I previously made a series of posts analyzing the legacy of Herbert Hoover, the 31st president of the United States. Although it was during Hoover’s presidency that the Great Depression began in earnest, to say that he is entirely to blame is, I concluded, too simple of an explanation. Rather, Hoover followed a predetermined Republican (and arguably “American”) rationale in responding to economic crises: do nothing. Or at least, do as close to nothing as possible. This all changed after the Great Depression, when democrat FDR undertook several radical governmental ventures to halt the Great Depression and reverse the economy, the effectiveness of which is still debated today (and will be explored here in come time).
The question I want to pose here, then, is that of government’s role in the modern American economy. How much of a role should it have? My knowledge from taking economics last year aids me in defining these inquiries and actually understanding the significance behind them. Should the government be heavily involved in the economy, as per Keynesian Economics, or should it maintain a lax and observatory role, according to Laissez-faire and Adam Smith Economics? What perspectives do modern politicians and economists have on this issue since its inception? Its important to note here that the question of government economic intervention is not an absolute one. An economy has to require some level of government influence in order to function at a high and prosperous level. This conundrum instead asks us to seek a balance of intervention: whether or not this state of equilibrium exists with high or low intervention, much like a reaction process in chemistry can produce high quantities of reactants and maintain a low amount of products. It’s all relative here.
Current U.S. President Barack Obama is generally pro-government intervention, having stated numerous times his desire to reduce income inequality and increase opportunities for upward mobility in the United States. Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, who was featured in an earlier post, is a self-described democratic socialist who believes strongly in the righteousness of government economic intervention in order to break up monopolistic financial institutions (mostly banks) and achieve greater socioeconomic equity. In contrast, though, former President Bill Clinton was a democrat who believed in less government intervention than many of his colleagues; he was also more moderate and right-leaning than most in the left today too.
The vast majority of current republican candidates for the 2016 nominations are heavily concerned about increasing government intervention, which one might expect given their stated political affiliation. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush stated in September that he was opposed to democratic tactics of luring African American voters with “free stuff.” Bush’s comments may seem derogatory (and for the most they are) but they were part of a broader point he was trying to articulate about the potential for African American voters to support republican causes. In any case, the interesting point to be found here is that in denouncing a form of government intervention, Bush demonstrated his own party’s tendency on the matter, which is something I find quite interesting.
There is much more to explore with the theme of government intervention, both in the history of the Great Depression and in modern political and economic circumstances. As such, this will definitely be a theme I look to delve deeper into; there’s just so much information out there and perspectives to pay attention to, which is more exciting than it is daunting to me.
An American Inquiry 
