Hindsight is 20-20 only so long as that particular hindsight comes from an accepted frame of

reference. This applies as much to descriptions of historical individuals as it does to any other
thing. For their actions while serving as president, FDR and Hoover are described as a liberal
and conservative, respectively. The label given to Roosevelt was mostly true, while the
moniker used to define Hoover is largely false.
The description of a set of beliefs as "liberal" or "conservative" is a task that, in history, has
changed in its requirements and protocol. We would now consider beliefs to be conservative
that were at the onset of the American experiment considered liberal. Free markets, limited
government, and federalism were ideas that were ridiculed throughout most of the civilized
countries of the west up until recent history. On the other hand, what we would now consider
to be modern liberalism cant well be described in a similar fashion: Hobbes style of
conservatism and its antidemocratic and autocratic impulses, while always the end result of
collectivist tendencies such as modern liberalism, dont translate completely into FDRs style
of governance and the Lefts penchant for social democracy (though Hobbes would
appreciate the control that central planning entails). Modern liberalism, like modern
conservatism, can be traced to a form of liberal thought. In modern liberalisms case, though,
it is rooted in continental European thought such as French Revolution radicalism and
subsequent collectivist ideologies (devoted more to equality and a concept of "change") than
in conservatisms bedrock, more individualist Anglo Saxon thought. Thus, when referring to
"conservative" and "liberal", the reference will be to the modern manifestations of such.
President Hoover, in his public statements, talked out of both sides of his mouth. He followed
very conservative speech with liberal qualifiers. For example, he followed a classical-liberal
statement such as "Liberalism should be found not striving to spread bureaucracy but striving
to set bounds to it," with mitigating statements that contradict any of his rightward speech: "It
does not mean that our government is to part with one iota of its national resources without
complete protection to the public interest" and "The very essence of equality of opportunity
and of American individualism demands economic justice as well as political and social
justice. It is no system of laissez faire" (Document A)
Hoovers actions were in similar dichotomy. While he mostly opposed welfare in its
humanitarian sense, he wholeheartedly embraced it in its economic: his programs pumped
millions of dollars into businesses and public works projects, causing large scale interference
in the market. This is highlighted when he said, "Economic depression cannot be cured by
legislative action or executive pronouncement" and followed up with " the federal
government is engaged upon the greatest program of waterway, harbor, flood control, public
building, highway, and airway improvement in all our history I favor still further temporary
expansion of these activities in aid to unemployment during this winter." (Document B) Hoover
played a little of both sides, practicing economic interventionism, but attempting to restrain it
somewhat. Thus, calling him politically conservative is false.
Roosevelt campaigned as a fiscal conservative, saying "[The Hoover administration] is
committed to the idea that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly
as possiblefederal control I shall approach the problem of carrying out the plain precept
of our party, which is to reduce the cost of current federal government operations by 25
percent we can make savings by reorganization of existing departments, by eliminating
functions, by abolishing many of those innumerable boards and those commissions" And
yet, like Hoover, he followed his statements with qualifiers, saying he will eliminate new
spending except for welfare and that he will allow greater welfare in a time of "dire need".
(Document E). Despite his campaigning, he revealed himself through his administrative
actions to be left leaning. After a year in office, there was not a fiscal year in which federal

spending did not exceed the most of the Hoover years by 200 percent or more. (Document F).
From one of Roosevelts speeches comes the somewhat Orwellian statement that "the true
conservative seeks to protect the system of private property and free enterprise by correcting
such injustices and inequalities as arise from it. The most serious threat to our institutions
comes from those who refuse to face the need for change I am that kind of conservative
because I am that kind of liberal." He, in other words, said that property rights and the
freedom to trade could only be protected by curtailing property rights and the freedom to trade
(war is peace). The founding fathers (political conservatives) would be aghast at the idea that
liberty would be forsaken for security (and indeed the notion that security requires a
debasement of liberty). Roosevelts speech highlighted his liberalism, and he went on to
orchestrate the largest expansion of federal power in American history, raising taxes, creating
federal programs for specific, entitlement welfare (usurping such functions from the states),
myriad new regulatory agencies, and injecting government into a far greater swath of formerly
private actions than ever before. His programs, whether intentional or not, would go on to
create the largest dependence the American people ever had upon the federal government.
His qualifications as a liberal, therefore, are sound.
As is shown by their words and actions, the historical labels given to Hoover and Roosevelt
were false and true, respectively. Hoover, standing in the middle of the road as opposed to the
right side, got run over by the jalopy heading west, the passions of a nation unemployed.
Roosevelt, the liberal icon still praised today as the champion of planning by the chief
planners, certainly deserves his description.