- Herbert Hoover, 1952 Republican National Convention
It’s so hard to tell whether Hoover’s hyperbole is describing others or his own actions before FDR came to power.
Notice the word ‘perpetual’. Both Hoover and FDR (at least initially) believed that the massive spending was necessary only to ‘fix’ crises.
Yes, it is only baffling that Messrs. Truman and Eisenhower continued the New Deal long after what it was supposed to fix was supposedly fixed.
By the time Nixon’s days came, the New Deal was made permanent American policy.
Now, both Hoover and FDR campaigned as small government conservatives with nothing but that rhetoric in elections, but did exactly the opposite after coming to power. Consider that they lured the mildly government-skeptic public with appropriate rhetoric, but did what they wanted to do and what they thought was politically expedient. It’s not because the masses voted for it, but because they were baited into it. The first Tea Partier was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Consider this unusual contradiction - progressives complain that it is a hard sell to convince the public and current government of social democracy, but afterwards will appeal to the history of social democracy in the very same country. Well, which one is it!? Is social democracy to be implemented, because it has always existed with good results, or is social democracy to be implemented, because it has not existed and good results have not come out from not having it?
Consider that they lured the mildly government-skeptic public with appropriate rhetoric, but did what they wanted to do and what they thought was politically expedient. It’s not because the masses voted for it, but because they were baited into it. The first Tea Partier was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Agreed. At least Roosevelt repealed prohibition.
The Republican Party supported the New Deal even during Roosevelt’s presidency.
Think about this: the Republican party was explicitly founded as a statist, radical republican and pietist party. Radical republicanism was considered a close cousin of social democracy, which was (at the same time) called communism.
Marx congratulated Lincoln on his election.
Every major platform in the Communist manifesto for the transition into communism was practiced by Abraham Lincoln.
The major formative intellectuals at the head of the Republican party since Reagan were ex-Lovestonite (American Communist Party) and Trotskyites who never disavowed their totalitarian statism, only the specific figure of Stalin and Soviet Russia.
So it’s not much of a surprise they supported the New Deal then and the Bailouts now.
Notice the word ‘perpetual’. Both Hoover and FDR (at least initially) believed that the massive spending was necessary only to ‘fix’ crises.
For Keynes, “socialized investment” was a tool to be used during financial crises. More specifically, Keynes pinpointed a weak link in the economic system as the cause of depressions. This “weak link” was the supposed disconnect between savings and investment, and I think in this way The General Theory was a direct response to Hayek’s Prices & Production lectures of 1931. Keynes argued that because of a fall in the price of consumer goods, caused by the decrease in consumer spending (savings), there was no profit motive to invest in the later stages of production (or, in Keynesian terms, there was no incentive to invest — I don’t know if Keynes really appreciated the Austrian concept of the “structure of production”). Of course, Keynes didn’t reject the notion of savings and investment; he just believes that the free market fails to properly coordinate at this junction. His solution is socialized investment, or government spending; his support of depressing interest rates is probably also based on this assumption of a disconnect, given that depressing the rate of interest incentivizes entrepreneurs to invest (Keynes did not appreciate the role of the rate of interest as a coordinative price between savings and investment).
Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, on the other hand, went beyond countercyclical policy. They were “progressives” who believed in guaranteeing Americans a certain standard of living, of the same ilk as most politicians today. Roosevelt’s social programs were designed to remain, even after the end of the Great Depression, and a great deal of them do (for example, minimum wage and social security). Both Hoover and Roosevelt supported long-term government spending, even if perhaps they believed that there was a numerical difference between “regular” government expenditure and countercyclical fiscal stimulus.
Now, I’m sure that Keynes believed in the same thing — he was a social democrat. But, it’s not fair of Hoover to attack Keynes and his book, and disown himself of his own political and socioeconomic beliefs. Hoover was a proponent of Keynes’s policies before Keynes wrote The General Theory. That quote above reminds of German generals after the Second World War, who tried to absolve themselves of any blame by pointing at Hitler, when in fact it was the German generals who were looking for victories during the war (see: Megargee, Inside Hitler’s High Command). In any case, all you need to do is look at Hoover’s track record between the First World War and his presidency to see that he supported long-term government programs over a decade before The General Theory was published.
“…even if perhaps they believed that there was a numerical difference between “regular” government expenditure and countercyclical fiscal stimulus.”
That’s what I was referring to.
Thanks, Jonathan.
To summarize, the American Republican Party has a long history of outright liars. Herbert Hoover is exactly that - he could show a moderate small government face to one group of supporters and a radically progressive face to another.
Even if were a matter of degree, Hoover would have a hard time answering to the Eisenhower, who did have countercyclical measures but otherwise normally kept a balanced budget and lowered tax rates.