It’s hard to exaggerate the incoherence of the WSJ editorial, “FDR’s Conservative 100 Days”. The authors write that Obama’s program “has been likened by the president himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous first 100 days. But FDR did not launch his New Deal with a program that roiled financial markets.” No: he shut down the banks, and reopened about eighty percent of them with federal assurance that they were sound. This helped restore confidence in the American financial system.
And, FDR said, “I hope you can see from this elemental recital of what your government is doing that there is nothing complex, or radical in the process.”
The authors also quote Raymond Moley saying, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the policies which vanquished the bank crisis were thoroughly conservative.” And then they add mention of the Economy Act, which cut the budget dramatically.
Now, you might note, as Ed Kilgore does, that you want to be careful quoting Moley, who “left the Roosevelt administration midway through 1933, and then devoted much of the rest of his long career to New Deal-bashing, contemporary and revisionist.”
Or you might want to use your common sense. Yes, it is in some sense “conservative” to save the banking system as FDR did—it helped, as Moley also said, save capitalism. But is it in any sense more conservative than what Obama’s doing to save the banking system? No; Obama’s so far avoided shutting down all the country’s banks for a week and keeping 20 percent closed for even longer. Which, by the way, is no recommendation of Obama’s policy; with each day it seems a less conservative measure might be a good idea.
But set all that aside: most hilariously, the WSJ authors’ measure of Roosevelt’s conservative success is that “By July 3, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 93% above its close on March 3, the day before Inauguration Day in 1933.” Yet their account of the hundred days stops with the Economy Act, on March 14. Between March 14 and July 3, you had also (among other measures) the
- Civilian Conservation Corps / Reforestation Relief Act, which employed young men chiefly for the maintenance of public lands;
- Agricultural Adjustment Act, which taxed processors to subsidize reduction of farm crops;
- Federal Emergency Relief Act, which allocated $500m as unemployment relief to the states;
- Tennessee Valley Authority Act, which established federal management of the Tennessee River and its watershed, to generate lower electricity rates (among other purposes);
- Banking Act of 1933, which among other things separated commercial and investment banking;
- National Industrial Recovery Act, which created federally sanctioned industry cartels to set prices and wages and which strengthened the right to unionize.
I look forward to the WSJ editorial explaining how these conservative policies contributed to the market rally evident by July 3, 1933.

4 comments
March 21, 2009 at 5:44 am
Michael Turner
Not since conservatives tried to claim Orwell as one of their own have I read such Orwellian logic from conservatives.
It seems that if a conservative wants to claim credit for an idea, it’s ipso facto a conservative idea. Since the idea of a national bank holiday is variously attributed to Moley and to Hoover’s Treasury Secretary Ogden Mills, both of whom were conservatives, the basic criterion is established.
Oh, but wait: it was also a decision, not just an idea. OK.
By some accounts, Hoover wanted the decision to be FDR’s, which I suppose could be considered a “conservative” approach to the problem of avoiding blame if the idea didn’t work. One could go further (at the risk of besmirching the name of FDR) and say that adopting this idea was very conservative of FDR, because if the bank holiday idea didn’t work, he could blame it on . . . the conservatives who came up with it!
Finally, one could argue that if something’s not “radical”, it’s conservative. And that, if it has to be done, it’s not really “radical”. Besides which, if conservatives are arguing that it should be done, it’s definitely not “radical”. How could it be!?
It’s a stupid way to argue, but one can argue that way. Especially if you’re under deadline for a WSJ op-ed and don’t know what else to write. You should be careful to cut out the parts that too starkly expose the illogic of what you’re saying, however.
March 21, 2009 at 7:11 am
silbey
The message is changing, going from the “New Deal didn’t work” to “The New Deal was conservative” or, I would suspect, more subtle variations would be “The parts of the New Deal that did work were conservative.”
How long before Amity Shlaes has an article out arguing this new meme? And that we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.
March 21, 2009 at 10:39 am
RobinMarie
The WSJ is silly.
March 21, 2009 at 2:32 pm
jazzbumpa
Finally, one could argue that if something’s not “radical”, it’s conservative.
In THE CONSERVATIVE MIND, Russell Kirk takes more or less the opposite tack, accusing anything not conservative of being radical.