Return to story

FDR: Ideally suited to his tumultuous times

October 2, 2008 12:16 am

Part four of a seven-part series about U.S. presidents.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.

If such were the criteria for ranking presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt certainly would belong at the bottom of the list. Serving for 12 years gave him ample opportunity for missteps, and he made several. His ill-conceived battle with the Supreme Court, in which he considered packing the court with allies, resulted in harsh political backlash. Many of his New Deal programs were ineffective and often contradictory.

Critics of Roosevelt argue that he was out-maneuvered by Stalin in the late stages of World War II, as the Soviets laid claim to vast portions of Eastern Europe. More recently, historians have taken Roosevelt to task for ignoring, or at least downplaying, the humanitarian crisis that occurred within Hitler's Germany.

Why, then, does FDR consistently appear at the top of historians' lists of America's greatest presidents? Perhaps it comes down to nothing more than timing. Presidents we tend to identify as our best served during times of crisis; only Lincoln experienced more tumult in office than did Roosevelt. Or, Harrison notwithstanding, longevity in office may be a factor. Four terms meant that an entire generation of Americans came to equate the presidency with Roosevelt himself. Following his death in 1945, it was difficult for most people to imagine someone other than FDR as commander-in-chief.

STRONG PRESENCE

The main reasons for FDR's legacy, however, lie in the fact that his persona, political acumen, and general disposition were suited ideally for his times. At the height of economic depression, Americans yearned for a strong presence in Washington. Roosevelt's predecessor, Herbert Hoover, had the mind and inclination of an engineer--a problem-solver who enjoyed thinking systematically through challenges. Three years of a failing economy, however, left Americans wanting "more." More what? More anything. More action; more confidence; more assurance.

The climate suited Roose-velt, who had few qualms with tinkering, quite well. Critics of the New Deal, both on the right and left, often complained that Roosevelt lacked the mental capacity to construct an effective economic policy. (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said that Roosevelt had a "second-rate intellect.") FDR was not an ideologue, nor was he much of an expert on anything. He did, however, realize the importance of expertise and surrounded himself with a formidable group of thinkers who shaped his early presidency.

This pragmatism and energy resonated extremely well at a time when improvement in the economy seem- ed so elusive. As historians often have pointed out, optimism and enthusiasm, rather than the specific legislative achievements of the New Deal, marked the major success of Roosevelt's domestic leadership.

A WORLD PLAYER

Roosevelt, despite never having served in the military, also recognized the need for a strong American presence in the world--a product of idolizing, in his youth, his imperial-minded cousin Theodore, and also stemming from his service as assistant secretary of the Navy during World War I. He embraced the military and genuinely enjoyed being around its leaders. As the world erupted into violence in the late 1930s, Roosevelt's ability to shift gears from a domestic orientation to one focused on world affairs and defense was particularly impressive and timely.

His ability to command respect from officials with far more experience in military matters is an often overlooked, but quite significant, factor that allowed for an effective transition to war. He also held an unswerving faith in American democracy and earnestly believed that the United States was destined to play a more significant role in the world.

WAR MOBILIZATION

At the same time, Roose-velt was comfortable in the world of business, having worked as an attorney on Wall Street and growing up in social circles that included the nation's most powerful individuals in finance and trade. His successful recruitment of business and labor leaders into the war effort hinged, to a considerable degree, on his trademark blend of confidence and pragmatism. The scale--and speed--of economic coordination under the auspices of the Office of War Mobilization, and particularly the War Production Board, was unprecedented.

Moreover, Roosevelt had considerable experience with organized labor, which proved critical in maintaining a relatively stable labor force during the volatility of war. On the whole, wartime mobilization, on the economic and military fronts, was a daunting set of tasks that played well to Roosevelt's strengths.

Could we use another FDR today? In some ways, the pragmatic Rooseveltian style might not play so well. Roosevelt was the consummate "flip-flopper"--a trait that seems akin to political suicide in the current arena. In defending his approach to the Depression, he once remarked, "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." In the 1930s, the words provided comfort; one may imagine how 24-hour cable news media would treat such a statement now.

On the other hand, there is a clear desire among voters to find a leader with some of Roosevelt's qualities. Those who seek "change" would find Roosevelt's buoyant approach to reform appealing. Those concerned with national defense would gravitate to his strong stance on world affairs and affinity for the role of a well-supported military. Those concerned about a lack of experience in the White House certainly would respond positively to FDR's vast experience in government, business, and defense.

Above all, today's voters might appreciate the charisma and confidence that Roosevelt, perhaps more than any other president in the nation's history, brought to the job.

Jeffrey W. Coker is the author of "FDR: A Biography" (2005). He is an associate professor of history at Belmont University, where he serves as director of general education.