Ed Weick wrote:
[snip]
> But my point is that both FDR and Hoover came out of
> a similar philosophical milieu. Neither were in any sense fascists. Where
> they differed was in the degree to which they were willing to try new
> approaches to solve large-scale economic problems. In this regard, FDR was a
> thoroughly up-to-date man, whereas Hoover was still stuck on the
> laissez-faire economics of the 19th Century. You couldn't really blame poor
> Hoover, because all of his exposure was to old ideas, not new ones. In terms
> of old ideas, by doing nothing, he was doing everything right. By the time
> FDR came along, Keynesian ideas were already having an impact even though
> the General Theory was not published until he had been President for some
> three years.
[snip]
I acknowledge I cannot defend the arguments, since I am not
privileged to spend my days doing real research (as opposed to
what computer companies sometimes label with that word...).
But I want to make sure the two theses I put forward are
clearly heard:
(1) At the time FDR proposed the NRA, it was seen by some of
his contemporaries as a step toward the same kind of
social organization as was called "fascist" in Europe.
If one prefers "corporate state", that would probably be a
less "inflammatory" name for it, but it amounts to the
same thing: total organization of society from above
(for perhaps quite genuinely beneficent purposes).
(2) Herbert Hoover was not a victim of old ideas. He
fed Europe after WWI [sorry, I forget the name of that
US government program which, as I said, may have helped
prevent communist revolutions in Germany etc.]. He was
an *engineer*. He was a very modern man who chose
not to apply to USA in 1929 measures analogous to those
which he himself implemented in Europe at the end of WWI.
Hoover had the ability to implement a New Deal, but
he chose not to, apparently because he was afraid that
the cure would permanently cripple the patient (i.e., the spirit of
America).
Since our understanding of the world is constrained less
by the answers we get to the questions we ask, than by the
relative poverty or richness of the questions themselves,
I would argue that even if my theses are not
correct in part of whole, they may help us better see
what was going on then, and, mutatis mutandis, what is going
on now.
"Yours in discourse..."
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
