Has the Presidency really evolved over the past 70 years? In a June 2008 article for the Center for American Progress, author David Madland compares the disastrous presidencies of Herbert Hover and George W. Bush. Although Madland admits that the comparison might be a little premature, with the recent collapse of our nations housing market, the assessment has become increasingly accurate. Both entered office with a booming economy and believed that deregulation in the private sector would encourage the market to fix itself in a crisis. While the GDP has increased roughly 2.9 percent these past 7 years, unlike under the Hoover administration, housing foreclosures are higher under Bush than Hoover. As our nation enters arguably its second Depression due to the Hoover/Bush ideology, the current election is looking more and more like 1932.
The election of 1932 put conservative incumbent Herbert Hoover against the liberal leaning Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Democrats had recently gained control of Congress in the 1930 election (like in 2006) and the nation was still in the midst of a recession triggered by the 1929 stock market-crash (which many historians attribute to the deregulation of business in the 1920s).
McCain, like Bush, also mirrors Hoover in several economic principals. Hoover was a firm believer that “rugged individualism” would prevail as it was a staple of the American character. McCain, likewise, has always voted for deregulation of government control in the private sector. He also believes that the fundamentals of our economy are strong and in July his economic advisor touted that America was facing a “mental recession” and stated we have become a “nation of whiners.”
Obama and FDR also share surprising similarities. Like Obama, Roosevelt was an effective communicator and idealist with a strong message of change. Both believe that the government should help the individual in times of an economic crisis and share a concern with helping the poor, which Obama illustrates in his tax plan which would give larger refunds to those in lower economic breakdowns. In addition, both believed in expanding social programs with Roosevelt helping to form Social Security and Obama working towards a universal healthcare program. Roosevelt also had stronger support from the media (as does Obama) but it was mostly due to his close relationship with New York publisher William Randolph Hearst.
In addition to the candidates, the campaigns also depict similarities. Hoover’s main attack was to portray FDR as a radical that would raise takes and increase the federal debt to pay for social programs. Sound familiar? His campaign slogan read “Play it safe, vote for Hoover” and frequently ensured voters that the worst was over. But during a time when roughly 30 percent of the nation was unemployed, the message didn’t stick. FDR, in turn, argued that it was these faulty economic policies that continued the country into a deeper depression. Obama uses the same tactic suggesting that a McCain presidency would basically be a third term for Bush.
An analysis of the Presidency and elections shows a clear cause and effect. What we dislike about one President, we vote the opposite in the following election. Hoover’s conservative hands-off approach lead to a dominant victory for FDR and paved the way for a bigger government and countless social programs. Similarly, Clinton’s Oval Office blow job lead us to question our morals and elect a right-wing Christian who speaks directly to a higher power before engaging war.
Hopefully the trend continues, and in 70 more years historians will be noting that without a President Bush we would not have had a President Obama.
