20th Century Liberalism Vs. Conservatism

While candidates Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt were registered liberal and conservative candidates, respectively, their actions and speeches often proposed a stark contrast with their traditional party platforms. Throughout the 1930's, each candidate's unyielding desire to mend the nation's financial and social depression brought about several dissenting perspectives of each candidate's real political associations. While in the heat of crisis, it can be factually stated that both Hoover and Roosevelt often acted in nontraditional manners with regard to their nominating parties. Their unique positions on pressing issues such as social welfare, the federal budget, and the purpose of the government augmented these images.

A key issue, which led to this contrasting illusion of party lines, rested with the two candidates' nonconforming positions on national social welfare programs. Although he was a proclaimed conservative, Roosevelt argued with undeniable fervor in favor of tax-supported aid programs. The case was opposite in Hoover's mind. Diverging from his party's stance, he argued that it was the moral responsibility of all Americans to voluntarily offer their efforts and energy to bring an end to social problems and that government funding should be used only as a secondary strategy should the initial fail. This stark opposition created tension with both the public and the party.

With government programs, came the burden to deal with financing them to provide for their success. Each candidate supported government funding to ensure the well-being of the population should the case present such a need. However, Roosevelt was the stronger proponent of spending collected tax money helping those who were in need of food, employment, or other services. Hoover, on the other hand, placed a great deal of this burden on non-profit organizations that would not require governmental intervention. Thus, accusations flew in each direction blaming the other for the persistent threat of poverty and unemployment in America. This changing face of American politics was becoming a clear reality with this metaphorical revolution of party policy.

With each passing day, the common perception of the purpose of the national government was questioned heavier. Democrats shouted in disgust at the Hooverville societies which were attributed to Hoover's misguidance and negligence while Republicans scoured at Roosevelt's massive budget that provided social welfare at the expense of the public. The election was as much an ideological selection as it was a presidential election. Those who agreed with the system of universal aid at all costs ultimately provided Roosevelt's office. Thus, the platform of the party established an unrivaled precedent.

Each of these aspects led to the popular characterization of the presidential candidates with little regard to their official party affiliations. Society as whole had grown tired of the "old way of business" that had seemingly brought them poverty, heartache, and strife and sought to reform the standards of government. The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt served the hybrid purpose of changing both the common way of life and of the accepted party platforms in America. This perhaps represented a new, unprecedented stage in the history of American society that would continue in succeeding administrations.