emergent ink

I was struck by FDR’s refusal to cooperate with Hoover after Roosevelt won the election of 1932 but before Inauguration Day (March 4, 1933) as depicted in Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. It seemed unnecessary and ill-advised. The length of time between election and inauguration was longer than it is today, a relic from days when it would take longer to travel between distant cities in this country. But it appears that the transition was mishandled, for the wrong reasons, at a time when the country really needed leadership that worked together. A time like now. So it’s reassuring to see how fast Obama is moving, and to hear George W. Bush saying all the right things.

The uncertainty of the interregnum took its toll. When the banking crisis grew yet worse, Hoover tried contacting Roosevelt, even sending at one point a lengthy personal letter. Historians would later note that Hoover’s sense of urgency even showed up in the way he addressed the letter, misspelling Roosevelt’s name “Roosvelt.” Roosevelt was cruising the coast of Florida; Hoover expected to meet on his return. But Roosevelt was not interested in cooperation. We will never know all his motives, but it was clear that a crisis now could only strengthen his mandate for action come inauguration in March. Hoover became incensed at the silence, and took to documenting his own goodwill in the name of an accurate history. In late February, one of the lowest moments — as the Dow stood at just above 50 — a manufacturer would leave a phone message for Hoover. He had had a meeting with [Roosevelt Brain Trust member Rexford] Tugwell, who had confirmed that the new administration had no interest in cooperating. Hoover wrote a formal letter to the manufacturer to put on record what the man had reported to his secretary: “I beg to acknowledge your telephone message received through Mr. Joslin, as follows: ‘Professor Tugwell, advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt, had lunch with me. He said they were fully aware of the bank situation and that it would undoubtedly collapse in a few days, which would place the responsibility in the lap of President Hoover.’” Hoover added his analysis: “When I consider this statement of Professor Tugwell’s in connection with the recommendations we have made to the incoming administration, I can say emphatically that he breathes with infamous politics devoid of every atom of patriotism. Mr. Tugwell would project millions of people into hideous losses for a Roman Holiday.”

Again, it’s reassuring to see this transition taking shape so quickly, in light of the current crisis and its similarities with what happened in 1932-33. I think the selection of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff is a good one. He seems smart and organized. I’ve said that you’ll know how good Obama will be by his actions now, and how others react — particularly, the more he annoys the far left and the far right, the better I’ll feel.

I was reading through the discussion of the Emanuel selection and the first couple of days of transition on Politico.com’s Arena when I came across this, which explains why an incoming administration might not want to work too closely with the outgoing one:

The Congressman from Illinois seems both perfectly qualified and the right fit to be President Obama’s chief of staff. More than any other job, this one requires a personal connection that seems wholly present between two men whose congressional careers roughly paralleled one another’s in time and constituency. And the team seems focused on Treasury as the logical first moves, so I would simply wish them fortune. I would say that it would be a mistake to blur the formation of the new Administration with the perception of co-governance. The invitation for the President-elect to attend a finance ministers conference and for his team to put thumbprints over staffing and decisions related to the bailout may be tempting, but they hold risks. Co-governance doesn’t work. It will taint the incoming Administration as having been complicit in any unpopular decisions reached these final months by Mr. Bush’s team while limiting the freedom of action to let go of people or reverse actions decided upon when the Obama team sat at the table but had no power to call the shots. I would urge the President-elect to graciously decline the participation in the Finance Ministers conference and to instruct his team that there is a difference between taking briefings and participating in governance. Better to focus on the formation of your Administration and your guiding principles than to compromise your ability to act after January 20th.
– Bill Orton (guest), political and communications consultant, CA

That’s the other side of the Roosevelt story. FDR wanted a clean break and he got it. Figuring out whether it hurt the country more in the long run is an exercise left for the reader.