U.S. presidential election, 1936

[A18]

No hindsight.

The election of 1936 pitted Democratic incumbent Franklin Roosevelt against Alf Landon of the Republican Party.

The New Deal dominated the campaign. Democrats praised it, and Republicans condemned it.

Landon himself supported much of the New Deal, and focused his criticism on waste, inefficiency, and an anti-business philosophy, which he claimed were impeding recovery. In his last campaign tour, however, he blasted Roosevelt for violating the Constitution and declared the election a struggle to save the American form of government. This sudden attack on New Deal programs themselves likely blurred his image among voters, and weakened his credibility.

Roosevelt asserted that it was his programs that saved the American institutions of private property and free enterprise, rescuing them from the disastrous Hoover administration. He won the endorsement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, signifying a decisive shift of the black vote from the Republican column to that of the Democrats.

The Republican platform proposed that federal recovery programs be turned over to the states, and called for a balanced budget. The Democratic platform mostly just praised the New Deal.

[Emsworth]

Roosevelt was a tyrant who worsened the Great Depression, who had very little respect for personal property and for private liberty, and who had even less respect for the Constitution.

Landon is infinitely preferable to the worst President in American history.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Roosevelt was a tyrant who worsened the Great Depression, who had very little respect for personal property and for private liberty, and who had even less respect for the Constitution.

Landon is infinitely preferable to the worst President in American history.

So you support millions of people starving?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

FDR o/c

[Emsworth]

So you support millions of people starving?

Rather than responding to this loaded question, I will frame another one: did the New Deal end the Depression?

The answer here must be a definitive no. The New Deal did not end the Depression, or even alleviate it; the very opposite was the case. As a result of Roosevelt's policies, the United States slipped deeper into the canyon of economic disaster. Roosevelt's tampering was surely responsible for the Depression of 1938. The Depression did not end until the United States returned to free market activity after the Second World War.

The extent of Roosevelt's economic totalitarianism was shocking. In particular, FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act was one of the worst laws ever passed. Under that law, a forty-nine year old dry cleaner was fined $100 dollars and spent three months in jail for charging 35 cents to press a pair of pants, instead of the federally mandated 40 cents. The extent of governmental control over the economy was undoubtedly chilling.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So you support millions of people starving?

Rather than responding to this loaded question, I will frame another one: did the New Deal end the Depression?

The answer here must be a definitive no. The New Deal did not end the Depression, or even alleviate it; the very opposite was the case. As a result of Roosevelt's policies, the United States slipped deeper into the canyon of economic disaster. Roosevelt's tampering was surely responsible for the Depression of 1938. The Depression did not end until the United States returned to free market activity after the Second World War.

The extent of Roosevelt's economic totalitarianism was shocking. In particular, FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act was one of the worst laws ever passed. Under that law, a forty-nine year old dry cleaner was fined $100 dollars and spent three months in jail for charging 35 cents to press a pair of pants, instead of the federally mandated 40 cents. The extent of governmental control over the economy was undoubtedly chilling.

So how do you explain that the number of jobs in America increased over 60% under the FDR adminstration?

[Emsworth]

So how do you explain that the number of jobs in America increased over 60% under the FDR adminstration?

Obviously, the government was hiring more people. When, for example, the United States had to establish a large army to fight World War II, a lot of people got new jobs in the military.

But living standards remained low until the post-war return to free market activity.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So how do you explain that the number of jobs in America increased over 60% under the FDR adminstration?

Obviously, the government was hiring more people. When, for example, the United States had to establish a large army to fight World War II, a lot of people got new jobs in the military.

But living standards remained low until the post-war return to free market activity.

The relevant point is that the country was much better off in 1945 than 1933.

[A18]

So how do you explain that the number of jobs in America increased over 60% under the FDR adminstration?

Obviously, the government was hiring more people. When, for example, the United States had to establish a large army to fight World War II, a lot of people got new jobs in the military.

But living standards remained low until the post-war return to free market activity.

The relevant point is that the country was much better off in 1945 than 1933.

Correct. FDR died in 1945, whereas he took office in 1933.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So how do you explain that the number of jobs in America increased over 60% under the FDR adminstration?

Obviously, the government was hiring more people. When, for example, the United States had to establish a large army to fight World War II, a lot of people got new jobs in the military.

But living standards remained low until the post-war return to free market activity.

The relevant point is that the country was much better off in 1945 than 1933.

Correct. FDR died in 1945, whereas he took office in 1933.

Like anyone back in 1933 knew he'd get 4 terms.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Landon, but I'm not an FDR-hater either.

[jokerman]

FDR

[Sarnstrom]

FDR (Normal)

[opebo]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of course.  And I'll wager that about 90% of the FDR haters on here owe their economic well being to him, if you trace their working-class family trees.

[Democratic Hawk]

FDR, I'd have voted Democrat just for a change . Ha!

Dave

[MasterJedi]

With no hindsight I'd vote for FDR.

[PBrunsel]

William Lempke, Union. The only real anti-New Deal Choice.

[The Duke]

I voted FDR, but Emsworth switched me over to Landon with his thing on the National Recovery Act.  That was incredible.

[A18]

I could have sworn I posted that, like, five times before.

[Virginian87]

Easy choice.  Franklin Roosevelt.

[The Duke]

I could have sworn I posted that, like, five times before.

You probably have and I'd just forgotten about it.

[Emsworth]

I recall doing a mock election for 1964 on this forum.  Would anyone be interested in repeating the same idea for 1936? Or any other year, for that matter?

[A18]

I recall doing a mock election for 1964 on this forum.  Would anyone be interested in repeating the same idea for 1936? Or any other year, for that matter?

We had an official mock election for 2004, on the site. It worked a lot better, and got way more votes.

Maybe we could get Dave to do a retro mock election?

[Schmitz in 1972]

William Lempke, Union. The only real anti-New Deal Choice.

As an aside, he was the only North Dakotan in American history to receive a fair number of votes for president (unless you count Teddy Roosevelt). I doubt I would vote for him though, as I would have been suspicious of any party that had wanted to nominate Huey P Long.

So I would almost certainly have voted for Landon

[Speed of Sound]

FDR/FDR easily and every time