During his inaugural address delivered on March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his inimitable style, confidently and forthrightly affirmed his own genuine “firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”
In this spirit, the new president, with the full cooperation of a Democratic-controlled Congress, initiated numerous and sweeping programs designed for one purpose: the complete recovery of the American economy and the end of the Great Depression that had burdened American citizens for the better part of four years. Banks were closed for four days under the Emergency Banking Act signed into law by the new president shortly after his inauguration that imposed a “bank holiday,” and when reopened they were certified under federal authority, and their deposits were guaranteed by the treasury of the federal government; farmers’ crops were also insured by the federal government; Social Security was established; the federal government refinanced homes; and a variety of government programs were instituted to employ workers, execute internal improvements, provide electricity to more remote areas of the country (electricity still being a novelty within large regions of the country), address poverty in both rural and urban areas, and generate money in the economy. These included federal programs such as the Works Progress Administration, the Public Works Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Rural Electrification Act, and the National Labor Relations Act, to name only a few of the dozens of government programs initiated during Roosevelt’s first term, a staggering panoply of government-funded and government-administered programs that have been referred to by supporters and critics alike as the “alphabet soup” of the New Deal. Where they could, state and local governments followed suit with programs of their own. Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency was in effect restructuring a wide array of American institutions in an unprecedented manner, surpassing even the aspirations of the progressive movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (a movement that included his famous cousin, the equally expansive Theodore Roosevelt).
By 1936, Roosevelt’s New Deal had indeed succeeded in improving conditions for most Americans in a variety of ways, but it had nonetheless failed to fully restore overall prosperity. It should be noted that to this day, economists, political scientists, and historians still disagree on the correlation between FDR’s programs and the economic recovery that would eventually come—some arguing that Roosevelt saved the country from collapse, others arguing that his efforts actually impeded the recovery and that other events, namely the war, were the real force that reversed the situation. At any rate, as the election year approached, President Roosevelt still faced many challenges. The Depression still gripped the American and global economies, and in spite of some successes here and there, the future remained uncertain. While the success of the president’s programs to abate the effects of the Great Depression remains a topic of debate among scholars, it is still accurate to say that by the Campaign of 1936, Americans understood the nature and reach of the federal government—and by extension, the office of the presidency—in a new way. Even when the federal government fell short, Roosevelt’s willingness to experiment and try again reassured many Americans that something was being done to address the crisis, a marked contrast to perceptions, fair or unfair, that former president Hoover did little to nothing to help. (To be fair, it is important to note that some of President Roosevelt’s programs, such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, actually began with President Hoover; but the New Deal in general far exceeded the efforts of Roosevelt’s more cautious predecessor.) Most Americans accepted and even welcomed some programs that would have been foreign to them just five or six years earlier, such as Social Security and federal guarantees for bank deposits, and it is clear that programs such as the TVA and rural electrification supplied needed economic relief and the general improvement of life to large sections of the country. The public responded favorably in the 1934 midterm elections, and the Democrats were generally in a fairly strong position going into the season of 1936. Nonetheless, discontent was still widespread throughout the country, and the president’s reelection efforts were sobered by recent polls indicating a close contest ahead. Roosevelt was demonized by his harshest critics, even to the point of portraying him as a “puppet of Moscow” (viz., a communist stooge in liberal clothing); but the American public in general embraced Roosevelt, many with uncommon enthusiasm. No president could inspire such a mix of devoted adoration and intemperate condemnation as Franklin Roosevelt. His image became anathema among the powerful in the United States—tycoon households were known to have forbidden the use of his name. To some, Roosevelt was a shining savior, to others—especially among the high social strata—he was scornfully and curtly referred to as “that man.” Polls of the day, although often inaccurate, indicated that the general population loved the person of Roosevelt more than the policies of the New Deal. One poll from the Literary Digest, which at the time was regarded as a reliable predictor but has since been discredited owing to its skewed, biased sampling, measured an overwhelming disagreement with the policies of the New Deal, thus causing some concern within the Democratic Party. Even the Democrats’ own consultants were not encouraging; the polls were showing a tight election and warning of the president’s vulnerability. But as mentioned above, polling in the 1930s was far from accurate, as the final results would soon indicate.
At their national nominating convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1936, the Democrats unanimously nominated Roosevelt and his vice president, John Nance Garner, on the first ballot. In the primaries, a few Democratic challengers tested the waters, notably Henry S. Breckenridge, the president’s assistant secretary of war and a critic of the New Deal; popular novelist and muckraker Upton Sinclair; Father Charles Coughlin, a radio demagogue, notorious anti-Semite, and rogue priest whose political rhetoric and ambitions were officially disowned by the Vatican, but who had received, in defiance of Rome, the support of his direct superior, the archbishop of Detroit; and former governor Al Smith, the Democratic nominee in 1928, who had once been a beloved friend and mentor to the president but who had now sadly become an embittered rival. All of these primary challengers soon discovered that, in spite of the polls, the president’s position within the party was invulnerable, and the platform adopted at the convention reaffirmed Roosevelt’s New Deal. Closely paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence for dramatic effect, the platform intoned,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the test of a representative government is its ability to promote the safety and happiness of the people. We hold this truth to be self-evident—that 12 years of Republican leadership left our Nation sorely stricken in body, mind, and spirit; and that three years of Democratic leadership have put it back on the road to restored health and prosperity. We hold this truth to be self-evident—that 12 years of Republican surrender to the dictatorship of a privileged few have been supplanted by a Democratic leadership which has returned the people themselves to the places of authority, and has revived in them new faith and restored the hope which they had almost lost. We hold this truth to be self-evident—that this three-year recovery in all the basic values of life and the reestablishment of the American way of living has been brought about by humanizing the policies of the Federal Government as they affect the personal, financial, industrial, and agricultural well-being of the American people. We hold this truth to be self-evident—that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, [and among these are]: (1) Protection of the family and the home. (2) Establishment of a democracy of opportunity for all the people. (3) Aid to those overtaken by disaster. These obligations, neglected through 12 years of the old leadership, have once more been recognized by American Government. Under the new leadership they will never be neglected. (American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara)
The Republican Party felt chastened by its landslide defeat in 1932 as well as the equally discouraging outcome of the 1934 midterms. It was clear that the GOP, for the first time in memory, was now the minority party at the federal level. Hoover and the Republicans were blamed for the Depression, and the party was fully aware that its only chance was to find a new approach and a fresher face. It was apparent that the Republican Party needed to concede, at least to some limited extent, that the liberal reforms that had been instituted under FDR were not easily challenged and were now unlikely to be undone. It was equally apparent that the Old Guard conservative leadership needed to cast a broader net for a candidate that was distinct enough from Roosevelt to salvage the party’s integrity while, rightly or wrongly, remaining as far from Hoover as possible. Some turned to Senator William E. Borah, the “Lion of Idaho”; others turned to Stephen Day of Ohio and Rough Rider Frank Knox from Illinois (who had served with the president’s cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, in Cuba during the Spanish-American War). Diehard Hoover loyalists still held out hope that their man might muster a comeback. Borah, Knox, and Day all had support among the rank and file, but the party leadership showed its preference for Kansas governor Alfred “Alf” Landon. Other names were also floated as possible candidates (including famous personalities such as aviator and popular hero Charles Lindbergh and industrialist Henry Ford, as well as rising stars such as Robert Taft and Earl Warren), but by the opening of the GOP convention in Cleveland, Landon’s nomination was inevitable.
Landon’s political roots reached back to the Republican progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt, and his cautious approach to fiscal policy leaned conservatively; thus it follows that he was viewed within the party as a moderate. Strategically, Landon was an intelligent choice to challenge Roosevelt. He was a proven ally of business and an advocate of free enterprise, and yet his old Bull Moose credentials and link to Theodore Roosevelt appealed to the progressive mood of the times. As governor of Kansas, he had openly supported many of the president’s New Deal reforms, and yet he forthrightly championed fiscal frugality, the gold standard, and the implementation of policies favorable to business and industry. In Kansas, he expanded state government for the sake of regulation while at the same time reducing taxes. And as a governor, he was inclined to political tolerance and avoided the kind of “red-baiting” that was not uncommon within the party’s Old Guard wing. Like his Democratic counterpart, he won his party’s nomination on the first ballot; only Borah’s nineteen delegates committed from Wisconsin prevented a Landon sweep. Knox, whose even closer affiliation with Theodore Roosevelt drew upon those now increasingly important progressive Republican legacies, was selected as Landon’s running mate.
The GOP platform sounded a direct challenge to the Democratic Party and the New Deal that the Democrats had, from the perspective of Republicans, foisted upon the American public. Opening with the words “America is in peril,” the platform continued as follows:
The welfare of American men and women and the future of our youth are at stake. We dedicate ourselves to the preservation of their political liberty, their individual opportunity and their character as free citizens, which today for the first time are threatened by Government itself. For three long years the New Deal Administration has dishonored American traditions and flagrantly betrayed the pledges upon which the Democratic Party sought and received public support. The powers of Congress have been usurped by the President. The integrity and authority of the Supreme Court have been flouted. The rights and liberties of American citizens have been violated. Regulated monopoly has displaced free enterprise. The New Deal Administration constantly seeks to usurp the rights reserved to the States and to the people. It has insisted on the passage of laws contrary to the Constitution. It has intimidated witnesses and interfered with the right of petition. It has dishonored our country by repudiating its most sacred obligations. It has been guilty of frightful waste and extravagance, using public funds for partisan political purposes. It has promoted investigations to harass and intimidate American citizens, at the same time denying investigations into its own improper expenditures. It has created a vast multitude of new offices, filled them with its favorites, set up a centralized bureaucracy, and sent out swarms of inspectors to harass our people. It has bred fear and hesitation in commerce and industry, thus discouraging new enterprises, preventing employment and prolonging the depression. It secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities. It has coerced and intimidated voters by withholding relief to those opposing its tyrannical policies. It has destroyed the morale of our people and made them dependent upon government. Appeals to passion and class prejudice have replaced reason and tolerance. To a free people, these actions are insufferable. This campaign cannot be waged on the traditional differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. The responsibility of this election transcends all previous political divisions. We invite all Americans, irrespective of party, to join us in defense of American institutions. (American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara)
In comparing the two platforms, it was obvious to all that the lines were clearly drawn, and yet the Republicans moved ahead with caution in challenging some of the New Deal’s more popular achievements. Landon, in many ways, was the best candidate in this regard; but as a personality on the stump, he fell short of Roosevelt’s incomparable natural skill as a campaigner. The public recognized Landon as a man of integrity but was not stirred by him as it was by Roosevelt. Biting social critic and irrepressible wag H. L. Mencken observed that Landon lacked the “power to inflame the boobs” and, while admiring Landon for his personal virtues, saw in him a bland candidate not equal to the task of meeting FDR in an even contest. Landon had the support of several powerful newspaper publishers such as William Randolph Hearst, who was particularly aggressive in deploying reporters to convey Landon’s common-man attributes to his readers. Reporters working for Hearst described Landon as the “Lincoln of Kansas,” a “liberal Coolidge,” and the “Horse and Buggy Governor,” an unpretentious man of simple tastes, self-reliance, and prairie common sense.
Landon was an able governor and an adept politician, but Franklin Roosevelt, by contrast, was nothing less than an authentic political genius. Charismatic, vigorous, forthright, visionary, courageous, graceful, articulate, quick-witted, warm, and genuinely friendly in crowds, Roosevelt was the one and only political colossus of his time. Given to opening his remarks with the simple and reassuring phrase, “My friends,” Roosevelt exuded trust, resolve, and ability. His amiability was genuine, he was able to win over a crowded room or a single person that he met on the street, and he always left an impression of openness and attentiveness. He was a master of the uses of radio, and in personal appearances, he emitted the raw presence of naturally gifted leadership. Rhetorically, he was without peer in his day. In accepting his renomination at the convention in Philadelphia, Roosevelt delivered a dazzling speech, wherein he coined, with the help of his brain trust, a new phrase that would aptly encapsulate his entire presidency, proclaiming that his generation of Americans had a “rendezvous with destiny.” Not knowing what world events awaited the United States over the next ten years, Roosevelt had spoken with uncanny prescience. The phrase would itself become as iconic as the president who first coined it, and it would be quoted to great effect by future politicians from both parties, including future presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Such was the power and enduring appeal of the Roosevelt legacy.
As the election drew near, the Republicans, nervous about their chances, increased the volume of attacks on the New Deal, even to the point of challenging Social Security, a move that was wisely avoided earlier in the campaign, given the program’s popularity. Still, polls such as those issued by the Literary Digest (as mentioned above) encouraged Republicans. In a particularly curious and embarrassing act of self-deception, the media—highlighting for its readers a favorable straw poll that predicted Landon’s imminent victory—participated in spinning the illusion that Roosevelt’s reelection was in peril. In the recent past, the periodical’s straw poll had predicted with some accuracy (compared to the expectations of the times) the outcome of the four previous elections, but the sample was hampered by a self-selecting bias, as it was confined to the comparatively more affluent subscribers of the Digest who were inclined to respond, and thus it was not a reliable reflection of the mood of the voters in general. Roosevelt and his brain trust were not intimidated by the Digest’s previous record; they went into November with full confidence in spite of the appearance of uncertainty that had been generated by the media on the eve of the election.
Their confidence, events proved, was utterly justified. When the election came, the results were no less than stunning. Roosevelt shattered every electoral record, winning 28.7 million total popular votes, amounting to 60.8 percent of the entire popular vote cast (breaking the old record set by Warren Harding in 1920 and eventually exceeded in only one other election—Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964), and taking 523 electoral votes, or 98.5 percent (a percentage of the Electoral College exceeded only by George Washington and James Monroe before the rise of the modern two-party system and the broadening of the franchise), leaving Landon with just 8 electoral votes from 2 states, Vermont and Maine. Roosevelt’s margin of victory of 24 percent was the third highest in history (exceeded only by Harding in 1920 and Calvin Coolidge in 1924). Impressively, Roosevelt won at least 60 percent of the vote in 30 states. Landon’s approximately 16,700,000 votes represented around 38 percent of the electorate, the remaining votes going to the populist Union Party (their candidate, William Lemke of North Dakota, winning just over 930,000 votes), the Socialist Party (campaign veteran Norman Thomas, in his third election, winning just under 188,000 votes, a poor showing for the Socialists, who at one time enjoyed a promising position as a growing third party), and the Communist Party (scarcely managing 79,000 votes for their obscure candidate, Earl Browder).
The diverse Roosevelt Coalition, which was forged in the election of 1932 and somewhat foreshadowed in the Smith campaign of 1928, had not only held its base, but also expanded its reach. For the first time in history, for example, the majority (in this case, 71%) of voting African Americans cast their votes for a Democrat. More importantly, the New Deal programs that Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress established were earnestly embraced by a substantial majority of the American electorate, signaling that a dramatic change had indeed occurred and taken root, a change in the way in which the role of the federal government was understood by the majority of American citizens. The 1930s would continue to be marked by hardship at home and ever more menacing dangers abroad; but for the moment, Franklin Roosevelt was the most successful politician of his time, and the Democrats enjoyed unprecedented power throughout the federal government.
The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29596#ixzz1IfGCKPvm).
Brands, H. W. Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. New York: Doubleday, 2008.
Brinkley, Alan. “1936.” In Arthur M. Schlesinger, Fred L. Israel, and David J. Frent, eds. Running for President: The Candidates and Their Images. Vol. 2. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.
Leuchtenburg, William. “Election of 1936.” In Arthur M. Schlesinger and Fred L. Israel, eds. History of America Presidential Politics, 1789–1968. Vol. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Lichtman, Allan. Prejudice and Old Politics: The Presidential Election of 1928. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970.
Smith, Jean Edward. FDR. New York: Random House, 2008.
Webber, Michael J. New Deal Fat Cats: Business, Labor, and Campaign Finance in the 1936 Presidential Election. New York: Fordham University Press, 2000.