June 9, 2004
A LESS CLOSE CALL THAN THAT EVEN:
The 20th Century's Greatest President (Rich Karlgaard, 06.07.04, Forbes)
Four and a half years ago, reviewing Edmund Morris' much-maligned Reagan biography, Dutch, I ended the piece by saying Ronald Reagan was the greatest U.S. president of the 20th century.Well, who else?
Franklin Roosevelt is the only contender. But FDR worsened the financial collapse he inherited from Hoover by raising taxes, pursuing a tight money policy and failing to rescind the Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs. It took Reagan, with help from Paul Volcker, less than three years to get the economy booming after the Carter-era malaise. FDR deserves hero status for helping to save the world in the 1940s. Let us not forget that victory cost 250,000 American lives. Yet without a shot, Reagan won the 20th century's other great fight against tyranny. In so doing, he liberated hundreds of millions of people.
FDR deserves even less credit than that, having preserved the Bolshevik regime so that we had to deal with it later. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 9, 2004 8:05 AM
FDR deserves hero status for helping to save the world in the 1940s.
My, but that's generous.
To be sure, a very minor footnote.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 9, 2004 8:37 AMVery minor, since it was essentially only half of France and half of Germany that was "saved" and neither turned out worth the effort. We left the good peoples in Soviet thralldom.
Posted by: oj at June 9, 2004 9:26 AMHey, what about the Low Countries and Scandinavia ?
They got saved too, and have contributed quite a bit to the West since.
About this, though:
"FDR worsened the financial collapse he inherited from Hoover by raising taxes, pursuing a tight money policy and failing to rescind the Smoot-Hawley trade tariffs. It took Reagan, with help from Paul Volcker, less than three years to get the economy booming after the Carter-era malaise."
As oj was saying yesterday, the 70s and early 80s were tough, but not anywhere near Great Depression suffering. Further, Reagan and Volcker knew some things not to do because they had FDR's example to go by.
So, Reagan and FDR's economic performances cannot be directly compared.
It's like comparing Barry Bonds to Babe Ruth.
One gobbles steroids, the other hot dogs.
Michael-
140 years of classical economics along with the development of applied classical liberalism was pretty much thrown out the window by FDR and his advisors. Reagan and Volker did not need to look at FDR's foolishness to avoid his mistakes.
Posted by: Tom Corcoran at June 10, 2004 9:43 AMSo what caused the Depression?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 10, 2004 2:56 PMVersailles.
Posted by: oj at June 10, 2004 4:39 PMTom Corcoran:
You seem to view economics as a hard science, where one finding or discovery leads inevitably to another.
It isn't.
It can be studied scientifically, but it cannot be applied in the same manner.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at June 10, 2004 11:43 PM