75 Years Ago FDR Read the Results Right, and Took a Left Turn

Seventy-five years ago today, the American people rejected not just a president -- Herbert Hoover -- but a royalist vision of federal policymaking that had allowed tens of millions of citizens to suffer as the Great Depression swept across the land.

The election of November 8, 1932, is now generally accepted as one of the great realigning moments in U.S. politics, the point at which the country took the great leap forward from a past that favored limited federal and state involvement in economic affairs -- except where it came to securing the interests of the wealthy -- and embraced a more humane and democratic approach to governing.

To be sure, that approach has been under assault in recent decades. Yet, Social Security remains, as does the the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Fair Labor Standards Act and the minimum wage. Those of us with roots in small-town America still enjoy the benefits of Rural Electrification. And Americans of every region, race and religion retain at least a few of the liberties that were defined and protected by Roosevelt-nominated Supreme Court Justices William O. Douglas, Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter. There's still a Securities and Exchange Commission, which sometimes does its job, and a Federal Communications Commission, which could yet be redeemed by the appointment of a new chairman.

The agent of these reforms -- and the fundamental shift in the American experience they embodied -- was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democrat who displaced Republican Hoover. But it is important to remember that Roosevelt, the most patrician of our nation's many patrician politicians, did not compete in the 1932 election as the radical reformer that he became. The Democratic platform of that year was a cautious document, dictated by fear itself rather than the boldness that would later be associated with Roosevelt.

What made Roosevelt so remarkable, and so radical?

The results that were tabulated 75 years ago this evening influenced FDR to evolve his policies in a direction that was more egalitarian and democratic -- his critics still use the term "socialistic," and they are not entirely wrong. It was that evolution that redefined not just American politics but America.

Roosevelt won a stunning victory in 1932. He secured 57.4 percent of the popular vote, as compared with just 39.7 percent for Hoover. The Democrat carried 42 states, most by wide margins, while the Republican won just 6.

But those numbers do not begin to tell the whole story of what happened on that distant November 8. Roosevelt's popular vote total of 22,821,277 was 52 percent higher than that received by Al Smith, the Democratic nominee in the election of four years earlier. The Roosevelt landslide was sufficient to create a coat-tail effect that dramatically increased a narrow Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and gave the party control of the Senate.

A total of 97 new Democrats were elected to the House, most of them young and left-leaning. Their numbers were augmented by five members of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party, who made no apologies for their radicalism. Thus, 73 percent of the seats in the House (313 out of 435) were held by members who had been elected on pledges to alter the economic equation to favor Main Street over Wall Street. Even some Republicans, especially from New York state and the upper Midwest, espoused a progressive vision that was to the left of what Roosevelt advocated while campaigning in 1932.

Nine Republican senators were defeated that year by the Democrats, who also won three open seats. This shifted control of the chamber from 48-47 Republican to 59-36 Democratic with one Farmer-Laborite. A half dozen "insurgent" Republican senators stood with Roosevelt or to his left on economic issues.

The congressional majorities would free Roosevelt to move steadily to the left, knowing that if he did not make the shift Congress would force his hand on a host of relief measures and related economic initiatives. And Roosevelt was inclined to move. It was not just the size of the Democratic landslide that influenced him. It was the clear evidence that many American voters were looking to the left of new president and his party for responses to the economic crisis.

On November 8, 1932, more than a million Americans -- almost three percent of the electorate -- cast ballots for presidential candidates who proposed far more radical changes than "a new deal." Socialist Norman Thomas won 884,885 votes, for a 230 percent improvement in his party's total. Communist William Z. Foster won 103,307 votes, for a 112 percent increase in his party's total -- and its best finish ever in a presidential race. And southern populist William Hope Harvey, who had helped manage Democratic populist William Jennings Bryan's 1896 presidential campaign, secured another 53,425 votes.

Roosevelt was conscious of the fact that, in a number of states outside the south, the combined vote for the Socialists and Communists edged toward 5 percent of the total. Shortly after the election, the president-elect met with Thomas, a former associate editor of The Nation, and Henry Rosner, a frequent contributor to The magazine who had authored the Socialist Party's detailed 1932 platform and who would go on to be a key aide of New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia.

The new president did not adopt the whole of the Socialist platform. But, as historian Paul Berman observed, "President Franklin D. Roosevelt lifted ideas from the likes of Norman Thomas and proclaimed liberal democratic goals for everyone around the world..." FDR's borrowing of ideas about Social Security, unemployment compensation, jobs programs and agricultural assistance from the Socialists was sufficient to pull voters who had rejected the Democrats in 1932 into the New Deal Coalition that would sweep the congressional elections of 1934 and reelect the president with 61 percent of the popular vote and 523 of 531 electoral votes in 1936 -- the largest Electoral College win in the history of two-party politics.

As for Norman Thomas, he ran again in 1936, conducting what Time magazine would refer to as "a more civilized and enlightened campaign than any other candidate." But he amassed only 187,910 votes, for 0.4 percent of the total.

Thomas would joke that, "Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher." That was a slightly bitter variation on the old Socialist's acknowledgment that FDR had read the results of the 1932 election right.

That process began 75 years ago this evening, when Franklin Roosevelt recognized that, while Americans had chosen him as their president, they signaled their intention that America should turn left.

Comments (23)

1. Roosevelt was in a tough spot.

   Go too radical and even his own party wouldn't back him, hence the "Norman Thomas-Lite-Lite" agenda.

   Don't do enough and a friend warned him, that if he failed he could be "the last Democrat President ever elected"...

   to which FDR replied, "If I fail, I may be the LAST President EVER elected".

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2007 @ 3:25pm

2. fdr was indeed one of the great leaders of all time...god...this election coming up is sooo important...

   whats it gonna end up being this time when it bellys up? mild socialism or the soft core fascism thats already practically in place?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/08/2007 @ 3:39pm

3. So, JOHN NICHOLS the US was just a helluva spot untill the liberal came along, is that it? I'm thinking that, as usual, your interpretation of history needs a little work. For example:

   The Depression was an anomaly. Prosperity had, and has, been the order of the day with the exception of periodic recessions (panics). (1817, 1873 etc).The period 1880-1914 rivaled that of the 1950's for growth and prosperity, for example. And in one of economic downturns, it was the evil Robber Baron JP Morgan that single handedly pulled us out of it. Who cares why he did it. He did it. With his own resources. Nasty Rich man.

   The Depression was caused by overproduction followed by underconsumption. Hoover wasn't anymore responsible for the bust than Clinton was for the Boom in the 1990's (or Bush for the recession in 2001.) It was also aggravated by ecologic disaster in the west coupled with post WWI boom ending in Europe. The world's not quite so simple as "Big Bad, unfeeling Capital gets booted, White Knights w/Social Consciouses arrive and save the day". Be nice if it was, but its not. And, while I like Roosevelt (both of them) FDR can count the advent of WWII as much as his policies for the real final pullout from the Depression.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/08/2007 @ 4:44pm

4. fdr was indeed one of the great leaders of all time...god...this election coming up is sooo important...

   whats it gonna end up being this time when it bellys up? mild socialism or the soft core fascism thats already practically in place?

   Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/08/2007 @ 3:39pm

   My fear is that the people running are making a lot of empty promises they don't have any intention of keeping. They say what must be said to be elected, and then go about corporate business as usual.

   FDR at least tried to do what he said he would do. W has lied his way through 2 terms and it would seem that he and Cheney would rather lie about something they don't need to lie about, than tell the truth. It's like a game to them.

   Then we have the dems on the other side who say they are going to crack down on the corruption in D.C. but join in on the fun when they get voted in.

   Our leaders lack integrity and personal responsibility. Nobody can admit a mistake anymore, nor can they be trusted to do the right thing for America. The only thing they see is dollars and cents in the form of campaign contributions as well as political backing for favors. The contributions don't necessarily come from entities within the U.S., but they don't care, money is money.

   I think we should outsource our government to India or China. Perhaps a call center would be more responsive, cost less and probably have more intelligence than the idiots we have running the show now.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/08/2007 @ 5:05pm

5. LL

   Funny you should point to the left trampling the Consitution when it was Dumbya who declared that "It's just a goddammed piece of paper!"

   Posted by leftofcenter at 11/08/2007 @ 6:19pm

6. "Funny you should point to the left trampling the Consitution when it was Dumbya who declared that "It's just a goddammed piece of paper!"

   Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/08/2007 @ 6:19pm

   Well LOC, it is a "goddammed piece of paper". None of the founding fathers bothered to ban slavery.

   Posted by ACook at 11/08/2007 @ 8:58pm

7. Posted by ACOOK 11/08/2007 @ 8:58pm

   well, it's good that mistakes can be amended.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/08/2007 @ 9:05pm

8. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/08/2007 @ 5:32pm

   LL, curious...given you're a man of your principles, and you think what FDR was "marxist/socialist"...

   are you going to refuse your Social Security when the time comes?

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2007 @ 10:11pm

9. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 11/08/2007 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person

   Panics weren't anomalies but regular occurrences. There was the Panic of 1893 that created double-digit unemployment for six years and the Panic of 1907, which finally convinced the government to establish the Federal Reserve to serve as alenger of last resort.

   Posted by brunowe at 11/09/2007 @ 12:06am

10. He openly admits FDR's programs had a marxist/socialist agenda behind them. Every time I bring this up, I get howls of protests from leftists here who claim I am somehow finding marxist boogeymen where none exist. Now they will have to criticize Nichols to stay consistent or reveal themselves to be the hypocrites I believe most socialists actually are. American socialists, like the members of the Democratic Progressive Caucus are afraid to admit their linkage with the Demcratic Socialists of America Party. Instead they attempt to push that agenda in the guise of still being loyal Americans to the Constitution.

    First, given that Roosevelt didn't nationalize a thing the socialist argument is rather weak. Second, given that Norman Thomas, America's leading Socialist at the time stated that "Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher.", Nichols is hardly admitting that FDR had a Socialist agenda behind him. Nichols states that "FDR listed socialist ideas". If FDR selectively took socialist ideas that implies that the root agenda was not, in fact, socialist. Indeed, Nichols refers to Thomas as being among the "presidential candidates who proposed far more radical changes than "'a new deal.'"

    He also doesn't mention Marxism at any point in this article.

    Finally, please explain what, exactly, is unconstitutional about the FCC, SEC and the Social Security Administration.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/09/2007 @ 07:00am

11. LL, curious...given you're a man of your principles, and you think what FDR was "marxist/socialist"...

    are you going to refuse your Social Security when the time comes?

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2007 @ 10:11pm

    Why should he, or anyone else?? Having paid more into it than you'll ever get out of it sounds like a great deal.

    You don't get a choice on whether to pay it or not...so why refuse it??

    Posted by Sliver at 11/09/2007 @ 07:46am

12. Posted by SLIVER 11/09/2007 @ 07:46am

    How do you know he "paid more into it than he'll ever get out of it"? He's a minister and has boasted how little in salary he makes (to blunt charges of "televangelism"). His wife, good Christian woman that she is, may have NEVER worked and paid into it...but would get SS as well.

    Would she refuse the money if LVLIB passed away?

    Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 09:07am

13. BRUNOWE

    I didn't say panics were anomalies: I said the Great depression was an anomaly.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/09/2007 @ 09:16am

14. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/08/2007 @ 5:32pm

    Sod off, bugger.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 1:21pm

15. Well LOC, it is a "goddammed piece of paper". None of the founding fathers bothered to ban slavery.

    Posted by ACOOK 11/08/2007 @ 8:58pm

    So then would you call yourself a "strict constructionist"?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 1:22pm

16. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 1:26pm

    well, ain't you just the very picture of the self-made, self-sustaining man.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 1:31pm

17. Perhaps you can enlighten me about what part of the Bible I arrogantly interpret?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 1:49pm

    All of it?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 2:08pm

18. Powers not given to the Congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 1:52pm

    I see, so it was written in stone then? It can never change?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 2:09pm

19. How many slaves do you own?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 2:09pm

20. Just as I thought, you cannot answer a question.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:31pm

    I'm at work jackass, I don't happen to have a bible handy.

    Nor do I spend my days sorting through it to find lines that back up my twisted world view as you do, nor would I care to.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 2:33pm

21. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:36pm

    Your condencending attitude goes so well with your version of Christianity.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 2:40pm

22. "go and sin no more".

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 11/09/2007 @ 2:43pm

23. LL Powers not given to the Congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    That's conclusory, since the question is does the creation of such agencies lie within those powers. Given that the airwaves are instrumentalities of interstate commerce and the securities are objects of interstate commerce, they would seem to lie well within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

    Posted by brunowe at 11/09/2007 @ 9:02pm