[PZXjoe]

President Herbert Hoover was determined--to a catastrophic fault in his refusal to allow the Republic’s government to assist the starving, the jobless and the homeless through government sanctioned programs because some say he viewed such behaviors as being a prelude to a Socialist and Communist society.

Is President Obama following the same path?

President Obama faces a situation more akin to the one Herbert Hoover was forced to deal with because the economy is still tanking, unemployment is still rising and consumer spending is still falling.

Hoover had been the American most suited to be president. He had performed masterfully as head of the American Relief Administration after World War I. Hoover came into the presidency as one of the foremost proponents of public-private cooperation—what was termed "volunteerism"-- to maintain a high-growth economy. Volunteerism was not premised on governmental coercion or intervention, which Hoover feared would destroy the foundation of American philosophy based upon individualism and self-reliance, but on cooperation among individuals and groups. Hoover supported regulating industries such as radio broadcasting and aviation that he believed served the public good. But he preferred a voluntary, non-governmental approach to economic matters, the better, he reasoned, to protect what he called the "American character".

The economic crisis that struck the United States in the late 1920s was all-encompassing, however. Having both domestic and international causes and effects, the Great Depression afflicted almost every sector of the American economy, revealing serious structural weaknesses that resulted in high unemployment (25%), low economic growth, and financial instability. Most important, the Great Depression stole the citizens’ confidence and will. The Great Depression was a stern test for Hoover's approach and one that proved too difficult for him to address effectively. His involuntariness-inspired persuasion and programs failed to stimulate the consumption and production needed to jump-start the economy.

During Mr. Obama's first months in office, the president and his chief economic advisers, White House aide Larry Summers and Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, most likely underestimated the economic crisis they faced. Obama would repeatedly refer to it as a "financial crisis," inferring that if the government was able to prevent the banks from going under; they would begin loaning again to the citizenry and small businesses and thereby, stimulate the economy and increase resources.

The stimulus package that Congress passed exceeded any previous attempts to counter a financial downturn. It included funds for improving education and subsidizing the development of green and biotechnology industries--two areas where the nation could find new outlets for private investment and growth. The Obama administration was also quick to bail out the Republic’s automobile industry.

But the question with Obama--just as it was with Hoover is whether his efforts, which are going in the in the right direction, will prove sufficient to the Republic and its citizens. Although the stimulus package has promoted growth, it is largely in non-tradable private and government services. Mr. Obama’s vision of promoting green growth from windmills to electric cars is another good idea, but Asia and Western Europe is way ahead of the United States in these industries and are putting far more resources into them than the Republic is achieving. The size of the stimulus package is valiantly keeping unemployment below double-digits--but for how long? Unfortunately, forced to embrace half-measures, President Obama, like President Hoover, could fail to meet the challenges of the economic downturn.

Hoover's principal failing was ideological. He wasn't willing to do what was necessary because he feared the growth of an all-consuming Republic state and because he thought budget deficits would end up receding rather than spurring economic growth. Obama and his advisers are not so much victims of self inflicted ideology, but rather the politics, geopolitics, and other people's ideology. If Obama wanted to undertake a dramatic government-led re-invigoration of the Republics economy--he has and will continue to be blocked by the Tea/Republicans as well some so-called Democrats.

President Obama is not making the same mistakes as Hoover or facing quite the same situation, but Hoover's example shows that an individual who is highly qualified to be president and who boasts significant accomplishments while in office can still fail because of the enormity of the challenges he faces. Obama has achieved success in getting legislation through Congress, including his national health care policies and is brilliantly calculating initiatives to pull the Republic out of its current starving, jobless and homeless slump; but he could still fail and in the process harm his presidency.

I must reiterate, President Obama did not create the current economic depression in America; but, the Tea/Republican Party will damn sure attempt to pin it on his presidency if he is unsuccessful in resuscitating the economy. Hoover is the scapegoat for the Great Depression when in fact it was under Calvin Coolidge that began America’s free-fall into financial and unemployment purgatory during the 1920’s. See the parallel?

If President Obama is defeated in 2012 and replaced with Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich or Bachmann, all who are “woefully” ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century--this will accelerate the Republic’s decline.



“Progressives will bring balance to the Republic”
Anthony P. Johnson, Candidate for State Representative 180th District, 2012