947 until his death ten years later.  During the Army-McCarthy hearings, he claimed to have lists of government employees who were active members of the Communist party – which neither was nor is illegal in the United States.  Not satisfied with rooting out real Communists in government, McCarthy went after people outside of government who were “suspected” of having communist sympathies, then he went after homosexuals (of which, posthumously, he is suspected of being himself).  During the hearings, which were televised, his common tactic was to wave a piece of paper stating “I have here in my hand a list” of people who were accused of whatever offended him at the moment.  As often as not, the paper’s contents were either unrelated to the subject or it was entirely blank. 

Vis-à-vis communism and the Cold War.  I think the point that many have missed over the decades is that while Presidents and politicians of both parties railed against communism, it was never the real threat.  Communism is an economic philosophy – one which doesn’t work judging by the low standards of living in communist countries.  The real threat during the Cold War was not communism but Russian Totalitarian Imperialism – the proof of this is that a number of communist countries have never been a threat to either the United States or the West.  But Russia has legitimately been a threat and ruined life in every country it subjugated during the Cold War – the prime reason so many risked their lives to flee the East and make their way to either Western Europe or the United States.  Very few opted to leave the West and move to Russia.  But I digress. 

Some of those impacted by McCarthyism include Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Lena Horne, and Danny Kaye – all of whom weathered the storm and went on to have successful careers.  In the end, criticism of them was unwarranted because they never cozied to the likes of Hitler or Stalin. 

But there is an example from Classical music history that has been trotted out in past weeks, and the comparison is worth raising – if only to demolish it. 

Wilhelm Furtwängler

Attempts to excuse Gergiev’s behavior by comparing him to German conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler miss the mark.  For those who don’t know, Furtwängler, the most eminent German conductor of the time, refused to leave his home country while the Nazis were in power.  For this, the conductor found his postwar activities restricted and for a period he found it impossible to perform in the United States.  It was not the US government which banned him.  Rather a coalition of performers and other cultural figures, including Arturo Toscanini, Vladimir Horowitz, Arthur Rubinstein, and others declared they would have nothing to do with any organization that engaged Furtwängler.  Even late in life, Horowitz mistakenly claimed the conductor was “a supporter of the Nazis.”  Horowitz, who had had bad relations with Furtwängler preceding Hitler’s rise, may have been blinded by his personal antipathy for the conductor.  But even prior to the pianist’s death in 1989 it had become clear that the Furtwängler situation was more complex.  For one, Furtwängler (unlike, say, Alfred Cortot) was not an anti-Semite.  Rather, the conductor, whose provincial thinking and naivety were matched only by his ego, believed that German musical culture could not continue without him and that he would be able to save it from the philistines who had come to power.  Early in Hitler’s regime he spoke against removing Jews from orchestras and against the banning of newer music.  Remarkably, he shared his concerns with Goebbels and Hitler himself, often in undiplomatic terms that would have sent anyone else to a concentration camp.  But Furtwängler’s protestations came to naught, as Jews were purged from German culture and “decadent” music was banned.  Eventually, Furtwängler narrowly escaped arrest as he fled to Switzerland in early 1945.  But Gergiev will only escape the contempt of conscientious music lovers if we forget his history.  The same is true of Netrebko, Matsuev, and Lisitsa. 

But it was wrong of VRS to cancel Alexander Malofeev’s concert.  Nor does it make any sense to cancel performances of works by Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich – they should continue, and western audiences should be reminded of how their lives were impacted by the governmental and social elites of their time.

During the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy said that “No government or social system is so evil that its people should be considered as lacking in virtue.”  But I believe he, and every right-thinking person, would draw a distinction between those who are cultural figures, and those who are willing propaganda tools.

The One and Only FDR

Rating the Presidents:
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President: 1933-1945

Economy: When Roosevelt was elected in 1932, the economy was on the verge of total collapse. Although statistics weren’t as prevalent in those days as now, modern economists estimate unemployment was between 25% and 33% in late 1932. During the long interregnum between election and inauguration (FDR’s inauguration in 1933 was the last time a President had to wait until March 4th to be sworn into office), bad became worse as the banking system began to collapse. Lack of confidence in an already shaky system compounded the problem, and by March 1, banks in 38 of the 48 states were either closed or insolvent. Several municipalities had gone into default. Upon taking office, Roosevelt swung into immediate action and ordered all the nation’s banks closed. Government auditors were sent to the banks to determine their solvency and correct the situation. Then FDR addressed the nation on the radio (rarely done at that time) to calm the nation’s fears and explain how the crisis was being managed. The address was a great success, and when the banks reopened, deposits far exceeded withdrawals. Part of FDR’s campaign platform was a cut in government spending, and soon after taking office, he cut all government salaries and pensions by 15% (this is not as draconian as it seems, since deflation had already reduced the cost of living by about that much). But the bulk of the New Deal was built around relief (work for the unemployed), recovery (a restoration of the private economy) and reform (so another Great Depression would never happen). Despite the contentions in the recently published "FDR's Folly," Roosevelt’s policies did indeed revive the domestic economy, reducing unemployment to about 7% by 1939. In doing so, Roosevelt reinvented the Federal Government's relationship to the people, rescuing capitalism without resorting to the Fascistic and Socialistic extremes of other countries. Not all of the New Deal’s programs worked, and the centerpiece of FDR’s recovery efforts, the National Recovery Act, was found unconstitutional. Worse, in 1937 FDR became antsy about the budget deficit, cut spending, and the economy briefly dipped into another recession. But many of the New Deal programs - including Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and federal insurance on bank deposits – are now taken for granted as part of American life. Following American entry into World War II, Roosevelt switched gears, revving up wartime production to an extent that it hastened Allied victory. FDR didn’t hesitate to use federal authority to control prices, wages, and consumption (numerous items such as food, gasoline, and textiles were rationed during the war) to keep war profiteering at bay. FDR’s policies ensured that circumstances were in place after the war for economic expansion – rather than the usual postwar bust.

Civil Rights: Roosevelt cautiously pushed for a broadening Civil Rights agenda, but saw himself as hampered by Southern Democrats. Early in World War II, he signed an executive order forbidding racial discrimination in defense industries. For the first time in American history, women of color were earning substantial money. At a time when anti-Semitic feeling ran high, FDR had a great number of Jewish officials in his administration, and spoke about building ties between Christians and Jews. However, in 1939, FDR refused to grant asylum to a group of Jewish refugees who had docked at an American port. FDR was willing to compromise on principles for political expedience: the worst example of this was allowing the internment of Japanese-Americans in 1942, partly to calm war hysteria, and partly on the questionable grounds that they were safer in camps than among the general population.

Domestic Affairs: On top of the economic improvements, FDR's "workfare" programs resulted in the creation of an infrastructure in use to this day: The Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority - which brought electricity to millions of rural citizens - and countless smaller projects. Roosevelt also followed in the footsteps of his cousin, in promoting policies which safeguarded the environment without hurting business (an example later followed by William Jefferson Clinton). FDR generally took labor’s side in disputes with management, but was willing to put down strikes during the war.

Foreign Affairs: During his first term, the bulk of FDR’s foreign policy was devoted to improving ties with Central and South America – the Good Neighbor Policy - which was a welcome change from the “Big Stick” policy promoted since Theodore Roosevelt’s Administration. Roosevelt was willing to look past foreign human rights abuses if American interests were involved (he once famously said of Anastasio Somoza, “He’s an S.O.B., but he’s OUR S.O.B.”). Adolf Hitler became German Chancellor days before FDR’s first inauguration. Although FDR privately mused that Hitler was “mad” and surrounded by men “even madder,” he did not rock the boat with regard to European relations. During his second term, FDR began warning the American people about the dangers of fascism, but his efforts to rebuild the military were hamstrung by an isolationist Congress. FDR’s attempts to engage with Europe against the fascists were generally rebuffed by Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement government. After war broke out in 1939, FDR successfully walked a political tightrope between the isolationists (who were largely dupes of fascistic and anti-Semitic elements), and the interventionists, who favored immediate American entry into the war. Roosevelt’s inspired response was the Lend-Lease plan, which provided the Allies with ships, planes, tanks, and guns in exchange for 99-year leases on strategic bases. (This also helped FDR, an anti-colonialist since his school days, in his hidden agenda of breaking up the British Empire.) The attack on Pearl Harbor essentially ended the isolation debate. Almost immediately after American entry into the war, Roosevelt began to conceive of the United Nations, which would end American isolation and permanently engage America in Europe and the Far East. FDR was prescient with regard to future trends in world affairs. Decades before the fact, he foresaw China's emergence as a major power, and the Middle East as a potential source of trouble. Contrary to the McCarthyist myth that Roosevelt was a communist appeaser, duped at Yalta, FDR created the circumstances which allowed his predecessors--from Truman through Clinton--to complete the Wilsonian objective and make the world truly safe for democracy. Indeed, Europe as it exists in 2004 is very much as Roosevelt envisioned it. Sadly, if Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson had studied his views on the Far East, the Vietnam War would have likely been avoided. The use of the United Nations to prosecute the First Gulf War in 1990-91 and to harmlessly vent tensions between nations--as in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis--was again as FDR envisioned. But FDR would doubtlessly be appalled at the recent degeneration of the UN into a forum for America bashing (which could be the response to contemporary American leadership).

Honesty/Integrity: Roosevelt was more than capable of being devious, cunning, and manipulative – almost always with laudable objectives in mind. He once told an aide “I never let my right hand know what my left hand is doing. I’m perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help win the war.” Yet, when push came to shove, FDR could level with the American people as no other President except Truman, grimly telling them of Allied defeats and bucking them up to soldier on to victory. What neither his domestic nor foreign enemies appreciated was FDR's absolute faith in the American people, a trait shared by his successor, Ronald Reagan. It should also be pointed out that, despite serving more than twelve years, there were remarkably few scandals during FDR’s tenure – the few that there were generally involved lower administration officials.

Average Rating: 7.8

Summary: Franklin Roosevelt was undoubtedly the greatest President of the 20th Century. The actions he took as President rescued Capitalism while smoothing out its rough edges. His command during the war hastened Allied victory and established America as the pre-eminent superpower. The American people, even if they didn’t agree with all his policies, held him in such high regard that they elected him President four times. Unmatched in his sheer political brilliance and mastery of the varied moods of the American electorate, FDR knew when to push forward, when to pull back, and when to assert or slacken the reigns of power. His genius was being able to determine in which direction the winds of history were blowing, and then push history forward ahead of itself – and this was done before the age of modern polling. Unique among America’s Presidents, Roosevelt was able to comprehend both his country’s changing place in world affairs, and the impact of his policies on ordinary Americans. In other words, he simultaneously saw both the forest and the trees - in much the way Arturo Toscanini saw an orchestral score. Not least, by his triumph over Polio (although a recent theory has surfaced that he actually may have been stricken with Guillian-Barre) Franklin Roosevelt was then, and remains today, a symbol of inspiration for all those faced with seemingly insurmountable odds. It has the stuff of myth: A disabled man who lifted a prostrate nation to its feet--not once, but twice. A relatively young, vigorous (despite his paralyzed legs) President who transferred his energy and optimism to a defeated, bankrupt country with a military the size of Sweden's--who became exhausted after twelve years of leadership, but with the country restored and greatly enhanced, with a military second to none, ready to take leadership of the world.

Rating the Presidents

Economy 9

Civil Rights 6

Domestic Affairs 8

Foreign Affairs 9

Honesty/Integrity 7

Average: 7.8