Determining what makes a good president or a bad one is like discussing who is the greatest athlete in a sport of all time! So many factors go into analyzing a presidency that ultimately how effective a president is (rather than good or bad) depends on the opinion and the criterion a person uses to make the evaluation. When looking at historical figures, an important consideration is to view them from the perspective of the times in which they lived. Cultural and other norms are far different today than when he was elected in 1928. Remember that presidents get credit as well as the blame for things they have no control over. In the case of Hoover, most historians would agree that his time as president was not effective in addressing the core economic issues that plagued the United States economy beginning with the Harding and Coolidge administrations.
One area in which historians tend to agree is that voters tend to vote on economic issues primarily and other issues secondarily. The prevailing wisdom of the day about the economy can be summed up by Calvin Coolidge's famous saying, "The chief business of the American people is business." The three presidents who served during the 1920s (Hoover, Coolidge, and Harding) all held to the same laissez-faire economic philosophy in which interfering in business was taboo. Less government was better, and the more the government modeled business practices, the more effective it was.
When Hoover took office, the economy was beginning to show strains and cracks that ultimately would lead to depression. Unlike the current statistical analytics economists have today, in Hoover's time economics was based more on anecdotal evidence than empirical. The people advising the president on the economy were suggesting changes within the same economic philosophical position as Hoover, which did not necessarily represent what was occurring in the lives of ordinary citizens. Hoover, like his predecessors, believed less was better and that the government should not do too many things that may have a detrimental impact on the economy. "It is just as important that business keeps out of government as that government keeps out of business," wrote Hoover.
When the Great Depression began during his term, Hoover continued the course of non-interference, believing if left alone, the economy would heal itself, saying,
Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement. Economic wounds must be healed by the action of the cells of the economic body—the producers and consumers themselves.
In the face of continued economic collapse (worldwide as well as the United States), Hoover stubbornly held to the principle of non-interference. The economy did not get better, people lost jobs and homes, and unemployment dramatically increased. Hoover's answer was to give money to business enterprises, believing they would create jobs. Congress did provide minimal relief to businesses, but jobs from the investment of tax dollars never materialized, and Hoover was blamed for the Great Depression.
The question is, was Hoover a bad president? If you believe he should have expanded the federal government to address the problem as did Franklin Roosevelt, then the answer is yes. If you hold to the position and there is historical evidence to support this position (as there is for FDR's) that the economy is cyclical and that recessions and depressions are part of the cycle, then no.
Hoover's insistence that the American worker and American businesses would create the rebound needed to get people back to work was never fully vetted, as Hoover lost the election in 1932. The Great Depression was triggered by the Stock Market Crash of 1929, only a few months into his first and only term as president.
https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/herbert-hoover
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/herbert-hoover/
No comments:
Post a Comment