Using comparative bar charts, I’ve analyzed the economic policies of Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon.
My basic conclusion was that economic policy moved in the right direction under Reagan and Clinton and moved in the wrong direction under Obama, Bush, and Nixon. Though I always included the caveat that I was agnostic about whether the various presidents deserved credit/blame for the changes that happened during their tenure.
Now let’s go back in time and look at the unambiguously awful economic record of Herbert Hoover. I’ve written about Hoover’s statism on several occasions and thought there was no need for an overall assessment since there was near-unanimous agreement that he was a failure (even if some people don’t understand why).
But near-unanimous is not the same as unanimous. And I was horrified to read that David Frum actually thinks Herbert Hoover should be some sort of role model for today’s Republicans. Here are some excerpts from his Atlantic column, which looks at a new biography of Hoover.
Hoover commenced his political life as a progressive-leaning Republican. …progressives like Hoover…accepted some increased government regulation of industry…endorsed heavier taxation of inheritances. …it’s possible to imagine a Hoover presidency that signed into law some kind of Social Security system… Hoover’s old party could learn things from his impressive career of public service. …Hoover’s astounding accomplishments and generous impulses have been effaced by polemical narratives written to serve polemical political purposes. Such distortions are offenses against historical memory.
Before we look at his economic policies, I should acknowledge that Frum makes a compelling argument that Hoover was a fundamentally good person with some impressive achievements both before and after his time in the Oval Office.
But my presidential economic scorecards are very dispassionate. I’m only looking at the changes in economic policy that occurred while a president was in office.
And by that very neutral benchmark, Hoover was terrible. Nothing but bad policy.
I give extra weight to the protectionist Smoot-Hawley legislation, which surely must rank among the worst bills ever enacted. The tax hike in 1932 also gets some extra weight because of the radical increase in marginal tax rates (the top rate was increased from 25 percent to 63 percent!).
By the way, this assessment (like all my previous assessments) only includes policies that were adopted.
If I included policies that should have been adopted (sins of omission rather than sins of commission), Hoover would get severely dinged for his failure to prevent a severe contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve (those interested in such issues should watch this George Selgin video and read this George Selgin article for more information).
And if you want more information on Hoover’s record, I strongly recommend this article by my buddy from grad school, Steve Horwitz.
By the way, the Wikipedia entry on Herbert Hoover is very accurate in noting that he engaged in “large-scale interventions.”
As president from 1929 to 1933, his ambitious programs were overwhelmed by the Great Depression, which seemed to get worse every year despite the increasingly large-scale interventions he made in the economy.
But it is grossly inaccurate because it says that the economy got worse “despite” that intervention rather than “because of” that intervention.
There’s one other blurb that is worth sharing, just in case anyone thinks that I’m unfairly characterizing Hoover as a statist.
FDR aide Rexford Tugwell would claim in a 1974 interview that “practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”
I’ll close by recycling a Center for Freedom and Prosperity video that reviews the anti-market policies of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt.
P.S. I heartily encourage this cartoon for anyone who wants an easy way of understanding public policy and the Great Depression.
P.P.S. Looking at presidents from the 20th century, Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge stand head and shoulders above all the others when looking at economic policy, though I’ve never tried to figure out which one is best. Similarly, I haven’t figured out who deserves the “prize” for being the worst president, but I have decided that Hoover, FDR, Wilson, and Nixon are the Four Horsemen of the Economic Apocalypse.
[…] of pervasive statism by both Herbert Hooverand Franklin Roosevelt, the 1930s were the worst decade in American economic […]
[…] of pervasive statism by both Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, the 1930s were the worst decade in American economic […]
[…] was it Herbert Hoover? How about Lydon Johnson? And let’s not forget Woodrow […]
[…] was it Herbert Hoover? How about Lydon Johnson? And let’s not forget Woodrow […]
[…] protectionism work for Herbert Hoover – or anyone else – in the […]
[…] protectionism work for Herbert Hoover – or anyone else – in the […]
[…] It didn’t work for Hoover. […]
[…] protectionism work for Herbert Hoover – or anyone else – in the […]
[…] Both parties should have learned from Hoover’s horrible mistake. […]
[…] Both parties should have learned from Hoover’s horrible mistake. […]
[…] protectionism work for Herbert Hoover – or anyone else – in the […]
[…] It didn’t work for Hoover. […]
[…] It didn’t work for Hoover. […]
[…] the interview that Keynesian economics has never worked in the real world. It didn’t work for Hoover or FDR. It didn’t work for Japan. It didn’t work for […]
[…] It didn’t work for Hoover. […]
[…] big takeaway is that Hoover and FDR were two peas in a […]
[…] big takeaway is that Hoover and FDR were two peas in a […]
[…] big takeaway is that Hoover and FDR were two peas in a […]
[…] big takeaway is that Hoover and FDR were two peas in a […]
[…] Which is why I hope this meme is the lesson that people remember from the Trump years (also the message we should have learned from the Hoover years). […]
[…] Which is why I hope this meme is the lesson that people remember from the Trump years (also the message we should have learned from the Hoover years). […]
[…] And I’ve previously cited many experts to show that his policies undermined prosperity. Indeed, one of my main complaints is that he doubled down on many of the bad policies adopted by his predecessor, Herbert Hoover. […]
[…] P.S. There is another president that I admire, though the number of good presidents is greatly outnumbered by the motley – and bipartisan – collection of bad presidents. […]
[…] good presidents is greatly outnumbered by the motley – and bipartisan – collection of bad […]
[…] It didn’t work for Hoover. […]
[…] It didn’t work for Hoover. […]
[…] It didn’t work for Hoover. […]
[…] It didn’t work for Hoover. […]
[…] track record of specific presidents. I’ve done that with several past chief executives (Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama), and today we’re going to assess […]
[…] track record of specific presidents. I’ve done that with several past chief executives (Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama), and today we’re going to assess […]
[…] record of specific presidents. I’ve done that with several past chief executives (Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama), and today we’re going to assess […]
[…] Johnson almost certainly ranks as one of America’s worst presidents (along with failures such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Nixon, and […]
[…] Johnson almost certainly ranks as one of America’s worst presidents (along with failures such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Nixon, and […]
[…] Johnson almost certainly ranks as one of America’s worst presidents (along with failures such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Nixon, and […]
[…] Johnson almost certainly ranks as one of America’s worst presidents (along with failures such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Nixon, and […]
[…] almost certainly ranks as one of America’s worst presidents (along with failures such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Nixon, and […]
[…] didn’t work for […]
[…] based on what’s a genuine public good. And for much of America’s history, at least prior to the 1930s, Washington was only a tiny burden because it was only involved in a few areas, such as […]
[…] the wretched track records of Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Nixon, Obama, etc, I’m tempted to say that we’ve been doing that for more than […]
[…] Herbert Hoover […]
[…] And I’ve previously cited many experts to show that his policies undermined prosperity. Indeed, one of my main complaints is that he doubled down on many of the bad policies adopted by his predecessor, Herbert Hoover. […]
[…] No, I’m not talking about Barack Obama or George W. Bush. Or even Herbert Hoover. […]
[…] If you want to see my assessments of American presidents, I’ve looked at Reagan, Clinton, Hoover, Nixon, the second Bush, and […]
[…] the perspective of economic policy, the 1930s was a trainwreck. Hoover imposed terrible policy. Then FDR takes office and does more of the […]
I would think that Harding would rank with Reagan and Coolidge, was he unranked because he only served 2 and 1/2 years?
[…] Yes, sometimes a Republican such as Reagan reduces the burden of government, but plenty of GOPers (Hoover, the first Bush, Nixon) impose lots of […]
[…] the risk of understatement, repeating the policies of Herbert Hoover would be a very bad […]
[…] That’s especially true on the issue of trade. Reagan’s goal was to expand markets. Trump, by contrast, seems inspired by Herbert Hoover. […]
[…] The good news is that Donald Trump is not imitating all of Herbert Hoover’s statist policies. […]
[…] what it’s worth, I think there were lots of other bad policies from Hoover and Roosevelt that caused – and then exacerbated – the economic damage of the 1930s, so […]
[…] wonder if those numbers underestimate the threat given how tit-for-tax protectionism caused much greater levels of damage during the […]
[…] of the decade. And everything went to hell in a hand basket, of course, once Hoover took over and radically expanded the size and scope of […]
Reblogged this on James' Ramblings and commented:
Reblogging for the information.
Suggested change made to Wikipedia entry, it now says: “economy got worse because of that intervention”
Let’s hope it’s allowed to stay…