Another factor of Hoover’s loss of the election was that he was not a ‘man of the people’. Whilst Roosevelt would smile and strive to meet people and shake their hands; generally creating a sociable atmosphere, Hoover would, quite ironically, take up his ‘laissez faire’ policy on Americans, basically leaving them alone and not interacting with them. For example, in source 1, Roosevelt can be seen meeting two lowly farmers ijn Georgia, 1932, whilst in source 2, Hoover looks glum and stiff. To alleviate the public’s spirit and hopes, Hoover often lied about the recovery: In may 1930, he said, “I am convinced that we have now passed the worst and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover.
However, Roosevelt’s ‘propaganda’ campaign with the American people proved to be effective in his battle for presidency.
Another point, which greatly affected Hoover’s chances of winning, was his inconsistency in methods. At first, he was dependant on voluntarism (charities and businesses helping at their own will) to solve the problem of the depression. Hoover implemented the POUR organisation to help the unemployed, but it only used donated money. The charity Red Cross, by 1931 could only provide 75 cents a week for hungry families. “The situation had developed far beyond the ability of private charity to cope” (source 3). His inconsistency is shown when he alters his approach from opposing direct government aid and ‘laissez fair’ (to leave alone), to intervention. He personally gave up a fifth of his income. In January, congress provided $2 billion in funding a new agency, the reconstruction finance corporation (which makes loans to large economic organisations) and in February, Hoover signed the ‘Glass-Steagell’ act, which allocated £750 million of gold reserves to businesses. However, what he did was too little too late.
Roosevelt’s strength was that he was quick to capitalise on the republicans’ failures in their approach of voluntarism and this gave him an advantage, as the American public was willing to try something new. Roosevelt once said in a speech for his election campaign in 1932: “Whatever you do, do something…experimentation is vital….”.
The mounting discontent of the public was one of the primary reasons Hoover lost the election. In the spring of 1932, over 20000 ex-servicemen that had fought in ww1 and who where now without work demanded a veteran’s bonus (approved by congress in 1924) 20 years earlier. However, their request was rejected by congress and in protest, several thousand bonus marchers and their families stayed on and built settlements on the Anacosta flats in Washington DC. Hoovers action, which ultimately ruined his chances of winning, and added fuel to the democrat’s propaganda campaign, was to on 28 July, send 1000 soldiers with tears gas, tanks and machine guns to drive away the protestors. 2 veterans and a baby were killed.
Both the veterans and the republicans used a great deal of propaganda to support their respective positions and stories of soldiers bayoneting children were contrasted with government warnings of an impending communist revolution. What is significant about the incident was that it cast Hoover in a very bad light and he emerged looking cruel and, insensitive and incapable.
In my opinion, it was Roosevelt’s public image that boosted the enthusiasm for his election. The 2 candidates had the same policies; for example, government support for businesses and job-creation schemes, so this could not have been what decided their futures. Roosevelt’s victory was his exposure of the failures of the republican government, as well as his interaction with the average American. Roosevelt won the election because he won the people’s hearts. As well as the instability of Hoover’s approaches, these were the reasons that made Roosevelt win. So in theory, Hoover lost the election but Roosevelt offered himself as a friendlier option and so he won.
