Herbert Hoover: Good or Bad?

First published in June 2013


Quite by accident recently I came across a question posed on "Answerbag," about whether Herbert Hoover was a good or a bad man. "Answerbag" is an Internet site (Answerbag.com) where you can ask a question and other "members'' can provide their own answers. While I was not a member, I quickly joined to answer this particular question, although I'm sure there are other topics I may explore there too. This is the answer I gave, although I've added a little more here, as I've had time to think this over and I realized that I'd left out a thing or two. Here is what I posted on Answerbag.com with the few additions:

Herbert Hoover is one of my historical interests, so this is from memory, so bear that in mind, but I'd say I'm accurate on the actual historical element, but of course, the rest is my opinion. Herbert Hoover was something of the epitome of the American rags to riches story. He was orphaned at a young age, but went on to graduate from Stanford University and go on to a successful career in mining engineering. It's important to remember, you can't judge people from those times by today's standards and really be fair about it. He was a millionaire by the time he was in his 30s, then turning to public service to "give back" for his good fortune (he was a Quaker). 

While he certainly paid attention to politics, he didn't make his political affiliation public until much later, although he supported Teddy Roosevelt's run as the Progressive Bull Moose Party candidate in 1912. He then served in Woodrow Wilson's administration, so many people assumed he was a Democrat. As others here noted (there were other responses to the question), he helped feed many Europeans during and after World War One, and he was seen by many as an international hero. For the 1920 election Hoover publicly declared himself a Republican and made a lukewarm try for the nomination. When Harding won the election, Hoover joined his administration as Secretary of Commerce, and he continued in that position when Coolidge replaced Harding, who had died in office. Coolidge then won a term in his own right. Earlier Hoover had toyed with the idea of deficit spending and public works' jobs during economic downturns, actually somewhat in advance of John Maynard Keynes, and he influenced Harding to dip his toes in the water over public jobs during a sharp downturn early in Harding's term. While innovative, historians/economists have generally felt the minimal use of the idea at that time was not enough to really say how much it helped the economy. While this idea and Hoover's support of Teddy Roosevelt and his service to Wilson put him on the progressive side of the GOP (there was such in those times), this turned out to be somewhat misleading later on. 

While the 1920s were called "the Roaring 20s," there were serious economic issues underlying the economy, especially in agriculture (which affected the banking system). When Coolidge chose not to run in 1928, Hoover made the move, got the nomination and won a pretty convincing election victory. You must remember, Hoover had NEVER before held political office; that is, an office he had to win by facing voters. This proved one of his undoings as president, as he hadn't learned the give and take of politics by coming up through the system. He was not a strong political party man, and this too proved to be a problem for him as president, as he encountered one problem after the other with his own Republican members of Congress.  Further, Hoover had largely been praised by the Press in his life, but as president, when the Press criticized him, his thin skinned nature didn't play well.

While intensely shy, he did have a substantial ego with the need to achieve. When the economy began its implosion Hoover took action almost immediately, but it was not the right action, mainly because he and others misjudged the potential severity of the downturn (again, remember, economists today often can't get it right, and that's with all sorts of computers and info gathering, and such stats were much more limited in 1929). It seems Hoover thought the downturn would be much like the downturn early in Harding's term, and he met with business and labor leaders within weeks of the "crash" to get commitments from businessmen that they would maintain production and wages to keep purchasing power up to ride out the downturn, but this was all "voluntary." He asked that labor withdraw any demands for wage increases and to agree to not go out on strike. In an economy on the cusp of expansion, Hoover's plan likely would have worked, but in an economy already with building inventories, along with farming and banking problems, it was the wrong medicine, and businesses, in spite of any voluntary promises, began to layoff workers, close plants and cut production. If you can't sell your inventory of products, you don't want to produce more to add to that inventory build up. Down went the economy.

He had troubles with Congress, often with his own party members, especially progressives who wanted the government to get involved in electric power production (back then, there were many parts of the country without electricity). This is where Hoover's actual philosophy began to come into play. He was progressive, but only so far, and by his own terms. He felt private business should provide electric power and that government should not compete in any way with private power companies. Some strong progressive members of his party actually began to hate him, made worse by his initial opposition to provide direct aid to unemployed and poor Americans; a job he saw as belonging to private charities and the states (which was traditionally true). His lack of political and press savvy had him announce that no one was actually starving, a pronouncement which only invited the press and opponents to produce individuals and families in dire need, as the charities and states became overwhelmed by the mounting unemployment. He finally signed legislation for aid (mid 1932), but by then his opposition to such was framed in the public mind, gleefully reinforced by his political opponents, and he received no credit for it. (Just to be clear, he had first vetoed similar legislation a bit earlier.)

He tried other things, most notably the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (better known by its initials "RFC"), which was used to make direct loans to banks, states and businesses, thus taking Uncle Sam into the economy, but generally Hoover was reluctant to use federal power to try to halt the sliding economy. He did make appeals to Americans to contribute to charities, and interestingly, in 1932 (I believe it was), with unemployment around 20%, and with millions more cut to part time work, giving to charity set a record, but Hoover's idealism and charitable giving was not enough to offset the terrible despair and growing poverty. If I remember right, Hoover also gave away much of his fortune to aid others during that time, but he kept the info away from the public (I told you he wasn't a politician), his Quaker beliefs being that you're supposed to help your fellow humans because they're you're fellow humans, not to get credit for it. Further, he did not accept his presidential salary.

As someone or others noted above (again, there were previous other comments), many of his ideas were later taken by FDR, tweaked or expanded, and claimed as part of the overall New Deal. Hoover had even toyed with a type of "social security" program (some of the details of which escape me at the moment), but again, he was always hesitant to use government power. You have to remember, in those times Americans had been brought up to take care of themselves, and any charity from others was only intended to be temporary, and certainly not provided by government. This all went back to colonial times and then the founding of the country, as people came here from elsewhere and struggled to survive, often moving westward in wagons to make a life for themselves, essentially without help from government. While some of these folks touted their self reliance, those who hadn't survived weren't around to tell us the other side of the story or to make a case for how government could have helped, if at all. Small farms were in the millions in those times, but the agricultural crisis of the 1920s had driven many workers off of farms and into cities, especially industrial cities for work. When plants closed and workers lost their jobs, attitudes toward government help and intervention into the economy began to change.
 
 Hoover was not a bad man, and he struggled with the worst economic downturn in the nation's history, although perhaps too mindful of setting precedents, a feature that didn't bother his successor, FDR, in the least. Part of his mindfulness of precedents was the question of how much federal power should be used or increased, a question that's always been a part of this country. It is also important to remember, he was much more activist than the public understood back then, but part of that was because his programs were too limited or didn't work, and that's what matters. As noted above, he was certainly despised and outright hated by some Americans, but he still chose to serve his country later under Harry Truman and then Dwight Eisenhower. My fascination with Hoover began when I was still pretty young, because when I was growing up in the 1950s/1960s, Hoover's very name could still draw polarized comments, but with a definite edge to the negative side. The Great Depression was so traumatizing to many people that their lives were there ever after affected. When I was in high school economics, the teacher had everyone pitch in a quarter or some such amount to buy one share of stock, which the class would then follow in the stock reports for the term. My mother had such awful recollections of the "crash," that she thought if we put a quarter in, we might lose everything over this one share of stock. While obviously she didn't understand the market, that's how strong such things affected people from the Depression generation. 

Hoover was criticized by conservatives for raising taxes and intervening in the economy (if I remember right, the term "socialist" was tossed around about him, even by some Democrats), and criticized by progressives for not doing anything or not doing enough. The thing was, after trying certain programs to halt the economic slide, Hoover sort of returned to the truly traditional conservative plan of attack on an economic downturn; balance the budget and wait. The federal budget was badly out of balance and that's why he raised taxes across the board in 1932, but much more so on the wealthy and on corporations. He also had the estate tax raised significantly (hm, I wonder if Hoover was ever called "a traitor to his class?"). While Hoover's attempts to rein in the wealthy and corporations was admirable, an across the board tax increase at that time was unwise, although the estate tax increase likely didn't hurt the economy at all. Hoover's philosophy was that huge wealth should not be able to be passed on virtually intact, a sentiment with which I totally agree. So all in all Hoover was progressive, but only so far, and he was conservative, but only so far. He had been a businessman and he had always maintained ties to business, including big business, but during his humanitarian times early in World War One and then again after the war, this was always below the surface, and in fact, he did get business people to help in good causes, but these ties were never really given much scrutiny by progressives. As Secretary of Commerce in the Harding and Coolidge administrations, Hoover naturally had much contact and connection to business, as that went with the job, but again, progressives didn't make the connection, for one reason, because Hoover criticized the stock market speculation of the late 1920s, a position very much disliked by Wall Street, but loved by progressives. When Hoover was under fire for the continuing economic slump, progressives then began to tie Hoover to big business, as he did seek help for business, but shunned direct federal aid to unemployed workers, fearing they would become dependent. He seemingly had no such qualms about business people. Not only that, but the logic just failed the test, as what he was saying was that accepting federal aid would make a person dependent and dispirited, but accepting such aid from a state or local government, or from the Red Cross, would have no such affect upon people. His earlier humanitarian efforts in Europe after World War One included feeding people in war torn Russia, which had undergone revolution and civil war. Hoover's refusal to give direct aid for Americans in need during the Great Depression brought many to recall that he helped "Bolsheviks," but that he wouldn't do the same for his own people. 
     
Unlike his successor, Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of his from the time they served together in Woodrow Wilson's administration, Hoover was not jovial and "public friendly," but rather very shy, reserved and strait-laced. Whether he was temperamentally suited to the presidency has been debated over the years, but his disposition couldn't have been worse than his predecessor Calvin Coolidge, who was often a pickle puss if there ever was one.       

WORD HISTORY:
Seldom-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain and it "seems" to only be in the Germanic languages, and Old Germanic had "seldan," which meant "strange, rare, out of the ordinary." This gave Old English "seldan," which also meant "rare," which produced "seldum," which then became "seldom." The other Germanic languages have: German "selten," some Low German dialects have "selde" (others now just use a form of "rare"), Dutch "zelden, West Frisian "seldsum," Norwegian "sjeldan/sjelden," Danish "sjaelden," Swedish "sällan," and Icelandic "sjaldan."