Thank you so much for your time today!

I ask this with only a relatively basic knowledge of presidential history, but from my understanding, prior to his becoming president, Hoover was specifically known for his ability to organize government and solve crises, specifically poverty and hunger. Yet today, it feels like if he's famous for anything it's for botching his response to the Great Depression. What happened?

To what extent did the Bonus Army fiasco damage Hoover's chances of re-election? Was his fate already sealed before this?

Hi, Dr. Rauchway. Thanks for doing this.

Would you be able to describe the biases in the news media reporting on this debate? Were they generally unbiased, or did they lean towards or against the New Deal? Was the media polarized into pro- and anti-new-deal camps?

I really enjoyed your McKinley book! I must have burned through it in an afternoon.

What do you make of the critiques of the New Deal made by UCLA economists Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian? Over the last 10+ years, they've made several pretty pointed criticisms of tentpole New Deal programs. For those who aren't familiar, their thesis goes something like this:

1. Higher government spending aimed at simulating the economy and more open monetary policies had little, if anything to do with the economic recovery of 1932-1939. Ohanian and Cole argue that the decline in unemployment between 1933 and 1937 was partly the result of greater job-sharing brought about by New Deal legislation like NIRA. But they give most of the credit to higher productivity brought about by factors like new technology, industrial techniques, etc.

2. Certain New Deal programs made the economic recovery slower. Cole and Ohanian argue New Deal labor legislation like the National Industrial Recovery Act and the National Labor Relations Act lead to an economically inefficient bargain. As a result of NIRA, they argue, businesses agreed to pay workers higher wages in exchange for the federal government turning a blind eye to monopolies and trusts. Furthermore, the suggest the NLRA (and the FDR's tolerant attitude towards strikes) lead to a spate of strikes that hurt productivity.

3. Administration tax policies, especially the tax on "undistributed profits" enacted in 1936 as part of the Second New Deal discouraged investment, further slowing the recovery.

The two economists conclude that FDR's policies may have lengthened the Depression by up to seven years and that a nearly complete recovery could have happened as early as 1936 had FDR and his administration acted differently.

They've also suggested FDR eventually realized his administration had seriously erred and reversed course. As evidence, they point to remarks like this 1938 speech role in the creation of monopolies, a pivot to more anti-strike labor policies, and the elimination of taxes like the undistributed profits tax.

Thanks for taking the time to drop by and do an AMA! Can't wait to crack open the book for myself!

Thanks for doing this! I frequently come across New Deal school buildings in my travels and am often curious how many of them came to be. That is, there doesn't appear to be equal distribution of schools across the country and across states and many of the massive, beautiful schools from the era are in fairly rural areas and appear designed for dramatically more students than the region ever had. I'd love to learn more about how they made decisions about where to build schools and how they picked the aesthetics such that one can look at a school in 2020 and know, "That's a WPA school." Thanks!

Why is it that we still debate the actual causes of the Depression? I've read so many differing and opposing ideas, from the Fed's lack of regulation, to banking and business practices; I've even heard some suggest FDR's policies slowed growth more than stimulated it. Is it because there are a multitude of factors involved and we just don't know the extent each contributed, or is it because we really just don't exactly know for certain what caused it? Thanks for the AMA!

Hi Dr. Rauchway,

At the end of the publisher’s blurb it states that the New Deal, “...shaped the divisive politics of the twentieth century. Can you point out some of the glaring consequences (good or bad) that are a direct result of the New Deal?

Is there a good reason why the Depression ended sooner in most other industrialized countries than it did in the US? I've heard it said that the latter part of FDR's policies were disastrous - the 1937 peak was lower than the 1928 peak, and the 1937 was followed by a crash.

Hi, Dr. Rauchway,

1. Is it true that Hoover implemented some aspects of the welfare state that we mistakenly attribute to FDR?

2. Hoover, when he was in charge of the government-run American Relief Administration, gave out hundreds of millions to foreign countries. He was personally very wealthy and generous as well. As President, why did he refuse to give aid to his own citizens?

Hi Eric -

First Lindsay Chervinsky doing an AMA, now you! Undergrad Aggie Americanists must have had a good last few years.

I'm looking forward to reading your book, but I'm most interested in the your analysis of the reaction of Hoover to the utter unraveling of the banking system that took place during that winter. Given your thesis, how much of this was politics on his part versus mere incompetence (and/or paranoia, something that has been vastly understated with him)?

I recall a profeasor of mine speaking of a particular instance of the government bring in a train car full of leaves into towns during the New Deal Era and having men remove the leaves and pay them for it rather than just gifting them sums of money as it would make them feel as if they earned it. Is this true? if so, are there other instances of these kinds of unneeded jobs being performed to financially aid citizens?

Hello!

I know this might be a bit outside your main focus on the topic, but do you know how the Great Depression effected behavior of organized crime outfits in America? More specifically the New York City families.

Did they do anything to aid or exploit people during the economic crisis?

Did they say, for example, use the mass-unemployment to inflate their own membership?

Any information you can give me will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

Hello! Good evening from the UK! Such a pleasure having you come to answer questions. I've heard from a number of people and groups - be it articles or just various individuals expressing an opinion - that the impact of the New Deal, particularly those Keynsian elements that were seen as revolutionary, was over-hyped, and that it was mostly the war that helped. I've especially seen criticism of the basic assumption that spending-centered solutions weren't as effective as thought. Do you have a perspective on this? Thanks for your time!

Did the New Deal create a right wing movement of Christian leaders being anti-government? Or did it amplify voices that already existed?

Early 20th century america had a notable socialist and labor movement, with the Socialist party of America even getting representatives in congress. While reading up on this, I keep seeing references to how FDR's popularity and the New Deal actually weakened support for them, and the the party opposed the New Deal altogether.

Is there any merit to this view? I would think that the Socialist movement in America would have been thrilled with the New Deal and FDR are he expanded social safety nets to americans. One would almost wonder how socialism didnt get a "boost" from the success of those policies.

Why didnt american socialists and the New Deal/FDR mesh together as well as I thought they should have?

Hi Dr. Rauchway, it is from my understanding that Roosevelt was initially a firm believer in maintaining a balanced budget and being fiscally conservative, asserting that Hoover had "the greatest spending Administration in peacetime in all our history".

How much did these beliefs conflict with his New Deal platform of expanding government on both the campaign and during his administration?

Hi Eric! I recently read the book "Freedom's Forge" by Arthur Herman which focuses on American Industrialization and its involvement in WW2. It certainly appears to have a somewhat right-wing perspective in the way it presents FDR in some ways, so I wanted to hear your take on things. Herman said that FDR ran on a platform of doing away with defense companies (or as he referred to it, merchants of death) and had to begrudgingly rebuild them as the war started. He also said that FDR was very focused on unionization of major companies/industries and that it sometimes complicated their ability to succeed when it came to wartime production. Would you agree with that or have an opinion therein?

I've heard people argue (on the internet) that it wasn't the New Deal that got us out of the depression, but rather all the spending for WWII. What are the arguments against that view?

Did Hoover see his attempts to address the problems of the Crash and Depression as laissez-faire? How, in other words, did he arrive at the conclusion that his actions were acceptable given his economic and political stances?

I don't know if personal questions are ok, but I'm gonna try anyway :

What made you interested in that specific period, what drove you to write 2 books on this peculiar subject?

I always like to know the "why?" behind a book

Thank you for the opportunity Dr. Rauchway,

My question is about the political connection between Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. Obviously Teddy had an impact on FDR's development as a politician and there are some ties between the New Deal and the Square Deal. Do you think the New Deal could have happened without the Square Deal before it, and do you think that if the Square Deal had gone as far as Teddy wanted it to that Hoover and FDR would have been operating in fundamentally different ways?

I actually read some of your book last year, for one of my classes at the University of Maryland.

In the introduction, you note that DNC secretary Robert Jackson called Roosevelt's platform "a revolution such as can occur only in a fundamentally democratic form of government," one that would improve the distribution of prosperity without disrupting the machinery of representation and the arrangement of checks and balances that characterized the U.S. Constitution.

My question is how did Roosevelt squared this platform with his willingness to erode the boundaries of federalism and the 10th amendment? Federalism was seen by the founders as a check on the power of the national government; but Roosevelt was willing to get the national government into issues traditionally reserved for the states (agriculture for example).

Although people always talk about Hoover, the Republicans took control of the White House and both houses of Congress in the 1920 election and had control of the entire government when the stock market crashed in 1929. How much did Republican policies contribute to the stock market crash and the subsequent Great Depression?

Was the opposition to the New Deal based on ethical/religious reasons tied to the "protestant work ethic" or political linked to principled opposition to socialism?

Hello! I was wondering if you knew what the average family did to cut costs? What items were reused and how? How did families grow food in their smaller yards since industrialization moved most people from farms to the city? Was it common for chickens to be owned? Did a trade/bartering system used amongst neighbors?

When Henry Rainey became Speaker of the House, he gave FDR a 'carte blanche' to pass all of New Deal laws with practically no changes. Why did he do this? Did the Democratic party really just rubber stamp these new laws with no internal debate?

Furthermore, what was the dynamics within the New Deal Coalition during these first years?

Professor Rauchway, what if anything did Hover do it to help set up the success Roosevelt had helping the US recover from the Great Depression.

Hi Prof. Rauchway, thank you so much for joining us today.

How much did the early years of the Great Depression impact food security in the United States? Was there major concern about the impact of the economic calamity on agricultural output and whether Americans would go hungry? I can only assume that the ecological catastrophe on the Prairies had placed food security concerns front and centre by 1936, but I'd be fascinated to hear how much of a priority food, prices, and shortages were during the political battles of 1932.

Sorry if this question isn't on the nose for this AMA.

For someone like myself who has a cursory knowledge of the New Deal and the Great Depression, what are some good books on these events? I'd like to read Winter War (it seems like an interesting topic) but I'd like to have a good understanding of these events going in.

Hi, I loosely studied the Great Depression and both New Deals over the past two years at Sixth Form in Britain. One of the questions I’ve never been able to find a reliable answer to is the extent of which that the New Deals were genuinely successful in bringing Relief, Reform and Recovery to the economy. I’ve read from critics and supporters of the New Deals that the US involvement in the Second World War was far more influential and successful in fully ending the Great Depression than both New Deals ever were, with some sources I read indicating that FDR’s New Deals did more bad than good. I’ve never had the opportunity to directly ask an accomplished Professor about this theory, that it was the Second World War that really saved the US economy not so much FDR’s New Deals, so I’m really interested in what your opinion is on the theory. Thank you for your time Professor Rauchway.

Hello! I just finished The Money Makers yesterday.

I have a question about Southern Democrats vs Democrats. I believe you mentioned that the Southern Dems were very entrenched in Washington, dominating key committees etc.

Can you talk a little bit more about the differences between the two and tensions in overarching policy aims and expectations between the two?

One thing that glared out at me was the sense that Southern Dems were happier with Depression as long as it meant that racial inequality was maintained. Is this really the case? I have trouble understanding HOW such a state of affairs is preferable? (NB My perspective is that of a Canadian, and in terms of Race, the histories/legacies are v different)