Is America still the Arsenal of Democracy? Or is it something less? Two columnists, one on the right, one on the left, weigh in.

With Labor Day coming up, we might give some thought, as well as thanks, to those workers who made the US the "arsenal of democracy," as President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it in his speech of December 29, 1940.   It was that industrial strength, just as much as our soldiers and sailors, that enabled us to win a victory and save the world.   As FDR said, nearly 70 years ago:


Guns, planes, ships and many other things have to be built in the factories and the arsenals of America. They have to be produced by workers and managers and engineers with the aid of machines which in turn have to be built by hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the land. In this great work there has been splendid cooperation between the government and industry and labor. And I am very thankful.


American industrial genius, unmatched throughout all the world in the solution of production problems, has been called upon to bring its resources and its talents into action. Manufacturers of watches, of farm implements, of Linotypes and cash registers and automobiles, and sewing machines and lawn mowers and locomotives, are now making fuses and bomb packing crates and telescope mounts and shells and pistols and tanks.


But all of our present efforts are not enough. We must have more ships, more guns, more planes -- more of everything. And this can be accomplished only if we discard the notion of "business as usual." This job cannot be done merely by superimposing on the existing productive facilities the added requirements of the nation for defense. Our defense efforts must not be blocked by those who fear the future consequences of surplus plant capacity. The possible consequences of failure of our defense efforts now are much more to be feared. And after the present needs of our defense are past, a proper handling of the country's peacetime needs will require all of the new productive capacity, if not still more. No pessimistic policy about the future of America shall delay the immediate expansion of those industries essential to defense. We need them.


And so, Roosevelt concluded in this "fireside chat," America must become "the great arsenal of democracy."  A memorable phrase, in and of itself, but also a useful phrase, because threats to our safety and freedom are omnipresent, then and now.

In this slideshow from Life magazine, we get a sense of the scale of industrial mobilization that the US achieved. (And, by the way, unemployment plummeted, during the war--it's possible to argue about the role of Keynesianism in getting us out of the Depression, but it's not possible to argue that military mobilization achieved that goal during the war.)

With all that in mind, we might consider two columns this morning, written by two thoughtful individuals of very different political persuasions, who nonetheless seem to come together around the idea that America should get back to making real tangible things.   But there are some hurdles along the way.

Michael Barone asks in The Washington Examiner, what has happened to the capacity of the federal government to do anything?   He reminds us that the Pentagon was built in 15 months, and LaGuardia Airport built in 25 months.  So why has it gotten to the point today, Barone continues, that the government can't even spend the stimulus money, and when it spends it, the money seems to disappear into a fog of lawyers and agitators?  Yes, we need environmental protections, but protecting the environment is not the same as using environment regulation as an excuse to block everything.

Some new thinking is needed here--unfortunately the Obama administration did not undertake such thinking, asking, for example, if every new project needs to undergo many years of environmental cogitation and litigation, before being, likely as not, struck down by some judge.

Barone is a conservative, but he is also an admirer of FDR, he still retains the sense that sometimes new thinking is needed to confront new problems, such as economic hardship.  And Barone is also a hawk, so he understands the value of military technology.  Finally, he is a native of Detroit, born in the 40s, so he remembers what Detroit was like in its industrial heyday, when America could tackle big projects.

Some might say that it's hopeless to think about building big things-that we are permanently entangled in our mess, that there's no way out.  Others might say that we shouldn't even attempt big things, because we can't be trusted--can't be trusted to safeguard the environment, can't be trusted with our power around the world.   Meanwhile, others would say that any sort of governmental activism is a threat to liberty--an argument that sometimes seems to devolve into the argument that governmental incompetence is to be celebrated, because it discredits the idea of collective action.  To which our greatest leaders, across the centuries, left and right, have said: "Nonsense.  We can do it we want to.  After all, we are Americans.  We can win this war.  We can go to the moon.  We can build the canals and railroads and interstates and national parks that we need."

Another column, by Harold Meyerson, appearing in The Washington Post, takes up some related themes.  Meyerson's argument is that America needs to revive manufacturing--a theme he has emphasized for years.   He pitches his argument mostly by Democrats, telling them that if they want an economic plan that actually creates jobs and builds things--as opposed to bailing out banks--they will help get the unemployed back to work, help rebuild our economic competitiveness, and reignite economic growth.  Which is to say, Republicans, too, might find some of these proposals interesting.    As Meyerson puts it:


If the Democrats focused on boosting manufacturing, with a corollary upgrade to our infrastructure, they'd tap into the only area in which the public wants a more activist government. . . .

Several recent polls have called the Democrats' attention to what should have been obvious to them: That helping America regain its industrial preeminence is one government activity that wins support across the board. One recent survey by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman found 78 percent support for having a "national manufacturing strategy," while 92 percent said they supported infrastructure improvements using only American-made materials. Another survey from Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found 52 percent of respondents preferred government investment "in the future," while just 42 percent favored the alternative course of large spending cuts.

The appeal of bolstering manufacturing and upgrading infrastructure cuts across lines of race, gender and class. Even a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh would have trouble characterizing them, as he did health-care reform, as "reparations." Just as important, the public is right. Every bit of economic news confirms its apprehensions that by off-shoring our manufacturing, we have not only eliminated millions of good-paying jobs but we have also rendered ourselves incapable of regaining our economic health. The two major economies that are booming amidst the global bust are China's and Germany's -- that is, the two major economies most oriented to manufacturing. In the month since I first noted this in a column, China has surpassed Japan as the world's second-largest economy, and German exports have continued to soar. If China and Germany's growth rates for their second quarter are annualized, they come to 10 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

Meyerson, neo-New Dealer that he seems to be, is too smart to fall into the trap of talking only about "green jobs."  Green jobs are nice, but in the current crisis, a relative handful of green jobs are no substitute for what's needed--many millions of jobs, period.   We can't let the idea of green jobs, meritorious as they might be, get in the way of re-employing the country.  Doing something useful, such as building airports and power stations.

No doubt Barone and Meyerson supported different candidates in 2008, and probably will in 2010, too. But down the road somewhere, who knows, they might converge on a common re-industrialization platform.   And if both parties took up the challenge of hammering out that platform, bringing their respective views to the common problem of strengthening America--starting, perhaps, with its military and infrastructure, and then not stopping there--that would be a good thing.

Such an agreement on a core agenda would bring us hope and confidence that by working together, we can, indeed, solve our national problems.