What would FDR do?
As we approach the second season of the current Kansas-Nebraska Chautauqua tour, the relevance of the theme “Bright Dreams, Hard Times: America in the Thirties” becomes starkly apparent. At summer’s end 2008, the U.S. economy began a sharp decline.
President Barack Obama and others are reading (many for the first time) about the nature and scope of the Great Depression, seeking to discern possible parallels with today’s conditions, and also to take a fresh look at how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal tackled that long-ago crisis. What would FDR do if he were president today?
Obviously, no one can say for certain. But even a cursory examination reveals both similarities and differences. Rising unemployment defines both eras. So do mounting bank failures, home foreclosures, business and personal bankruptcies, a sharp decline in foreign trade and increasing signs of political instability.
So far, the current recession hardly approaches the severity of the Great Depression. This spring, unemployment figures approached 8.5 percent. In 1933, generally considered the bottom of the Great Depression, the figure was nearly 33 percent. Proportionately, home foreclosures and bankruptcies are not reaching the elevated levels that marked the economic collapse of the period from 1929 to 1933. Most importantly, today’s economy is far larger and more complex than it was 75 years ago, which is hardly surprising in a nation whose population has more than doubled since the ’30s.
Then, as now, two questions dominate public and private discussion: When will it end?
And what should be done about it? Those questions provoked a sharp debate that began with the Depression itself and has continued ever since, both among scholars and in the popular media. The current crisis has sharply intensified this debate.
Some suggest, as others did in the ’30s, that the most effective solution would be to minimize government action. However, that is no more politically realistic in 2009 than it was in 1933. No president, regardless of name or party, would likely finish his term if he followed Andrew Mellon’s advice to Herbert Hoover to “liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate.” Although we rightly associate the New Deal with FDR, it really began with Hoover, who, despite his professed belief in “rugged individualism,” made a greater use of the resources of federal government than had any peacetime president before him. As Hoover saw it, he had no choice. Of course, Hoover remained convinced for the remainder of his long life that he had turned the country to recovery only to have FDR’s election spoil it all.
The contrast between Hoover’s and FDR’s policies is often perceived as sharper than it was in actuality. Roosevelt’s vaunted rescue of the banks, preceded by a national bank holiday and an audit to determine which should reopen, was in fact designed by Hoover’s Treasury Department. Secretary of the Treasury Ogden Mills, later a harsh critic of the New Deal, was primarily responsible. Even the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which FDR expanded and used extensively, began under Hoover. To be sure, the New Deal brought dramatic new initiatives, not only to banking and business but also to agriculture, public works and unemployment relief. At the core of the continuing debate is the question regarding whether those initiatives helped more than they hurt.
One difference between Hoover and Roosevelt stands out. Numerous historians observed a difference in temperament and outlook. A fundamentally shy man, Hoover detested the countless silly indignities of presidential politics: the dedication of public buildings, the White House receptions and dinners, the ceremonial rituals accorded visiting interest groups, known today as “photo ops.” He hated press conferences and required that all questions be submitted in writing in advance. For Hoover, public speaking was a loathsome chore. Over the radio his voice sounded wooden and colorless, inspiring not so much cheerfulness and hope as gloom and despair, or at best, simple boredom.
What Hoover despised Roosevelt loved. Retired Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous observation may have been close to the mark when he said of Roosevelt: “A second rate intellect, but a first rate temperament!” Beginning with the pre-election campaign, and perhaps best shown in his inaugural address (“nothing to fear but fear itself”) and his famous fireside chats (“your money is safer in a reopened bank than under the mattress”), the difference in style and temperament was clear-cut.
Roosevelt pulled no punches, never failing to caution his listeners that it would take time to solve the nation’s ills, but at the same time reassuring them that “we are all in this together and we are on our way.” He explained exactly what he was trying to do in layman’s terms. At his first press conference he astonished reporters by telling them he would take their questions as they came, reserving only the right not to be quoted “on the record.” At the end they applauded, a response that would have astounded Hoover, who deeply distrusted the press. After FDR’s first fireside chat, where he explained how his administration had dealt with the banking crisis, the White House mail room was swamped with a far greater volume of mail—most of it positive—than ever before.
Certainly no one can say what programs and policies Roosevelt would put in hand were he president today. That he would act vigorously and deliberately seems clear enough. Roosevelt had little patience with ideology. He thought he knew what had not worked, and made clear his intention to experiment with untried methods. Dwight D. Eisenhower would later remark on FDR’s supreme confidence in the rightness of his own judgment. As the historian H. W. Brands points out in his new biography, “A Traitor to His Class,” this does not mean Roosevelt had no principles, but instead that he remained confident in the inherent strength of American democracy and the resilience of the American people to provide the tools to solve any problems that might arise. All that was needed was patience, a willingness to try new methods and dynamic leadership, which his ample ego assured Roosevelt that he alone could provide.
Kansas-Nebraska Chautauqua
Wednesday, 7 p.m. — Media Night and community events
Thursday, 7 p.m. — Humorist Will Rogers (Doug Watson) opens for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Patrick McGinnis)
Friday, 5:30 p.m. — Local Youth Chautauqua Camp Performances followed by evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson (Tonia Compton)
Saturday, 7 p.m. — Local entertainment followed by WPA folklorist Zora Neale Hurston (Wanda Schell)
Sunday, 7 p.m. — Humorist Will Rogers opens for Louisiana Sen. Huey Long (Fred Krebs)
Schedules are the same in both Broken Bow and Plattsmouth, Neb. Please visit http://www.knchau tauqua.org for the full schedule in each community.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Yahoo
Post new comment