I have now had a chance to read the paper I commented on yesterday, and I’ve seen the data that led to the conclusions reached in the abstract:
In 1932, the American electorate was surveyed in a poll that has languished in the archives. The survey was conducted by Houser Associates, a pioneer in market research. It interviewed face-to-face a representative cross section about voter choices and issue attitudes. Although conducted on behalf of the Hoover campaign, the poll was not biased in his favor. The most striking revelation is that the electoral sway of the Depression was quite limited. The government was not seen by most voters as the major culprit or as having been ineffective in alleviating it. Even many FDR voters agreed. Moreover, there was no widespread “doom and gloom” about the future. What loomed larger in 1932 was the issue of Prohibition. The American people overwhelmingly favored repeal. The Democratic stand on it—that is, outright repeal—was a sure electoral winner, given Hoover’s staunch defense of Prohibition.
This is certainly a plausible interpretation of the findings, but I still lean toward the view that the Great Depression largely explains FDR’s landslide, and I’d like to use this an example of why it is difficult to interpret survey results. In doing so, keep in mind that Hoover won a 18 point landslide in 1928, and FDR won by the same margin in 1932.
The first point I’d make is that the survey covered over 3000 people, of which 670 were swing voters that indicated they intended to switch their votes from Hoover to FDR in 1932. In my view these are the key voters to focus on, as they explain the huge swing toward the Democrats. Thus while most voters did not blame the government for the Depression, 58% of this swing group did blame the government.
In fairness, 85% of the swing group favored repealing Prohibition, so it’s certainly possible that Prohibition was a bigger issue than the economy. But I’d point to two other considerations that cast doubt on that view:
1. Even voters that did not blame the government for causing the Depression (many blamed Wall Street) might have been dissatisfied with Hoover’s performance, and/or thought FDR would do more to solve the problem. Note, for example, that 77% of the swing voters favored more spending on public works. Thus it’s certainly possible that the Depression played a role in voter dissatisfaction that went well beyond the question of who was to blame for causing the Depression. Even those voters not convinced that FDR would do better might reasonably have thought it was worth a shot. If there were no depression they might have stayed with Hoover.
2. While 85% of swing voters favored repealing prohibition, this does not prove the issue “loomed larger” than the economy. There are many issues where public opinion is fairly one-sided, but the issue is not a major factor in elections. Even if there were a big difference between Democrats and Republicans on flag burning, for example, it probably wouldn’t sway many votes.
Thus when considering the impact of public opinion on elections, you need to consider a number of factors, such as the views of the swing voters, the fact that political issues are complex and one question may not fully elucidate the perspective of the public, and that what matters is not just the number of voters that hold a certain view, but also the importance with which they regard the issue.
Prohibition was probably more important than most people assume, but I still think the economy was the decisive issue.
READER COMMENTS
Weir
Aug 14 2018 at 7:33pm
“Note, for example, that 77% of the swing voters favored more spending on public works.”
FDR promised to cut government spending 25%: “I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending Administration in peace times in all our history. It is an Administration that has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission, and has failed to anticipate the dire needs and the reduced earning power of the people.”
FDR promised, in his words, “to discuss up and down the country, in all seasons and at all times, the duty of reducing taxes, of increasing the efficiency of government, of cutting out the underbrush around our governmental structure, of getting the most public service for every dollar paid in taxation. That I pledge you, and nothing I have said in the campaign transcends in importance this covenant with the taxpayers of the United States.”
FDR: “I regard reduction in Federal spending as one of the most important issues of this campaign. In my opinion, it is the most direct and effective contribution that Government can make to business.”
FDR in 1932: “If the Nation is living within its income, its credit is good. If, in some crises, it lives beyond its income for a year or two, it can usually borrow temporarily at reasonable rates. But if, like a spendthrift, it throws discretion to the winds, and is willing to make no sacrifice at all in spending; if it extends its taxing to the limit of the people’s power to pay and continues to pile up deficits, then it is on the road to bankruptcy.”
Benjamin Cole
Aug 14 2018 at 11:30pm
The statements of FDR before the election, and the election results raise an interesting point: What about monetary policy?
The nearly universal consensus among orthodox macroeconomists is that “central banks should be independent.” Other views are treated as heretical.
Maybe so…but it has led to decades of monetary policy being a fringe issue in Presidential elections, even in 1932 and 2008 (not in reality but in debates and public commentary during elections).
Voters in 1932 should have been debating monetary policy, and selecting leadership to fix monetary policy. Ditto 2008 and present.
Instead the debates even yet swirl around fiscal policy, and sometimes trade policy. Presidents are not held accountable for monetary policy—and so voters have no effective mechanism for making policy choices, and even worse, do not become educated on the issues.
Democracy requires accountability and transparency. The mysteries of the Fed and the FOMC try even experts. No one appears to be accountable for monetary policy, except for possibly an appointed Fed Chair, but even he can say he has to seek consensus on the mysteriously composed FOMC. To some extent, Bernanke says this.
And how do I vote to fix monetary policy?
We trust accountable elected representatives with truly awful issues, such as going to war, or dropping an a-bomb (Truman did it) or public health.
Independent public agencies may be the worst form of government.
Scott Sumner
Aug 15 2018 at 1:16am
Weir, He said lots of contradictory things during the campaign. I suspect that voters knew that he favored more public works. Most candidates say they oppose wasteful bureaucracy.
Todd Ramsey
Aug 23 2018 at 10:31am
Scott, in this rare instance I believe you are over-relying on your priors, “suspecting” the voters believed something that supports your point.
From a 1932 speech archived in the FDR library: “…carrying our the plain precept of our Party, which is to reduce the cost of (the) current Federal Government operations by 25%.”
The 33 page speech is about his plan to stop the profligate spending of the Hoover administration and balance the budget, albeit with a few references to tax-financed spending to alleviate hunger and unemployment.
Comments are closed.