A very good look at the idea of voluntarism vs. the government mandate. The FDR New Dealers did not just come out of nowhere obviously. It was the continuation of the Wilsonian idea of expert technocracy that he learned from Max Weber (who was influenced by many others, but there is no need to turn this into a Biblical genealogy). A great contrast was the Dawes Plan (with Hoover as Commerce Secretary), which used private banks to help post war Europe. Later, after New Deal ideas, the Marshall Plan was simply a direct injection of funds from the government eliminating private banks as a mediator. The American tax payer now became the largest loan underwriter in history...
The incompatibility of this technocracy with our Republican tradition was probably the best argument against New Dealers. Some great results for both sides' arguments. The CCC and WPA produced great things in this country no one would have previously funded. Contrarily, the late 30s economic indicators before World War II were worse after years of New Deal policies versus the initial crash.
The technocracy/rule of experts continued to have successes and failures well past FDR. No one would consider McNamara's war by spreadsheet strategy a winner (yet it has haunted every war since, sadly), but it is doubtful we could have managed as well out of the late 70s "malaise" without Paul Volcker.
The process of the change (government vs. voluntary or technocracy vs. republican) is probably far downstream from the fundamentals of the intent, however. The nation seems to be ripping out what was the "guts" of the founding and the nation's interests while we discuss how we are doing it. Once again, I must shamelessly endorse the need of the historian to provide the "manual" as this work seems to continue with reckless abandon. Only places where historians are unnecessary are Year 0 "republics," and I do not want to live in any of those...
The very first person to receive a benefit check from
Social Security -- (check number 00-000-001).
Ida Mae Fuller (1874-1975) - paid into Social Security a total of $24.75 over three years. On January 31, 1940 Ida Mae started collecting $22.54 per month. She collected $22,888.92. What an investment. Over 100,000% return on investment. Over time, that ROI has retreated until today, it is less than 4% today for most and less than 0% for black folks (according to the Social Security Actuary's report).
Since the original Social Security bill was passed into law, it has changed from a reserved individual fund to a pay as you go scheme. FDR did that in 1937 or so because it would allow the government to pay benefits earlier. However, the ROI was obviously unsustainable and ever since, Social Security has continued to add "participants" so the "pay" part of "pay as you go" can fund the retirees, the disabled, and death benefits and the government could pay higher benefits.
Ronald Reagan is the president who made Social Security benefits taxable. Richard Nixon created the COLA increase in benefits (cost-of-living-adjustment).
As always, very clear and balanced view of our shared history. Thank you! Hoover indeed had put together a unique brain trust to make the average Americans' life better using volunteerism over government agency . It was simply too little too late as the professor stated but he would have been a fine president during the depression had he been more bold early on. FDR had a host of very forward thinking Harvard educated party members that were trained under Felix Frankfurter and embraced Keynesian position of the government's role in promoting consumption. But what FDR had most importantly was a sizable Democratic majority in both the house and senate initially to work with. Let's be honest, he experimented as much as Edison to find things that worked but the nation identified the fact he was doing something.
Correct me if I am wrong, but among presidents of reasonably recent vintage (which I define as alive at some point during my own lifetime) I have understood that Hoover was the greatest apostle of volunteerism. This probably rang quite hollow when he was president, but Hoover walked-the-volunteerism-walk more than any other American president. In terms of sheer energy devoted to it and substantive impact, I'd probably put him ahead of even Jimmy Carter, who in his post-presidency surely has been the most vocal of any *other* president of "reasonably recent vintage." Thoughts?
Hoover was indeed a fan of voluntary action. And he probably would have been a fine president if elected four or eight years earlier. But amid the depression, Americans wanted to see more action in Washington.
Agree. So let me run thus controversial idea by you: Hoover was not unlike Obama - a rational emotionally aloof technocrat. Obama’s good fortune vs Hoover was (1) the people needed much less emotional succor, and (2) Obama faced a much less challenging opponent in his re-election campaign. Romney was the Wilkie of his day. Thoughts?
Any incumbent in 1932 would have faced a hopeless challenge. Obama was a better candidate than Hoover, but his fate would have been the same had he run for reelection in that disastrous year.
A very good look at the idea of voluntarism vs. the government mandate. The FDR New Dealers did not just come out of nowhere obviously. It was the continuation of the Wilsonian idea of expert technocracy that he learned from Max Weber (who was influenced by many others, but there is no need to turn this into a Biblical genealogy). A great contrast was the Dawes Plan (with Hoover as Commerce Secretary), which used private banks to help post war Europe. Later, after New Deal ideas, the Marshall Plan was simply a direct injection of funds from the government eliminating private banks as a mediator. The American tax payer now became the largest loan underwriter in history...
The incompatibility of this technocracy with our Republican tradition was probably the best argument against New Dealers. Some great results for both sides' arguments. The CCC and WPA produced great things in this country no one would have previously funded. Contrarily, the late 30s economic indicators before World War II were worse after years of New Deal policies versus the initial crash.
The technocracy/rule of experts continued to have successes and failures well past FDR. No one would consider McNamara's war by spreadsheet strategy a winner (yet it has haunted every war since, sadly), but it is doubtful we could have managed as well out of the late 70s "malaise" without Paul Volcker.
The process of the change (government vs. voluntary or technocracy vs. republican) is probably far downstream from the fundamentals of the intent, however. The nation seems to be ripping out what was the "guts" of the founding and the nation's interests while we discuss how we are doing it. Once again, I must shamelessly endorse the need of the historian to provide the "manual" as this work seems to continue with reckless abandon. Only places where historians are unnecessary are Year 0 "republics," and I do not want to live in any of those...
The very first person to receive a benefit check from
Social Security -- (check number 00-000-001).
Ida Mae Fuller (1874-1975) - paid into Social Security a total of $24.75 over three years. On January 31, 1940 Ida Mae started collecting $22.54 per month. She collected $22,888.92. What an investment. Over 100,000% return on investment. Over time, that ROI has retreated until today, it is less than 4% today for most and less than 0% for black folks (according to the Social Security Actuary's report).
Since the original Social Security bill was passed into law, it has changed from a reserved individual fund to a pay as you go scheme. FDR did that in 1937 or so because it would allow the government to pay benefits earlier. However, the ROI was obviously unsustainable and ever since, Social Security has continued to add "participants" so the "pay" part of "pay as you go" can fund the retirees, the disabled, and death benefits and the government could pay higher benefits.
Ronald Reagan is the president who made Social Security benefits taxable. Richard Nixon created the COLA increase in benefits (cost-of-living-adjustment).
Another great post, Professor Brands. Thank you.
As always, very clear and balanced view of our shared history. Thank you! Hoover indeed had put together a unique brain trust to make the average Americans' life better using volunteerism over government agency . It was simply too little too late as the professor stated but he would have been a fine president during the depression had he been more bold early on. FDR had a host of very forward thinking Harvard educated party members that were trained under Felix Frankfurter and embraced Keynesian position of the government's role in promoting consumption. But what FDR had most importantly was a sizable Democratic majority in both the house and senate initially to work with. Let's be honest, he experimented as much as Edison to find things that worked but the nation identified the fact he was doing something.
Correct me if I am wrong, but among presidents of reasonably recent vintage (which I define as alive at some point during my own lifetime) I have understood that Hoover was the greatest apostle of volunteerism. This probably rang quite hollow when he was president, but Hoover walked-the-volunteerism-walk more than any other American president. In terms of sheer energy devoted to it and substantive impact, I'd probably put him ahead of even Jimmy Carter, who in his post-presidency surely has been the most vocal of any *other* president of "reasonably recent vintage." Thoughts?
Hoover was indeed a fan of voluntary action. And he probably would have been a fine president if elected four or eight years earlier. But amid the depression, Americans wanted to see more action in Washington.
Agree. So let me run thus controversial idea by you: Hoover was not unlike Obama - a rational emotionally aloof technocrat. Obama’s good fortune vs Hoover was (1) the people needed much less emotional succor, and (2) Obama faced a much less challenging opponent in his re-election campaign. Romney was the Wilkie of his day. Thoughts?
Any incumbent in 1932 would have faced a hopeless challenge. Obama was a better candidate than Hoover, but his fate would have been the same had he run for reelection in that disastrous year.