Compare And Contrast Fdr And Hoover

1885 Words8 Pages

During the Great Depression there was great skepticism of the role that the government should play in the economy. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were two political leaders, among many, who went head to head in trying to justify their opinions related to government involvement economically. Hoover critiqued Roosevelt’s push towards a more positive government because he believed that freedom could only be accomplished with less government intervention—less rules—but what he failed to see was that the government was not limiting peoples freedom, it was protecting it. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights aimed for a new foundation of security and equality that could be achieved despite someone’s race or class. …show more content…

He wanted people to recover their lost confidence through individualism. He didn’t provide any direct relief. Hoover relied on businesses to sustain employment and investment. Later he realized that there hadn’t been any improvement in the economy and signed bills that provided employment through public works projects. Roosevelt on the other hand, called for individual liberty through an involved government. He created the New Deal. Roosevelt offered short term aid for the unemployed. Some examples of this are the Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided jobs for men between the ages of 18 and 25 and the Civil Works Administration which employed people to construct tunnels, airports, and highways. Roosevelt also encouraged industrial recovery. The National Industrial Recovery Act established standards for prices, production, and working conditions. The New Deal also attempted to deal with the dilemma of American farmers. The Agricultural Adjustment Act increased commodity prices by paying farmers to not plant more. The AAA drastically raised income and farm prices. Hoover wanted big businesses to take over and sees the government as the looter of individualism. Roosevelt wanted the government to help provide people with resources to help them reach their full potential and he sees the government as the protector of …show more content…

Lippmann criticizes Kennan when he says, “Mr. X offers us the prospect of maintaining such a coalition indefinite until—eventually—the Soviet power breaks up or mellows because it has been frustrated. It is not a good prospect” (224). Lippmann thinks that it is necessary for the US to intervene or else the Soviet Union’s power will spread. However, Lippmann dislikes the idea of waiting for the Soviet power to diminish. Lippmann emphasizes that Kennan’s plan is too hopeful; Kennan’s proposal calls for the US to have tremendous economic power, the strength to restrain the Soviet Union wherever it intruded, and the patience to wait for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Kennan’s proposal would allow the Soviet Union to have the advantage. Lippmann stresses the idea of the Soviets having the ability to produce conflict in locations close to their borders, where they can defend easily and are stronger, and would lead the US into disaster because of the many demands that the American forces would have to deal with when he says, “The Russians can defeat us by disorganizing states… puppet governments are not good material out of which to construct unassailable barriers… frequently they will act for their own reasons” (224). Lippmann goes on to emphasize that because of the insufficient military force the US will have to engage with and manage

Open Document