Not Quite a War
UC Davis economic historian Eric Rauchway
elevates the personal dislike between Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt
into a war that would determine the future of both the Democratic and
Republican parties. Simply put, he way overstates his case and demonstrates his
very clear left-liberal bias. To be sure Hoover is a sore loser and acts that
way, but their disagreements can hardly be characterized as “a war”.
Rauchway’s thesis is that Hoover
consciously acted to abort the New Deal in the womb. To me the disagreement was far more personal
than political and given the economic crisis it would have been far better for
both of them to work together the way George Bush and Barack Obama did in 2008,
but alas that was not the case. Beneath the surface while Hoover and Roosevelt
were having their spat Hoover treasury officials Ogden Mills and Arthur
Ballantine were working hand-in-glove with income treasury secretary William
Wooden to deal with the banking crisis. In fact Jonathan Alter in his "Defining Moment" noted that “the Hoover men essentially designed the blueprint of FDR’s
rescue of the banks.” Thus if the generals were at war the lieutenants
certainly were were not.
Rauchway argues that Hoover’s ideas were
a precursor to the Republican southern strategy of the 1960s. To his credit he
does note that the African-American vote began deserting the party of Lincoln
in response to Hoover’s treatment of them during the 1927 Mississippi River
Flood and his failed supreme court nomination of the racist John Parker in
1930. That is all true, but the fact remains Roosevelt sold out to the southern
barons of the Senate to pass his program and it was the Republican Party that
was the party of civil rights well into the 1960s and especially with the
nomination of Wendell Willkie in 1940.
He also argues that Roosevelt as early
as 1932 was well aware of the threat that the rise of Hitler presented to the
democracies. Yet he blew up the 1933 World Economic Conference that sent a
clear signal to Hitler that the U.S. was abandoning Europe. Indeed from 1933-38
was probably the most isolationist period of the 20th Century. Being
worried about Hitler and acting are two different things.
Moreover while Roosevelt was worried
about fascism abroad he was implementing it at home. What else can you make of
the cartelization caused by the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National
Industrial Recovery Act, if not a form of proto-fascism? Moreover it was hardly
progressive to plow under crops and slaughter piglets to prop up farm prices
during a period of real starvation. Thankfully the Supreme Court saved us from
these failed experiments.
Rauchway conveniently leaves out the
crackpot ideas of Cornell economist George Warren who influenced Roosevelt on
farm and monetary policies. He also ignores that one of the causes of 1920s
farm crisis was the mechanization of agriculture as 40% of cropland was devoted
to forage crops that were no longer needed.
Let me say that this review is not
intended to be an all-out attack on the New Deal. Much good came from leaving
the gold standard, banking and securities reforms and the beginning of massive
public works projects. The country was in a crisis and we have to put ourselves
into the shoes of the decision makers of the time, but we also have to heed
Keynes admonition that “reform is the enemy of recovery.” I wish Rauchway would
see things that way.
For the full Amazon URL see: https://www.amazon.com/review/R1VJ9V9PPKXS9F/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
No comments:
Post a Comment