Presidential Election: 1932

Who do you vote for as President in 1932?


  • Total voters
    27

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,600
Caribbean
#11
Admittedly, Hoover did try some things to alleviate the affects of the Depression, but he tied it too much to the argument of "let the market heal itself" which in the end is doing nothing at the same time, and in a sense contributed to the problems that came out of the 1929 crash.
His opponents don't necessarily sing from that hymnbook.

"I accuse the present administration of being the greatest spending administration in all our history. It is an administration that ha piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs of and the reduced earning power of the people."
--fdr 1932

Mr. Hoover has long since abandoned his old faith in rugged individualism. His platform is a document of indefatigable paternalism. Its spirit is that of the Great White Father providing help for all his people. Every conceivable interest which has votes is offered protection, or subsides, or access of some kind in the Treasury."
--Walter Lippman,1932

Yeah... I've heard it too, but it's come out of political Conservatives
As the reverse comes from political - whatever the other side calls itself these days.
 
Last edited:

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,833
SoCal
#12
His opponents don't necessarily sing from that hymnbook.

"I accuse the present administration of being the greatest spending administration in all our history. It is an administration that ha piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs of and the reduced earning power of the people."
--fdr 1932
This FDR quote could perhaps be read as not criticizing Hoover for the massive spending itself, but rather for ineffective massive spending.

In other words, FDR could be saying--massive spending in itself is not a problem as long as it is done right and actually fixes the problems that it is meant to fix.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
#13
This FDR quote could perhaps be read as not criticizing Hoover for the massive spending itself, but rather for ineffective massive spending.

In other words, FDR could be saying--massive spending in itself is not a problem as long as it is done right and actually fixes the problems that it is meant to fix.
Especially when much of the New Deal would see an increase in spending.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,600
Caribbean
#15
This FDR quote could perhaps be read as not criticizing Hoover for the massive spending itself, but rather for ineffective massive spending.

In other words, FDR could be saying--massive spending in itself is not a problem as long as it is done right and actually fixes the problems that it is meant to fix.
Or it could be exactly what it sounds like.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,600
Caribbean
#16
Well, yeah. That said, though, I was trying to rebuke Code Blue's argument that FDR lied about what he was going to do as U.S. President.
A politician campaigning on one thing, and doing something else after elected? I am shocked, shocked to think such a thing might happen. You are right to rebuke even a patina of a scintilla of any such implication, even if it was not formed into an "argument."

"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
--FDR, 1940

To the extent I made an argument, it was - as I stated - that the claim that Hoover was do-nothing is contradicted FDR. That may lay open a question of whether FDR on Hoover's interventions was right, wrong or lying - a question I didn't answer. It just seems to me that if you want to argue that Hoover was a do-nothing, the first two people you have to argument with are FDR and Hoover.
 
Last edited:

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
#17
To the extent I made an argument, it was - as I stated - that the claim that Hoover was do-nothing is contradicted FDR. That may lay open a question of whether FDR on Hoover's interventions was right, wrong or lying - a question I didn't answer. It just seems to me that if you want to argue that Hoover was a do-nothing, the first two people you have to argument with are FDR and Hoover.
It was never claimed that Hoover was a "do nothing." Hoover did make an attempt, but the standard history of Hoover's administration and response is that it didn't go far enough. And that is generally how Roosevelt campaigned, that there was more that needed to be done rather than just the "small" projects. Given what Hoover committed prior to 1932, the Hoover Dam was a big investment, but that paled in comparison to what was committed in the New Deal under Roosevelt.

And as for the quote, provided... that's more than likely something that was aimed likely at voters who were already likely to support more "balanced budget" types of economic policy, which would be reflective of the largely North/South split in the Democratic Party with many southern Democrats tending to be far more conservative than northern Democrats who tended to be more liberal by comparison. In this, it's likely that all you provided was line that was deliberately made to give conservative southern Democrats reason to vote for Roosevelt who in general was campaigning that more needed to be done. Which is ultimately reflective in why by 1936, Roosevelt was facing intense opposition, particularly in the South that he changed policies to retain his position...

In this, the idea that FDR's entire campaign in 1932 was based around "balanced budgets" is wrong. The main emphasis of campaign followed the lines of Keynesian economics, which would essentially promise to increase Federal spending... to prime the pump as it were. The line you quoted is likely not something that would be reflective of FDR's entire campaign.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,735
At present SD, USA
#18
"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
--FDR, 1940
FDR had no control over what Japan or Germany would do, and while Roosevelt clearly sympathized with the Allies, he did not provoke Japan or Germany.

Not to mention that issues in 1940 would not relate to 1932.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,600
Caribbean
#19
It was never claimed that Hoover was a "do nothing."
In post 2?
"Admittedly, Hoover did try some things to alleviate the affects of the Depression, but he tied it too much to the argument of "let the market heal itself" which in the end is doing nothing at the same time, and in a sense contributed to the problems that came out of the 1929 crash."

More from FDR, accusing Hoover of doing too much:
“...but more important, are the reckless policies of the Hoover administration at home. The federal government for the past four years has been guilty of spending to the point of danger, to the verge of bankruptcy. Not for one, but two, and now three years, the nation has spent more than it earned.”


Though, I am sure if I looked through enough of these speeches, I could find FDR claiming Hoover was doing too much and also a do-nothing. It's pretty standard fare for a campaign - when my opponent wasn't busy doing nothing, he was busily dong everything wrong.

FWIW, I believe whoever was the incumbent in 1932 would have lost, even if he did "more" than Hoover. The government can't overcome that level of dissipation of bank credit: from $40B in June 1930 to $22B in June 1933. It's like Rothschild said - as long as I own the money, I don't care who makes the laws.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions