Why do you think Hoover lost in 1932?

[Anarchist420]

I think it was because he intervened too much in the economy and because of the Bonus Army scandal (both of which the 1932 DNC platform addressed).

If the man of the people (i.e., Al Smith) had won the DNC nomination in 1932, then there would've been no WWII and we wouldn't have the bureaucracy and welfare state we have today, there would've been no Holocaust and no Cold War... the Republican Party would've exclusively remained as the party of high taxes, corporate welfare, centralization of power, and imperialism... and we'd all be better off today.

It doesn't add up that Hoover lost because he intervened too little as he didn't intervene too little. Non-intervention in the economy was still popular in 1932 (it had been the Jeffersonian tradition since America's founding in 1776) and FDR even half way campaigned on cutting taxes/spending until he took office (he knew he could not have won if he told America he was going to regulate, tax, and spend).

 

[McLovin]

I think it was because he intervened too much in the economy and because of the Bonus Army scandal (both of which the 1932 DNC platform addressed).

If the man of the people (i.e., Al Smith) had won the DNC nomination in 1932, then there would've been no WWII and we wouldn't have the bureaucracy and welfare state we have today, there would've been no Holocaust and no Cold War... the Republican Party would've exclusively remained as the party of high taxes, corporate welfare, centralization of power, and imperialism... and we'd all be better off today.

It doesn't add up that Hoover lost because he intervened too little as he didn't intervene too little. Non-intervention in the economy was still popular in 1932 (it had been the Jeffersonian tradition since America's founding in 1776) and FDR even half way campaigned on cutting taxes/spending until he took office (he knew he could not have won if he told America he was going to regulate, tax, and spend).

So, you're saying that if Hoover had been elected, Hitler and Stalin wouldn't have decided to murder millions of people? Not sure I am following the logic here.

 

[fskimospy]

He intervened too little in the economy.

 

[Anarchist420]

So, you're saying that if Hoover had been elected, Hitler and Stalin wouldn't have decided to murder millions of people? Not sure I am following the logic here.

Don't forget that FDR stopped Jewish refugees from coming into the country. Don't forget that Hitler and Stalin would've killed each other if left to their own devices. Don't forget that Britain set Poland up to be attacked by Nazi Germany.

That said, it was totally harmful for either Britain or U.S. to go after Nazi Germany.

Off topic anyway.

He intervened too little in the economy.

It was rolled back in 1932, but that was because the Democrats in Congress blocked it so they could take the White House in 1933. Remember that Hoover wanted Glass Steagall but the Dems blocked it until they could take credit for it.

Excessive public spending was still unpopular in 1932 though... it wasn't popular ever before, so I see no reason it would be incredibly popular until FDR changed everything.

 

[Craig234]

Anarchist, it seems to me you are grossly wrong on WWII - the roots their lied in the competition between powers that weren't going away and the ascension of the militarist and nationalist political factions in Japan and Germany, and Britain and the US trying to stay out of the war would have been a disaster, delaying the inevitable.

On economics, I partly think you are trying to sneak in some advocacy of opposing government intervention that's not justified, but I also think you have raised some little-known truth about the politics of the situation. You seem to be right that FDR ran more as a conservative economically and did not run on what actually be his economic policies, which he didn't seem to know himself.

There's a nearly endless appetite among voters to hear politicians say they want to 'clean up the government' and 'eliminate wasteful spending'. That's a very popular message across all parties, aimed mainly at less informed voters who are manipulated to think that's the problem to get their votes. Politicians LOVE a 'simple issue' that they can say they're in favor of solving - and truth is a pretty optional thing.

Reagan had a waste eliminating commission. Clinton had a waste eliminating commission. Others have had related efforts. Everyone's for 'eliminating waste'.

It's popular among challengers because they can point fingers at the incumbent - you can't accuse the challenger of wasteful spending, he's not in power.

That's what Rossevelt did, politically. He even accused Hoover of leading the nation to socialism, reportedly, which was a 'bad thing' politically despite socialism at peak support.

So, yes, FDR did run more on things like getting rid of wasteful spending, than his actual ambitious programs. FDR insisted the budget could be balanced, and so on.

But that doesn't mean FDR's actual policies were wrong, or that the American people didn't come around to want them (he was elected 4 times, remember).

IMO the dominant issue of the election was to vote against Hoover primarily over the depression, more than to vote for Roosevelt. Not a lot of lessons there.

'Don't have a great depression start during your presidency' is not exactly news.

 

[brycejones]

Hoover lost in 1932 because the economy tanked on his watch and he was slow to react to it.

OP, I really don't even begin to get where you can make the claim that if Al Smith had been elected there would have been no Holocaust care to elaborate more on your reasoning behind this? BTW you can't call it off topic since you brought it up in your OP.

 

[Craig234]

Hoover lost in 1932 because the economy tanked on his watch and he was slow to react to it.

OP, I really don't even begin to get where you can make the claim that if Al Smith had been elected there would have been no Holocaust care to elaborate more on your reasoning behind this? BTW you can't call it off topic since you brought it up in your OP.

He seems to want to say that if the US had allowed unlimited numbers of Jews to emigrate, it would have avoided the holocaust (nevermind WWII).

This is outrageous for many reasons. The biases against Jews, using them as scapegoats, existed regardless. Not all Jews were going to emigrate. And the holocaust hardly limited to Jews. Communists, gays, the handicapped,Gypsies and others were also targets of the Holocaust.

He has a nugget of truth, that the holocaust did start after the rest of the world closed their doors to more Jewish emigration. But that hardly puts the main blame for it on them.

 

[brycejones]

But was there really politically will or public desire for a wide open immigration policy in the 1930s? I just can't see the isolationist legislative branch going for it.

 

[Craig234]

But was there really politically will or public desire for a wide open immigration policy in the 1930s? I just can't see the isolationist legislative branch going for it.

I don't think there ever has been.

In the 1800's people screamed against Chinese and Irish.

 

[alkemyst]

As a whole everyone thought he sucked.

 

[bryanl]

Because he was wrong, and enough voters realized it.

 

[Craig234]

Because he was wrong, and enough voters realized it.

That's not helpful.

Wrong about what? What evidence is there voters 'realizing it' was the reason?

Your statement could be made about every election an incumbent loses - without any information about the actual reasons and issues.

It's right next to 'because he didn't get enough votes' as useful to explain the reason.

 

[Anarchist420]

OP, I really don't even begin to get where you can make the claim that if Al Smith had been elected there would have been no Holocaust care to elaborate more on your reasoning behind this? BTW you can't call it off topic since you brought it up in your OP.

Al Smith would've been kind enough to let the Jewish refugees in.

 

[Craig234]

Al Smith would've been kind enough to let the Jewish refugees in.

You might be right about Smith - I know of no evidence he'd allow unlimited Jewish immigration but he seemed friendlier to it - but that doesn't mean there'd be no holocaust.

The lack of immigration being allowed did seem to help lead to Nazis moving from discrimination and deportation to extermination, but they may well have anyway.

It may be notable if one religious bigotry - US voters against Smith's Catholicism - led to helping another bigotry - Nazi bigotry against Jews.

 

[Brian Stirling]

We don't need revisionist thinking to explain why Hoover lost -- crash of 29 should suffice...


Brian