Hoover and Roosevelt: contrasting presidential responses to economic crisis

President Hoover vs. FDR

The Great Depression of 1929 -- 1933 was the worst economic crisis of the twentieth century. Similar to the crisis of today, it impacted most countries of the globe, and also similar to the crisis of today, its resolution was approached in various methods.

Within the United States of America, the commencement of the crisis was managed by the country's 31st president, Herbert Clark Hoover. His beliefs revolved around the minimal intervention of the state in the affairs of the economy and he maintained this belief even as the crisis commenced to unfold. His approach was one of discussions with the factories and other employers in order to prevent mass downsizing. Also, he strived to develop new programs that would create additional jobs (The Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum).

Nonetheless, at the particular level of the measures to directly aid the population and alleviate the financial burden, President Hoover did little. His approach is highly different from that used by Roosevelt, who focused more on social measures that would reduce the poverty among the population.

"Assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves" (White House).

The measures implemented by Roosevelt were more popular and more welcomed by the population than the measures implemented by Hoover. From this standpoint, it could be argued that Roosevelt restored trust in the American population, which in turn materialized in higher levels of morale, highly needed to overcome the crisis.

Still, the actions of the two presidents are important to assess also outside the emotional dimension. The opinions regarding the two different sets of measures vary. On the one hand, Hoover could be blamed for not directly assisting the population, but could also be praised for not intervening within the economy, but respecting the principles of the free market, as had been promoted by economists throughout the years. On the other hand, Roosevelt could be blamed for intervening too much within the economy and not allowing it to regenerate by itself, while he could also be praised for being pro-active and managing to develop actual measures that helped the population.

Taking one side over the other is quite a difficult task, especially when the problem is so complex as the entire economic stability of a country, or that of more countries. And the same conundrum is obvious today, as specific economic sectors (automobile or banking) and specific countries (Greece) face the risks of demise. What should a good leader do? What should have a good leader done?

A responsible leader would have selected the difficult road to recovery; the road which allowed the economy to revive by itself and to realize and correct its mistakes by itself. The measures would have been unpopular as the population would come to feel the repercussions of their extended and unsubstantiated expenses. Still, this approach would have allowed the population and the economic agents to recognize their mistakes and refrain from making them in the future as well. Still, a question is raised regarding whether or not this lesson would not be learnt at a cost too high.