Cliches of History

Jesse Walker | January 17, 2006

Did FDR really "save capitalism"? David Beito doesn't buy it:

I have yet to see any evidence that the U.S. was ever on the verge of revolution either before or after the rise of FDR. In 1932, for example, the Communists and the Socialists (primary indicators of radical or revolutionary sentiment on the left) scored between them a measly 2.5 percent of the vote. They did not elect a single member to Congress.

In 1932, FDR campaigned on a platform that differed little from that [of] Al Smith in 1928 or, for that matter, his opponent Herbert Hoover. While he vaguely promised an undefined New Deal, he just as often attacked Hoover as a spendthrift. Politicians who promised retrenchment and low taxes, such as Governor Harry G. Leslie of Indiana, were often just as popular at the polls as those who promised more government....

While quasi-fascists (actually populists) like Huey Long and Father Coughlin made waves, this was mostly in 1934 and 1935. If FDR "saved" the United States from the likes of them, why did they have their best years after his New Deal was implemented?

Comments

Warren|1.17.06 @ 10:01AM|#

Oh Gee-zus Aitch Kryste. It's depressing that this even needs to be said. Obviously it does so; Sing it loud / Sing it strong.

[note to self] nothing new here no need to start drinking

Ed|1.17.06 @ 10:08AM|#

Sheesh, FDR did everything he could to destroy capitalism. His actions may have been pragmatic but his speeches betrayed his deep-rooted distrust and even hatred of businessmen. The myth that FDR saved capitalism will die out only when the last of the New Deal liberals are finally taking their dirt naps.

|1.17.06 @ 10:11AM|#

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

FDR's 1932 campaign channeled the growing dissatisfaction among the public into support for the Democrats. By delivering on the New Deal, he rendered radicalism, both of the nationalist and nationalizing variety, unnecessary. That he did this while running on a substantive platform that differed only moderately from his opponents just demonstrates that substantive platforms are not what people vote for in a presidential election. His appeal, strategy, and rhetoric revolved around capturing and channeling that dissatisfaction.

|1.17.06 @ 10:13AM|#

See, Ed thinks FDR's rhetoric and strategy was to appeal to the people who blamed evil, capitalist businessmen for the Depression.

|1.17.06 @ 10:33AM|#

"The myth that FDR saved capitalism will die out only when the last of the New Deal liberals are finally taking their dirt naps."

No, it won't die out even then. Read Capitalism and the Historians, edited by Friedrich Hayek, for more on this point.

|1.17.06 @ 10:38AM|#

Not only did FDR save capitalism, he walked on water, too.

|1.17.06 @ 11:02AM|#

He cheated. He used crutches to walk on water.

Dan|1.17.06 @ 11:45AM|#

Thanks a lot, FDR. We haven�t had a great depression since you left office!

|1.17.06 @ 12:11PM|#

joe,

FDR "delivered" on the New Deal? How long did the Depression last after he took office, again?

|1.17.06 @ 12:18PM|#

Yeah, FDR delivered on the New Deal. And we've been getting it good and hard ever since.

|1.17.06 @ 12:28PM|#

You guys are being a little hard on FDR and the New Deal. It took a special kind of genius to come up with such economically invigorating programs like hiring one guy to dig a hole, and another guy to come along and fill the hole back in. Brilliance, I tell ya.

|1.17.06 @ 12:31PM|#

As with most things, it really doesn't matter whether the New Deal has the support of doctrinaire libertarians.

For the large portion of Americans, the New Deal worked - it provided the social safety the country needed to weather the Depression, and prevented the types of widespread poverty and misery that are breeding grounds for unrest, revolution, and support for illiberal strongmen.

Ed|1.17.06 @ 12:37PM|#

And don't forget the Great Social Security Ponzi Scheme that is about to reach critical mass.

|1.17.06 @ 12:58PM|#

For the large portion of Americans, the New Deal worked...

As does creationism, astrology, spiritulism, faith healing......

fyodor|1.17.06 @ 1:06PM|#

As with most things, it really doesn't matter whether the New Deal has the support of doctrinaire libertarians.

For the large portion of Americans, the New Deal worked

My side won so your side is wrong. Makes sense to me.

|1.17.06 @ 1:38PM|#

Whereas the issue being discussed is the impact of the New Deal on the American political scene, yes, the public's opinion of the program is the single most relevant datum to this conversation.

|1.17.06 @ 1:39PM|#

Um, considering that Ind. Gov. Leslie (a Republican) was term-limited in 1932 (http://www.statelib.lib.in.us/www/ihb/govportraits/leslie.html) and that his successor Paul McNutt (a Democrat) was a pretty pro-regulation kind of guy, that seems like an uninformed example...

|1.17.06 @ 1:58PM|#

"Whereas the issue being discussed is the impact of the New Deal on the American political scene, yes, the public's opinion of the program is the single most relevant datum to this conversation."

Impact and perception are two completely different things.

A majority of people believe The New Deal was good, so it must be so.

Yeah, and judging by their popularity, System of a Down is the best, most talented metal band of all time.

|1.17.06 @ 2:17PM|#

A majority of people in the 1930s, and most importantly, a majority of the people who might have otherwise decided to agitate for a "solution" to the crisis that resembled the solutions emerging from continental Europe, decided that the New Deal was good.

This was a very, very good thing for our country, and for capitalism.

Jesse Walker|1.17.06 @ 3:16PM|#

Paul: You raise a good point, especially since Leslie was elected before the stock market crash. My knowledge of Indiana history is pretty scanty, so I won't speculate as to what Beito was getting at, but I've dropped him a line asking for his response.

|1.17.06 @ 5:27PM|#

"Whereas the issue being discussed is the impact of the New Deal on the American political scene, yes, the public's opinion of the program is the single most relevant datum to this conversation."

If the question is whether FDR saved capitalism , then the effect of the New Deal on the (capitalistic) economy is much more relevant. Your data is easily measured by votes. The effect on the economy is so much harder to measure that it's tempting to use votes as a proxy. However, a depression turned into the Great Depression under his policies. Who knows, maybe it would have been worse with other policies. He sure was popular, though.

His 60.8 percent in 1936 puts him within a hair of LBJ in 1964 (61.0%) and just slightly over Nixon in 1972 (60.7%), so I say give him the benefit of the doubt. Popular Presidents' policies praiseworthy.

|1.17.06 @ 6:26PM|#

Joe,

Now that communism is dead, except in Cuba and North Korea, and possibly in Venezuela, do you agree we can kill the New Deal now that it has outlasted whatever capitalism-saving merits you think it might have had?

By the way, China is not communist anymore, despite what they may call themselves. They are a relatively free market country trying to overthrow the shackles of statism, and doing so via dictatorship and political repression. This does not make everything they do good, but they aren't communists we need to be saved from either.

|1.17.06 @ 8:22PM|#

You know, for once I am going to have to come down pretty firmly on joe's side. I think that all us card-carrying types will agree that FDR did great damage to America, but had he not done what he did, it might have resulted in something much worse. Of course, the reason he had to do what he did was largely because of government, and the wretched, pukable, thrice-bedamned Federal Reserve and income tax, something his boosters largely sweep under the carpet. (Instituted in 1913, and less than 20 years later we have the worst economic crash ever seen. Coincidence? I think not.)

|1.17.06 @ 8:31PM|#

All this goes to show once again that a rockingchair maker will never be popular at a cat convention.

The New Deal used the power of the state to do things that private industry was unable or unwilling to do. Reservoirs were built, whole counties in the South electrified, dams erected to irrigate the Southwest. Roads were built through Appalachia and low-cost housing made possible nationwide to the working poor to give them a stake in stability. Finally, people without the means to survive on their own--I'm talking about real widows and orphans, and the physically disabled from birth--were given a safety net to pull them out of Dickensian drudgery.

Now, you might think all this is a tax burden on us, but stop to think: all these things had a demand, a real need to exist, especially the work projects like the TVA and the Hoover Dam. Why didn't the free market fill that need? If the system wasn't broke, it certainly wasn't pumping on all cylinders. For example, if a private corporation had realized in 1936 that by offering private mortgage insurance to banks they could make a killing, why didn't they? Since then, PMI has raked in money by the barrelful--after the FHA showed them how.

You can bash the system for what it has become--especially how Social Security went from being the last resort of the destitute to an underfunded general right of all Americans--but the New Deal, as developed by FDR's people, was one of the great economic pump primers of the 20th century and in doing so created much of our modern general prosperity.

|1.17.06 @ 8:32PM|#

My understanding of the real reason for the length of the depression was the fact that FDR kept stomping on clever entrepeneurs and established businesses who kpet finding ways around his confiscatory policies. Every time they found ways to make profits, they needed to create jobs first to get those profits. FDR saw the profits which he hated, and was not astute enough to realize jobs came from "greedy" would-be employers.

FDR was the problem, not the solution. He did have great PR though that convinced "everyone" otherwise though.

|1.17.06 @ 10:21PM|#

The New Deal used the power of the state to do things that private industry was unable or unwilling to do. Reservoirs were built, whole counties in the South electrified, dams erected to irrigate the Southwest.

In other words, the New Deal was the greatest environmental disaster in our country's history.

|1.18.06 @ 12:30AM|#

"For the large portion of Americans, the New Deal worked..." - joe

As rhetoric and propaganda, the New Deal worked, as far as actually improving the economic conditions in the nation, not so much. In other words, the Depression was still Great, but the masses felt better about it, because Our Leader was doing Something about it.

|1.18.06 @ 1:07AM|#

In other words, the New Deal was the greatest environmental disaster in our country's history.

And the award for Most Overblown Nonsequitur goes to..

I think the folks in West Virginia like having hospitals with electricity and running water, don't you?

|1.18.06 @ 8:58AM|#

As rhetoric and propaganda, the New Deal worked, as far as actually improving the economic conditions in the nation, not so much. In other words, the Depression was still Great, but the masses felt better about it, because Our Leader was doing Something about it.

But that's all that matters, sadly, and in that regard joe has a point. If FDR wasn't "taking control" and "showing compassion" and all that other liberal bullshit, the masses may very well have revolted.

However, the failure of FDR then and liberals today to realize that his stubborn refusal to admit as the Depression went on that his policies were getting us nowhere is inexcusable.

|1.18.06 @ 9:20AM|#

joe may have a point, but I think it's the point of the cult of personality most history becomes. Most of FDR's popularity at the time was because he was a wet while Hoover was a dry. Nothing's worse than being broke and not being able to drown your sorrows without government hassle. His unabashed love of the automobile helped too.

David Nieporent|1.18.06 @ 6:11PM|#

You know, for once I am going to have to come down pretty firmly on joe's side. I think that all us card-carrying types will agree that FDR did great damage to America, but had he not done what he did, it might have resulted in something much worse.

I think Joe has sidetracked you into missing the point. That's the very claim that the author of the article is challenging. He's calling it a myth that it "might have resulted in something much worse," pointing out that there's no evidence of that.

Joe thinks, "Well, everyone thinks the New Deal worked" is somehow a rebuttal to that, when in fact it doesn't even address the point.