The Roosevelt Legend

In Bulton W. Folsom Jr.’s 2008 book New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America he lists the four points of FDR’s legend:

1. The 1920’s were an economic disaster;
2. The New Deal programs were a corrective to the 1920s, and a step in the right direction;
3. Roosevelt (and the New Deal) were very popular;
4. Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader.

All (except maybe the third point) are bogus.

First, the 1920’s weren’t an economic disaster. Ever heard of the Roaring 20s? The automobile, movie, radio, and chemical industries skyrocketed during the 1920s. Okay, in the beginning of 20’s, the national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% and runaway inflation. President Harding signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 and the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922. He proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding did not live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years. And who was Harding’s predecessor in those early 20s you might ask? Progressive Woodrow Wilson that’s who. So, why do progressive historians believe the first point? Because they say workers back then didn’t have purchasing power. That they saved too much. In other words, it’s those mean-evil businesses oppressing its workers. The same old same old.

Second, The New Deal weren’t corrective and a step in the right direction. According to the New Deal book, the National Recovery Act damaged American businesses by allowing industrialists to collaborate to set the prices of their products, and even the wages and hours that went into making them. In other words, no free-market. So, much for the Left being for the little guy.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act paid farmers not to produce on part of their land. Then, farm prices would be pegged to the purchasing power of farm prices in 1910; finally, millers and processors would pay for much of the cost of the program. What’s more, power would be centralized through the secretary of agriculture, who would set the processing taxes, target the price of many commodities, and tell farmers how much land to remove. A step in the wrong direction it sounds like to me. Another example of gov’t thinks it knows best.

Was FDR popular with the people? Sort of. He was charismatic and charming. People liked his fireside chats. The press put a positive spin on him and his New Deal programs. And oh, yea. The public could drink liquor legally again.

Finally, Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader. Let’s look at that opinion more closely. Putting aside the administrator part (which what is really important to the Left) let’s talk about his “moral” leadership. He bragged (actually lied) to a group of farmers that he wrote the constitution of Haiti and actually ran the country. He not only said this once but multiple times in speeches. FDR used patronage to command the loyalty of Democrat congressmen for his more controversial New Deal programs. He lied about cutting expenses and balancing the budget when he ran for president. 

As for being a good administrator—you make the call. Roosevelt used a "competitive administration" strategy to maximize presidential power at the cost of confusion, delay and inefficiency. He made sure in each policy area that several top officials had overlapping jurisdictions. They would feud and have to bring the problem to FDR, who wanted to make every final decision. For example, in the case of the PWA relief program, the competition over the size of expenditure, the selection of the administrator, and the appointment of staff at the state level, led to delays and to the ultimate weakness of PWA as a recovery instrument. Well, I guess if your definition of a good administrator is “ maximizing power no matter what the costs are” then by that definition FDR was a good administrator.