Full Version: FDR said WHAT?
Now this is a rather interesting page I came across. It's the text of an address delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 2, 1930, when he was governor of New York. I wish I could put this topic under both "History Debate" and "Constitutional Debate", since it's appropriate for both.
Anyway, the opening two paragraphs spell out his main thesis, the last sentence of which should come across as particularly striking for anyone with even a passing familiarity with his subsequent presidency:
As he goes along, he further details his distaste for overactive federal government, as in this paragraph:
I highly recommend clicking on the link at the top and looking over the speech, because it has a lot of cool stuff in it.
So the questions for debate:
1. Did Governor Roosevelt have a proper understanding of the constitutional limits of federal power in this speech?
2. When he said that the doctrine of regulation by "master minds" had been all too apparent in Washington "these last ten years" (i.e., the 1920s), what was he referring to? And how does it square with what we were taught about the '20s being a decade of classic laissez-faire policies?
3. Does this speech indicate that there's something significantly more to the era of the Crash, Depression, and New Deal than what gets normally taught? Does it indicate something important that's being overlooked in the study of this period of our history?
Anyway, the opening two paragraphs spell out his main thesis, the last sentence of which should come across as particularly striking for anyone with even a passing familiarity with his subsequent presidency:
QUOTE(FDR)
I have been asked to talk about the respective powers of the National and State Governments to rule and regulate, where one begins and the other ends. By some curious twist of the public mind, under the terms "Home Rule" or "States’ Rights," this problem has been considered by many to apply, primarily, to the prohibition issue.
As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.
As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.
As he goes along, he further details his distaste for overactive federal government, as in this paragraph:
QUOTE(FDR)
The doctrine of regulation and legislation by "master minds," in whose judgment and will all the people may gladly and quietly acquiesce, has been too glaringly apparent at Washington during these last ten years. Were it possible to find "master minds" so unselfish, so willing to decide unhesitatingly against their own personal interests or private prejudices, men almost god-like in their ability to hold the scales of Justice with an even hand, such a government might be to the interest of the country, but there are none such on our political horizon, and we cannot expect a complete reversal of all the teachings of history.
I highly recommend clicking on the link at the top and looking over the speech, because it has a lot of cool stuff in it.
So the questions for debate:
1. Did Governor Roosevelt have a proper understanding of the constitutional limits of federal power in this speech?
2. When he said that the doctrine of regulation by "master minds" had been all too apparent in Washington "these last ten years" (i.e., the 1920s), what was he referring to? And how does it square with what we were taught about the '20s being a decade of classic laissez-faire policies?
3. Does this speech indicate that there's something significantly more to the era of the Crash, Depression, and New Deal than what gets normally taught? Does it indicate something important that's being overlooked in the study of this period of our history?
1. Did Governor Roosevelt have a proper understanding of the constitutional limits of federal power in this speech?
I think he did, however it is apparent that he did not really believe what he was saying.
FDR is famous for his first "100 days" in office during which many "New Deal" programs were enacted.
FDR was nothing if not a great politician. He was a terrible handler of the economy, but that is for another day (let's just point out that there was a $15 million budget surplus in NY in 1929 and a $75 million deficit when he left office in 1932). FDR rose to power as an opponent of the corruption of Tammany Hall and then once in office, embraced Tammany Hall for the fund raising it offered him. He claimed that the governor should not interfere with the local governance of New York City. Gotcha.
Of course, once President, FDR stripped Tammany Hall of its federal subsidies. I guess by then he decided he didn't need those local rubes.
2. When he said that the doctrine of regulation by "master minds" had been all too apparent in Washington "these last ten years" (i.e., the 1920s), what was he referring to? And how does it square with what we were taught about the '20s being a decade of classic laissez-faire policies?
Of course it was a swipe at the federal handling of the nascent Depression. A similar tactic would be Hillary Clinton attacking Bush's handling of Iraq, or the economy to set up a run in 2008. This is simply political rhetoric.
The 1920s were largely laissez-faire: until the Crash. Hoover bungled the Crash and its aftermath by abandoning the successful laissez-faire policies of the 1920s. Hello Smoot-Hawley Act, the Federal Farm Board, the 1932 Revenue Act (raised income taxes across the board, including the top bracket from 25% to 63%, doubled estate taxes and raised corporate taxes by 15%--a real killer of economic activity.), and a dozen other anti-laissez-faire activities. He laid the groundwork for FDR's New Deal.
3. Does this speech indicate that there's something significantly more to the era of the Crash, Depression, and New Deal than what gets normally taught? Does it indicate something important that's being overlooked in the study of this period of our history?
Of course there is more. These two Presidents bungled the recovery after the Crash of 1929 and prolonged the Depression by a decade.
Hoover was uninspiring. He abandoned the correct position (tax cuts) far too early, never giving them the opportunity to work. He is often seen as among the worst of US President's for his failure to fix the mounting Depression. His failure was not sticking to one plan and allowing the Democrats to steamroll him in Congress.
FDR is often portrayed as the greatest American President. His popularity (in my view) stems from the juxtaposition a strong defense position (after Pearl Harbor at least) with the inauguration of the nanny state. Welfare and defense from a guy with a blueblood background and the party of the "working man"--what other President can lay claim to all of these?
I think he did, however it is apparent that he did not really believe what he was saying.
FDR is famous for his first "100 days" in office during which many "New Deal" programs were enacted.
FDR was nothing if not a great politician. He was a terrible handler of the economy, but that is for another day (let's just point out that there was a $15 million budget surplus in NY in 1929 and a $75 million deficit when he left office in 1932). FDR rose to power as an opponent of the corruption of Tammany Hall and then once in office, embraced Tammany Hall for the fund raising it offered him. He claimed that the governor should not interfere with the local governance of New York City. Gotcha.
Of course, once President, FDR stripped Tammany Hall of its federal subsidies. I guess by then he decided he didn't need those local rubes.2. When he said that the doctrine of regulation by "master minds" had been all too apparent in Washington "these last ten years" (i.e., the 1920s), what was he referring to? And how does it square with what we were taught about the '20s being a decade of classic laissez-faire policies?
Of course it was a swipe at the federal handling of the nascent Depression. A similar tactic would be Hillary Clinton attacking Bush's handling of Iraq, or the economy to set up a run in 2008. This is simply political rhetoric.
The 1920s were largely laissez-faire: until the Crash. Hoover bungled the Crash and its aftermath by abandoning the successful laissez-faire policies of the 1920s. Hello Smoot-Hawley Act, the Federal Farm Board, the 1932 Revenue Act (raised income taxes across the board, including the top bracket from 25% to 63%, doubled estate taxes and raised corporate taxes by 15%--a real killer of economic activity.), and a dozen other anti-laissez-faire activities. He laid the groundwork for FDR's New Deal.
3. Does this speech indicate that there's something significantly more to the era of the Crash, Depression, and New Deal than what gets normally taught? Does it indicate something important that's being overlooked in the study of this period of our history?
Of course there is more. These two Presidents bungled the recovery after the Crash of 1929 and prolonged the Depression by a decade.
Hoover was uninspiring. He abandoned the correct position (tax cuts) far too early, never giving them the opportunity to work. He is often seen as among the worst of US President's for his failure to fix the mounting Depression. His failure was not sticking to one plan and allowing the Democrats to steamroll him in Congress.
FDR is often portrayed as the greatest American President. His popularity (in my view) stems from the juxtaposition a strong defense position (after Pearl Harbor at least) with the inauguration of the nanny state. Welfare and defense from a guy with a blueblood background and the party of the "working man"--what other President can lay claim to all of these?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 26 2006, 04:11 PM) 
1. Did Governor Roosevelt have a proper understanding of the constitutional limits of federal power in this speech?
I think he did, however it is apparent that he did not really believe what he was saying.
Either that or he changed his mind once he came down with Potomac fever about three years later.
QUOTE
2. When he said that the doctrine of regulation by "master minds" had been all too apparent in Washington "these last ten years" (i.e., the 1920s), what was he referring to? And how does it square with what we were taught about the '20s being a decade of classic laissez-faire policies?
Of course it was a swipe at the federal handling of the nascent Depression. A similar tactic would be Hillary Clinton attacking Bush's handling of Iraq, or the economy to set up a run in 2008. This is simply political rhetoric.
The 1920s were largely laissez-faire: until the Crash. Hoover bungled the Crash and its aftermath by abandoning the successful laissez-faire policies of the 1920s. Hello Smoot-Hawley Act, the Federal Farm Board, the 1932 Revenue Act (raised income taxes across the board, including the top bracket from 25% to 63%, doubled estate taxes and raised corporate taxes by 15%--a real killer of economic activity.), and a dozen other anti-laissez-faire activities. He laid the groundwork for FDR's New Deal.
Of course it was a swipe at the federal handling of the nascent Depression. A similar tactic would be Hillary Clinton attacking Bush's handling of Iraq, or the economy to set up a run in 2008. This is simply political rhetoric.
The 1920s were largely laissez-faire: until the Crash. Hoover bungled the Crash and its aftermath by abandoning the successful laissez-faire policies of the 1920s. Hello Smoot-Hawley Act, the Federal Farm Board, the 1932 Revenue Act (raised income taxes across the board, including the top bracket from 25% to 63%, doubled estate taxes and raised corporate taxes by 15%--a real killer of economic activity.), and a dozen other anti-laissez-faire activities. He laid the groundwork for FDR's New Deal.
Except at the time of his speech, the Depression was, at most, 5 months old. Roosevelt's reference was to the prior 10 years. And the specific things you mention in the second paragraph hadn't yet happened.
FDR hit the ground running for the White House when he was elected governor of New York in 1928. When Al Smith was trounced in the 1928 Presidential race, it was clear that a protracted campaign was needed.
Yes, the stock market crash hit in 1929 and FDR used it as a bludgeon to hit Hoover hard. FDR was considered a fiscal conservative right up until he became governor. He was a rebel within his own party, opposing He took Hoover's advice and vastly expanded the state's investment in just about every area (see my earlier comment about the exploding deficit under FDR in NY State).
In 1930, FDR still had his conservative tendencies. I find it funny that his early battles against the Tammany Hall corruption (due to its misuse of public funds not to mention its election tactics) ended with FDR's huge expansion of the federal sphere of influence and the inevitable waste that follows such a bureaucracy.
FDR was the originator of the strategy used by Bill Clinton in the 1990s: triangulation. Take your opponent's position and make it your own. There is no doubt that FDR was a remarkable politician, not to mention a very charismatic man, and a man of unmatched personal strength.
An interesting thing happened after the election of 1932: despite FDR's pledge of a "new deal for the American people" he embraced Hoover's big government solutions to the Depression. Hoover had abandoned the laissez faire politics of his predecessors.
Going back a bit farther: there is little doubt that Harding was laissez faire. His term lasted only two and a half years, however. His successor, Silent Calvin Coolidge who uttered the famous: "The business of America is business". Coolidge was definitely pro-business and a tax cutter, as demonstrated by the Revenue Act of 1926. He lowered taxes and the national debt at the same time (the economy boomed throughout most of the 20s). Coolidge was not so laissez faire as a governor, but federalism was still alive then and state and local officials were expected to intervene in certain market issues (child labor, minimum wages, etc.).
Hoover was a progressive, but also a problem solver. He liked tinkering with things to get them to work: he was an engineer. Remember, however, that the stock market crash occurred only 6 months into his term. He certainly did not cause it. Some argue that it was Congress's discussion of Smoot Hawley that was to blame. After the laissez faire 20s, a protectionist measure like Smoot Hawley would dramatically change the economic landscape (and it did).
Many economists blame the Federal Reserve for the Depression. The Fed was created under Woodrow Wilson and was certainly not a laissez faire approach. The President has little control over the Fed and laissez faire laws are not impossible with an interventionist Fed.
Yes, the stock market crash hit in 1929 and FDR used it as a bludgeon to hit Hoover hard. FDR was considered a fiscal conservative right up until he became governor. He was a rebel within his own party, opposing He took Hoover's advice and vastly expanded the state's investment in just about every area (see my earlier comment about the exploding deficit under FDR in NY State).
In 1930, FDR still had his conservative tendencies. I find it funny that his early battles against the Tammany Hall corruption (due to its misuse of public funds not to mention its election tactics) ended with FDR's huge expansion of the federal sphere of influence and the inevitable waste that follows such a bureaucracy.
FDR was the originator of the strategy used by Bill Clinton in the 1990s: triangulation. Take your opponent's position and make it your own. There is no doubt that FDR was a remarkable politician, not to mention a very charismatic man, and a man of unmatched personal strength.
An interesting thing happened after the election of 1932: despite FDR's pledge of a "new deal for the American people" he embraced Hoover's big government solutions to the Depression. Hoover had abandoned the laissez faire politics of his predecessors.
Going back a bit farther: there is little doubt that Harding was laissez faire. His term lasted only two and a half years, however. His successor, Silent Calvin Coolidge who uttered the famous: "The business of America is business". Coolidge was definitely pro-business and a tax cutter, as demonstrated by the Revenue Act of 1926. He lowered taxes and the national debt at the same time (the economy boomed throughout most of the 20s). Coolidge was not so laissez faire as a governor, but federalism was still alive then and state and local officials were expected to intervene in certain market issues (child labor, minimum wages, etc.).
Hoover was a progressive, but also a problem solver. He liked tinkering with things to get them to work: he was an engineer. Remember, however, that the stock market crash occurred only 6 months into his term. He certainly did not cause it. Some argue that it was Congress's discussion of Smoot Hawley that was to blame. After the laissez faire 20s, a protectionist measure like Smoot Hawley would dramatically change the economic landscape (and it did).
Many economists blame the Federal Reserve for the Depression. The Fed was created under Woodrow Wilson and was certainly not a laissez faire approach. The President has little control over the Fed and laissez faire laws are not impossible with an interventionist Fed.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 26 2006, 09:41 PM)
Many economists blame the Federal Reserve for the Depression. The Fed was created under Woodrow Wilson and was certainly not a laissez faire approach. The President has little control over the Fed and laissez faire laws are not impossible with an interventionist Fed.
So could that have been what Roosevelt was referring to with his "master minds" comment? I've been trying to look around, but it's hard to find information online on his pre-presidential political career. Do we know if he was an opponent of the Fed prior to becoming President?
I'm wondering if he could possibly have been referring instead to the tendency of Congress to delegate legislative powers to executive agencies - a practice that ballooned under his presidency, but may have been starting to pick up steam in the '20s.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.