Jon Johanning wrote:
>I suppose this is entirely too much wishful thinking, but this kind
>of argument reminds me that FDR was roundly condemned by
>progressives in 1932 for being a stupid rich guy, really no
>different from Hoover. That is, sometimes candidates, once they are
>elected, turn out a little different from what they appeared as
>during the campaign
Roosevelt is certainly an excellent representative of the truth that politician's campaign promises are worth about as much as Argentinian pesos. Roosevelt campaigned on a platform of lasseiz-faire economics!
"The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies and reforms herein advocated and to eradicate the political methods and practices herein condemned….
"We advocate immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 per cent in the cost of the Federal Government….
"We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Federal estimate within revenue….
"We promise the removal of Government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and national resources in the common interest….
"We condemn the open and covert resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by congressional committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of Government and improvident subsidies granted to private interests….
"We favor unemployment and old age insurance under State laws….
"We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator of farm products, and unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demand of domestic markets."…
Platforms are often inconsistent with political rhetoric, but in this case he did actually campaign on lasseiz-faire principles. I don't have a good source for this except a quick google search for someone claiming to be a professor named Lawrence Reed at the Universidad Autónoma de Centro América, which may or may not exist. http://www.uaca.ac.cr/acta/1998nov/lreed.htm#[4] He cites a 1982 Time magazine article: "During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions of people on the dole. He accused the president of "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible", and of presiding over "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history". Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was "leading the country down the path of socialism". "FDR’s Disputed Legacy", Time, February 1, 1982, p. 23.
Roosevelt didn't engage in the massive government spending programs he's famous for at first but he DID basically continue Hoover style interventionist policies with farm subsidies and such but he placed a priority on balancing the budget...not until the LATE thirties off the top of my head did Keynes get his ear
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040304/18e47d36/attachment.htm>