The Forgotten Man
posted by Gerard Magliocca
A book that is getting a lot of attention these days is “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression” by Amity Shlaes. Shlaes argues that FDR’s policies prolonged the economic downtown (or at least did not help). Now that we are in another severe recession, her book is being invoked by those who oppose to President Obama’s interventionist measures (such as economic stimulus) as evidence that the New Deal was a failure.
Let’s assume for purposes of discussion that Shlaes is right about the economics. Is that the end of the matter? I don’t think so. The next question is whether activist government was necessary to prevent something worse from happening. I’m not talking about a dictatorship. I’m simply referring to a political movement in favor of even more interventionist or redistributive policies that would have gained traction because the government was not doing enough.
The problem is that there is a forgotten man in “The Forgotten Man” — Huey P. Long. “The Kingfish” of Louisiana became a national figure in 1934 and 1935 with his “Share Our Wealth” movement, which was the organization that he intended to use for a presidential bid in 1936. (Long was assassinated in late 1935). Among other things, he wanted to establish a personal income cap through massive wealth and income taxes to pay for public works and subsidies for the poor. FDR told his aides that he “needed to steal Long’s thunder” in 1935, which led to the proposal of Social Security and a much more modest wealth tax. (FDR was also responding to other protest movements — Father Coughlin and Dr. Francis Townsend come to mind).
Shlaes dismisses the argument that FDR’s policies were worthwhile because they prevented these folks from gaining support. She claims (without much evidence) that Americans were too conservative to be swayed by people like Huey Long. I disagree. If you are interested in reading more about Long and his impact on New Deal constitutionalism (both in life and because of his unexpected death), check out my article on “Huey P. Long and the Guarantee Clause”, which came out in Tulane last Fall.
April 22, 2009 at 8:30 am
Posted in: History of Law
Print This Post
Responses (4)
Nate Oman - April 22, 2009 at 10:29 am
I agree with you that Shlaes downplays the potential nastiness of folks like Long and Father Coughlin, although I agree with her assessment as to the economic impact of the New Deal, particularlly the National Recovery Adminstration which was a disaster. If you are interested in a treatment of the period that spends a lot of time mucking around with public opinion data, election results, and the like I suggest Michael Barone’s _Our Country_.
Thomas - April 22, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Why is your question the right next question? It seems to me that, to the extent we’re drawing lessons, we might ask, as the next question, what policies would have worked, and why weren’t they pursued? Because what we want now, it seems to me, is to actually make the right policy choices, not come up with a defense of the wrong ones.
Joseph Slater - April 22, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Why should we assume Shales is even close to being “right”? Krugman and Dean Baker have demolished her arguments in pieces easy to find on these here internets. Shales isn’t even an economist or a historian, she’s an English B.A. for goodness sakes.
AYY - April 27, 2009 at 3:26 am
“Krugman and Dean Baker have demolished her arguments”
Don’t know about Baker, but Krugman’s attempt to demolish her arguments has been rebutted.
Leave a Reply