Difference between liberlism,conservatism,radicalism when it comes to economy DURING DEPRESSION/roaring 20's...asked question few days ago, but failed to stress back in the depression/roaring 20's,...
Difference between liberlism,conservatism,radicalism when it comes to economy DURING DEPRESSION/roaring 20's...
asked question few days ago, but failed to stress back in the depression/roaring 20's, not in todays economy
I would say that the primary difference between political affiliations during the 1920s and 1930s hit squarely on the role of government. A conservative political agenda included most of the Republican presidents of the time period, where the belief was that government's business was business and the facilitation of it. At the same time, this laissez faire approach was one where there was a lack of government regulation or control in matters of economy and material growth. One need only examine Hoover's response to the economic crisis, by insisting that businesses could help in the process of rebuilding and local agencies could solve the problem on their own end. This was contrasted with the liberal political beliefs of Roosevelt, who saw government as the instrument of change and more active governmental role was the only way to lift the nation out of the economic peril in which it was immersed.
What I said back then pretty much still goes, just adapted to the time we are talking about.
In the 1920s, the conservatives wanted the government to stay out of the economy. Presidents like Coolidge and Harding supported business, but otherwise did not try to regulate businesses at all.
Then, in the 1930s, FDR and the liberals tried to intervene more in the economy. The New Deal was a very liberal program because it had the government doing things like telling farmers how much to plant and instituting programs like the NIRA.
Meanwhile, the radicals wanted more and largely didn't get it. They would have liked FDR to just take over companies and have the government run them. That didn't really happen.