Jared Cohen in Life After Power: Seven Presidents and their Search for Purpose Beyond the White House, credits Herbert Hoover with the rise of the modern American conservative movement.[1] Cohen’s argument may be surprising to many because Hoover is traditionally viewed as a progressive. However, this was not always the case and not only was Hoover a conservative in terms of politics and policy, but he also contributed to the philosophy of conservatism. George H. Nash, a historian of the American conservative movement and biographer of Hoover, wrote that Hoover was one of the few presidents that “ventured self-consciously into the realm of political philosophy.”[2]
Hoover, both before and after his presidency, was a defender of American constitutionalism and this was the foundation of his political thought. This was especially true with Hoover’s response to the New Deal, which he considered to be a direct attack on constitutionalism. Hoover can be best described as a constitutional conservative, whose philosophy was rooted in the tradition of the conservative nationalism of Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln.
In The Knickerbocker Press, A. Ranger Tyler described Herbert Hoover as the defender of the “old order” and the “high priest of that era.”[3] By the “old order” Tyler referred to Hoover’s defense of constitutionalism and his commitment to conservatism. The subject of Tyler’s editorial was a review of Hoover’s book The Challenge to Liberty, which was the former President’s philosophical response to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Richard Norton Smith, a biographer of Hoover, wrote that one of the most important contributions of Hoover was his “role as a philosopher of modern conservative thought.”[4]
Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind wrote that Hoover was “the last American president to do his own thinking.”[5] This was a major compliment coming from the leading intellectuals of American conservatism. In 1960, Hoover had asked Kirk if he would serve as director for the Hoover Institution of War, Peace, and Revolution at Stanford University.[6] Kirk admired Hoover and described him as “one of the more learned of American presidents,” which was similar to Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams.[7] Further, Kirk argued that “had Hoover been able to rouse America’s imagination in 1932, the course of American domestic policy and probably of foreign policy would have been quite different for the following decade.”[8]
Hoover’s conservatism is overlooked for a variety of reasons. Primarily, Hoover’s background placed him within American progressivism. Hoover, who was a mining engineer, and a technocrat, served in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson. Prior to his service in the Wilson administration, Hoover had been a supporter of former President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1912 Bull Moose presidential candidacy. As Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, Hoover was viewed as not only a technocrat, but an activist with his philosophy of associationism. Historian Joan Hoff Wilson even described him as the “forgotten progressive,” which was the title of her biography of Hoover.[9]
Finally, it was the conservative movement itself that dismissed Hoover as a conservative. Libertarian scholars such as the economist Murry Rothbard and historians such as Paul Johnson argued that Hoover was a progressive and even credited him for being the “father of the New Deal.”[10] In The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, Amity Shlaes made a similar argument as Rothbard and Johnson.[11] The combination of Hoover being the “Depression President” and the libertarian argument that he was the “father of the New Deal,” who also advocated for balanced budgets, tax increases, and high tariffs, made him a pariah within the conservative movement that increasingly embraced free-market principles.[12] Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton, who was at one time treated as a hero by conservatives, would also be exiled by libertarians for the same reasons as Hoover.[13]
The intellectual foundations of Hoover’s political thought can be traced back to classical philosophers such as Cicero, the Reformed political philosophy of John Calvin, and the English stateman Edmund Burke. However, the prime influence for Hoover’s political thought centered on the American Founding, especially the ideas of Alexander Hamilton. The influence of Hamilton and the Federalists is crucial to understanding Hoover because it is out of this tradition that formed American conservatism. It was the Federalists that influenced the American Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. The Whigs would in turn influence the Republican Party. President Abraham Lincoln’s political hero was Henry Clay and the political economy of the Whigs, and the principles of the American Founding served as the center of his political thought. It was Lincoln who had the most direct influence on Hoover’s political thought.
The Roman statesman Cicero was a defender of the republic during the late era of Rome. Cicero not only believed in a republican form of government, but he also believed in natural law and ordered liberty. He also believed in the importance of history, respecting the past and traditions, and allowing them to serve as a guide. In the Republic, Cicero argued that the “customs of our ancestors modeled admirable men, and in turn those eminent men upheld the ways and institutions of their forebears.”[14] As Cicero watched the decline of Rome, he argued that one reason for this was Rome’s failure to “preserve its form and outlines.”[15]
“Like Plato before him, Cicero understood that the problem of order is simultaneously personal and social: Roman men and Roman justice had declined together,” stated Kirk.[16] From Cicero’s perspective Rome collapsed as a result of “corrupted” officials and bad laws that “corrupted the commonwealth.”[17] If citizens are not virtuous, Cicero argued that a “good commonwealth” cannot exist.[18] Kirk argued that Cicero had influenced the Founders more than any other philosopher from the classical era.[19] “For Cicero was the spokesman of the idea of ordered liberty, for which Americans were seeking,” wrote Kirk.[20] Ordered liberty, from the perspective of the United States, refers to constitutionalism. The Constitution established a system of ordered liberty, which was governed by the rule of law. This is in addition to the centrality of a just and virtuous citizenry.
Ordered liberty was important to Hoover’s political philosophy. “Hoover believed that individualism could only thrive in a system of ordered liberty,” wrote George W. Carey.[21] For Hoover, “this was a recurring theme” in his books and speeches.[22] As Carey explained:
The word ‘ordered’ assumes a significance because it clearly implies a recognition of rules and restraints on individuals, associations, and government, if the kind of individualism which Hoover seeks is to be realized. What are the rules and restraints? Many of them are formal and represent or reflect the basic ideals of the American conception of liberty as handed down to us from the past. They are, so to speak, an outgrowth of our tradition. Our Bill of Rights and its major provisions embody part of our ordered liberty.[23]
Ordered liberty was at the center of Hoover’s “American System.”
The Constitution and the principle of self-government was sustained through ordered liberty. As Hoover stated:
It is founded upon a particular conception of self-government in which decentralized local responsibility is the very base. Further than this, it is founded upon the conception that only through ordered liberty, freedom, and equality of opportunity to the individual will his initiative and enterprise spur the march of progress. And in our insistence upon equality of opportunity has our system advanced beyond all the world.[24]
George H. Nash argues that “for Hoover the fundamentals of historic liberalism were embodied in the Constitution and above all in the Bill of Rights.”[25] “Increasingly, in 1933-1934, the Bill of Rights—that charter (in Hoover’s words) of ‘ordered individual liberty’ was on his mind” as a result of the radical nature of the New Deal.
Whether it was his defense of republicanism, natural law, ordered liberty, and civic virtue, Cicero had a considerable influence upon the American Founding, which in turn had a direct impact on Hoover. Another important influence upon Hoover’s political thought was Christian faith. Hoover was raised in a Quaker home and his faith influenced not only his sense of ordered liberty, but also individual responsibility and civic virtue. This was reflected in Hoover’s humanitarian and charitable efforts throughout his life. While Hoover may not have shared the Reformed theology of John Calvin, Calvinism had a substantial impact on the American Founding. Calvin outlined Reformed theology is his Institutes of the Christian Religion, but he also contributed to the development of political thought. Some of the ideas that Calvin wrote about include republicanism, limited government, separation of powers, civil liberties, among others which are considered pillars of American constitutionalism.[26]
Calvin addressed natural law, ordered liberty, and civic virtue. This also included the development and advancement of liberty in Europe and in the United States. John Witte, Jr. argues that “early modern Calvinists worked with others slowly to develop a human rights culture and a set of constitutional structures dedicated to the rule of law and to the protection of the essential rights and liberties of all peaceable believers.”[27] In addition, “Calvinists took the lead in producing a number of landmark constitutional documents that gradually expanded the Western regime of human rights in the early modern period,” wrote Witte.[28] Some of these include the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), the Toleration Act (1689), and the Massachusetts Constitution (1780).[29] This even included the United States Constitution.[30] Witte notes that “supporting these and other legal texts on point were thousands of Calvinist pamphlets, sermons, declarations, briefs, and learned tracts that defined and defended an ever greater roll and role of rights in church, state, and society.”[31]
Calvinism had a direct impact on the American Founding, and it must also be noted that two important of pillars of Reformed theology impacted Hoover. Calvinists believed in the sovereignty of God, which is at the center of Reformed theology. In addition, Reformed theology teaches the Biblical doctrine of total depravity, that is, as a result of sin human nature is fallen. An overview of Hoover’s writings and speeches demonstrates that he found agreement in these two doctrines. Hoover often referenced God’s sovereignty in the affairs of mankind, and he also acknowledged that “no system if perfect,” in referring to governments and that “no human ideal is ever perfectly attained, since humanity itself is not perfect.”[32]
This is often misunderstood about Hoover, because it is assumed that because of his background as an engineer and a technocrat, plus that Hoover often spoke of “progress,” that he believed that society could be perfected. Hoover never acknowledged that any political, economic, or society could be perfected. Both the sovereignty of God and the understanding of total depravity, are two important philosophical foundations for conservatism. It is the ideologue that believes in the perfection of society and Hoover warned against ideology both from the political left and right.
The most considerable influence for conservatism was the English statesman, Edmund Burke. Russell Kirk argued that Edmund Burke was the father of modern conservatism, and his Reflections on the Revolution in France serves as a foundational text in understanding the philosophy of conservatism.[33] Burke was influenced by Cicero’s philosophy, and he considered him to be one of his greater influences.[34] Burke was the great defender of English constitutionalism.[35] Conservatism is based upon Burke’s “politics of prudence and prescription, guarding and preserving a country’s institutions.”[36] Hazony argues that Burkes conservatism was based on five main pillars: Historical empiricism, nationalism, religion, limited executive power, and individual freedoms.[37] These would reflect Burke’s politics of prudence.
Kirk argued that Burke is a “legacy of our civilization of which American life and character form a part.”[38] In addition, Burke has helped “to form American society,” and “has been an influence upon this land and this people from the 1760s to the present.”[39] “To seek political wisdom from Burke is no more exotic for Americans than it is to seek humane insights from Shakespeare or spiritual insights from Saint Paul,” wrote Kirk.[40]
An essential element of Burke’s conservatism was the respect for tradition, history, institutions, and prudent change. “The authority of government derives from constitutional traditions known, through the long historical experience of a given nation, to offer stability, well-being and freedom,” wrote Hazony in describing Burke’s philosophy.[41] In terms of prudent change, Hazony, describes this as the traditions which “are refined through trial and error over centuries, with repairs and improvements being introduced where necessary, to maintain the integrity of the inherited national edifice as a whole.”[42]
Burke’s philosophy of conservatism influenced what has become known as traditional conservatism in the United States, which was best defined by Russell Kirk. Kirk defined conservatism as:
‘Conservatism’ is derived from the Latin verb conservare, to keep or preserve. Thus, a conservative is a person who, tending to prefer the old and tried to the novel and dubious, endeavors to safeguard the institutions and convictions which his own generation has inherited from previous ages. Generally speaking, the conservative hopes to reconcile what is most important in old customs and in the wisdom of his ancestors with the change that society must undergo if it is to endure.[43]
Kirk would expand this definition by including principles in support, but this demonstrates the influence of Burke, and it was a definition that Hoover agreed with, and many conservatives today continue to support.
Hoover found agreement in much of Burke’s philosophy. In response to a question about the definition of true conservatism, Hoover offered an answer based on Burke’s philosophy:
My idea of a conservative is one who desires to retain the wisdom and experience of the past and who is prepared to apply the best of that wisdom and experience to meet the changes which are inevitable in every new generation.[44]
Hoover would further argue that it was imperative for a conservative to uphold “certain sacred principles of life, of morals, and spiritual values.”[45] This was the motivation behind his aggressive response to the New Deal. Carey noted that Hoover’s political thought “had paralleled and perhaps drawn upon the thinking of Edmund Burke.”[46]
The American Founding itself had a profound impact on Hoover. Throughout his speeches, articles, and books, Hoover was constantly referring back to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. “The founders of our republic under Divine inspiration” established a “great political system,” which is “unique in the world,” stated Hoover in 1928.[47] This is why Hoover believed in American exceptionalism. Hoover also praised the mechanics of the Constitution, which included federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the protection of liberties. In his response to the New Deal, Hoover was extremely critical of what he considered to be Roosevelt’s undermining of the Constitution. This was especially true with Roosevelt’s use of executive power and his attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court and threaten the independence of the judiciary.
Hoover often praised many of the Founders, but it was Alexander Hamilton that had the greatest impact on Hoover. Hamilton was a leading Federalist and he had contributed to The Federalist Papers. Kirk argued that “The Federalist Papers form a work of high political prudence, well argued and worthy of close attention.”[48] “The federal system of government, brought into existence by those politicians’ arguments, has done much for the American people,” noted Kirk.[49] Hoover would have agreed with Kirk when he noted “as the United States slides toward centralization, the ideas of the Federalists grow still more deserving of renewal, by way of caution and check.”[50] The Founders, Kirk argued, “participated in political and legal institutions very like those that Burke defended.”[51]
The Federalists were also represented the conservative wing of American politics.[52] Forrest McDonald argued that the “conservatives prevailed” at the Philadelphia Convention, which crafted the Constitution.[53] This was a result of Federalist leaders such as Hamilton and Roger Sherman, although it must be noted that not all those how supported the ratification of the Constitution were Federalists, as an example James Madison.
Hamilton became the leader of the Federalists, in what is referred to as the first American political party system. Hamilton was a close friend and adviser to President George Washington. President Washington selected Hamilton to serve as the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury and through this Hamilton established the Federalist policy agenda. “The chief architect of the Washington administration’s policies, and the chief target of Jefferson’s and Madison’s efforts, was Alexander Hamilton,” wrote McDonald.[54] McDonald credits Hamilton for being a leading conservative of the Founding era. “Hamilton’s fiscal system, which breathed life into the Constitution, was an example of conservatism—constructive prudential change—at its best,” argued McDonald.[55] McDonald also associated Jefferson, Madison, President Andrew Jackson, and progressives such as President Woodrow Wilson and the New Dealers as ideologues that stood against conservatism.[56]
Hamilton influenced Hoover’s political thought in two fundamental ways. The first, was Hamilton’s devotion to the Union and the Constitution and the second, was his political economy. Hamilton is credited with being the father of American capitalism. He outlined most, but not all, of his economic ideas in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures.[57] In his Report, Hamilton called for a policy of economic nationalism, which encouraged the growth of manufacturing and would unite the nation economically. Hamilton urged Congress to implement protective tariffs that would not only raise revenue for the government, but also protect American industry from European competition.[58] Hamilton argued that tariffs would also protect wages and ensure that the nation was not dependent on foreign nations for necessities. Further, Hamilton argued for subsidies to support industry and the government to support the building of internal improvements. Hamilton also called for the creation of a national bank.
Hamilton’s economic policies would become known as the American System. The American System would surpass Hamilton and it would later be embraced by the American Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. The Republican Party, at least from President Abraham Lincoln through Herbert Hoover, would advocate for Hamiltonian economic policies. Hoover, as Secretary of Commerce and as President, advocated for the protective tariff and funding of internal improvements. Yoram Hazony describes the conservatism of the Federalists as conservative nationalism.[59] Hazony describes the broad political principles of the Federalists, which differed from the Democratic-Republicans:
All of these principles derived from their belief in a unique American nation with a unique cultural inheritance derived from Britain, and the desire to unite the various parts of this American nation under a strong central government. These principles include regarding Americans as a distinct nation of British heritage, American constitutional continuity with the British constitution, the Supreme Court as the body responsible for interpreting the Constitution, economic nationalism, a nationalist immigration policy, alliance with Britain, an alliance between religion and state, and opposition to slavery.[60]
All of these would reflect the conservatism of the Republican Party, especially from the presidential administrations from Lincoln through Hoover. Today, many conservatives and libertarians dismiss Hamilton as the architect of “big government” and economic mercantilism. Jefferson and Madison receive higher praise from most conservatives and libertarians today.
However, this was not always the case. Republicans such as President Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, President Warren G. Harding, President Calvin Coolidge, Andrew Mellon, who served as Secretary of the Treasury under Harding, Coolidge, and President Hoover, among others all praised Hamilton.[61] Henry Cabot Lodge and Arthur Vandenberg, two prominent Republican United States Senators, both authored books praising Hamilton. President Harding, before he assumed office, traveled the lecture circuit giving a popular lecture that praised the virtues of Hamilton. President Coolidge even stated that the Republican Party’s heritage was a direct result of Hamilton. Republican policies of this era were a direct reflection of Hamilton’s conservatism.
Michael P. Federici, dismisses the argument that Hamilton was a progressive or advocate of centralized government. As Federici wrote:
Hamilton was not a libertarian, but he was not an advocate of the managerial state either. His view of human nature would not have allowed either the faith in economic anarchy suggested by libertarians or the heavily regulated stated advocated by Keynesians. Hamilton’s policies lack enough of the gnostic flavor of Jacobinism or Progressivism to consider the political economy an antecedent to modern American liberalism. They were not designed or intended to eradicate poverty, fear, and want, as FDR’s New Deal was designed to do, and they did not aim to dramatically change the scope of government’s role in individual lives. Hamilton’s objectives were far more modest. To some of his contemporaries they seemed immodest because they were his, and he had built American economic institutions virtually from the ground up. Yet, taken in the context of its supporting theoretical foundations, Hamilton’s political economy becomes sober to the point of being incompatible with later ideologies and developments in American history, like the New Deal, the welfare state, and the managerial state.[62]
Carson Holloway finds agreement with Federici, as he argues:
Although Hamilton advocated an energetic national government, his grounds for doing so reveal that his thinking has much more in common with American conservatism than it has with its progressive ideological rival. Hamilton’s program as Secretary of the Treasury was animated by his practical interest in laying the foundations of American security and prosperity, not by any progressive concern with pursuing a continual amelioration and equalization of social conditions. His vision, therefore, called for active but not unlimited government.[63]
Federici and Holloway’s argument is important for not only understanding Hamilton’s political thought, but it also helps to understand Hoover. Hoover, just as with Hamilton, is often viewed as a “big government” progressive, but a deeper analysis and pushing aside slogans, demonstrates that this is not the case.
The political heirs to the Federalists rose in response to President Andrew Jackson. The National Republicans, which became the Whigs, advocated for the American System and they shared the Federalist defense of the Union. President John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster were all prominent National Republican and Whig political leaders. “The Whigs showed by the name they chose that they honored the tradition of the eighteenth-century British opposition and the ideals of America’s Revolutionary generation,” noted Patrick Allitt.[64] Allitt also notes that Edmund Burke influenced the Whigs:
Burke “was one of their favorite writers: they shared his horror of the French Revolution, they admired his rhetorical blending of logic and sentiment in defense of tradition, and they shared his aversion to rationalist schemes for sweeping away the old and rebuilding society according to blueprints.[65]
The Whigs, just as with Burke, “admired self-restraint, balance, prudence, and respect for law and tradition.”[66]
The Whigs also favored Hamilton’s American System and Henry Clay became the leading advocate for the protective tariff, internal improvements, and national banking. The political conservatism and the economic nationalism of the Whigs would influence the Republican Party, including Abraham Lincoln and future conservatives such as Herbert Hoover and Robert A. Taft.[67]
If Hoover himself identified a political influence it was President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a childhood hero for Hoover and his Quaker descendants had supported the Abolitionist cause. Lincoln was also the source for Hoover’s doctrine of equality of opportunity. In his first message to Congress, Lincoln spoke of the necessity “to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.”[68] Lincoln was not advocating that government provide the means of elevation, but that each individual should have the opportunity to advance in society. Lincoln himself had come from a humble background and worked and educated himself to become a lawyer and later politician. Equality of opportunity also explained why Lincoln opposed the institution of slavery, because it not only dehumanized individuals, but it also denied slaves their economic liberty.[69]
George H. Nash explained the philosophy of equality of opportunity when he wrote:
Since the time of Abraham Lincoln, the American people by and large have stood for this principle and for the only kind of society in which such a principle makes sense: a free, dynamic, capitalistic society, a society of promise and hope, in which men’s and women’s fulfillment in life is determined not by group identity or arbitrary governmental decree but by their own inner-resources, by merit. For as long as Americans cherish this ideal and strive to create a society based upon it, they will find appeal in the philosophy and vision of Herbert Hoover.[70]
Equality of opportunity was an important foundation of Hoover’s political thought, which originated from Lincoln.
Lincoln, just as with the Federalists and Whigs, shared a strong devotion to the Union and the Constitution. Further, just as with Cicero, Calvin, and Burke, Lincoln believed in natural law and ordered liberty. Lincoln even viewed conservatism in a similar fashion to Burke. “What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried,” stated Lincoln.[71] In regard to the Civil War, Lincoln viewed his actions as protecting the traditions of American constitutionalism and this was the case in his arguments about the nature of the Union and his opposition to state secession.[72] Greg Weiner argues that Lincoln, just as with Burke, are both prime examples of the politics of prudence.[73]
Finally, Lincoln embraced the American System. Lincoln’s political hero was Henry Clay and he advocated policies that were rooted in the tradition of the American System. This included the protective tariff and funding internal improvements.[74] Lincoln’s economic adviser was the economist Henry C. Carey, who was known as “apostle of protectionism,” fierce advocate for protective tariffs. Carey was influenced by the political economy of Alexander Hamilton. Lincoln’s defense of constitutionalism, his dedicated support for the Union, his defense of personal and economic liberty, and his Hamiltonian political economy all impacted Hoover’s political thought.
American constitutionalism was the foundation of Hoover’s political thought. He described constitutionalism as the “American System.”[75] The “American System” was Hoover’s method of describing the Constitution and the principles of constitutionalism which included limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism. Hoover also placed an emphasis on liberty and natural law with his defense of the Bill of Rights and ordered liberty. Further, Hoover described the Constitution as the “Ark of the Covenant” of liberty.[76] Gordon Lloyd and David Davenport describe Hoover as a “constitutional conservative.”[77] “These three pillars—liberty, limited government, and constitutionalism—formed the core of Herbert Hoover’s case against the New Deal,” wrote Lloyd and Davenport.[78] It was the principles of the American Founding that made the United States an exceptional nation.
Hoover’s “American System” also outlined the doctrine of equality of opportunity. As Lloyd and Davenport describe:
What exactly did Hoover mean by the American System? He meant a system in which individual freedom and equal opportunity lead to a sense of responsibility which inspires Americans to take care of each other while pursuing their own and their communities’ best interests, unhindered by government bureaucracy or central planning, both of which lead to despotism.[79]
This also meant that government was limited to within its constitutional bounds. “The American System limits government to those areas where it can do the most good, but otherwise trusts public life to self-government of individuals acting in voluntary cooperation…,” noted Lloyd and Davenport.[80]
The “American System” was also strongly associated with American exceptionalism. Hoover was a strong proponent of American exceptionalism. As a mining engineer he served in multiple countries, which allowed him to have direct experience with multiple forms of governments and economic systems.[81] “I have seen the squalor of Asia, the frozen class barriers of Europe,” stated Hoover, and he stated, “my every frequent homecoming has been a reaffirmation of the glory of America.”[82] The Great War also had an impact on Hoover’s political thought. “According to Hoover, the revolutionary upheavals of World War I and its aftermath had produced a world in ferment,” wrote Nash.[83] The ferment that Hoover referred to was the growing threat of ideologies such as communism, socialism, and fascism.[84]
As a result of these rising ideologies, Hoover wanted to explain why the United States was not only different than Europe, but exceptional. Hoover’s efforts to explain the “social philosophy” of the nation was encompassed in American Individualism. Published in 1922, American Individualism was Hoover’s first dive into political philosophy. Hoover was concerned that the aforementioned ideologies could potentially take root and harm the United States.[85]
This concern was also a reflection of Hoover’s view of human nature. Even though he believed in American exceptionalism, Hoover understood that the nation was susceptible to these ideologies that would undermine constitutionalism and liberty. As Hoover wrote:
The partisans of some of these other brands of social schemes challenge us to comparison; and some of their partisans even among our own people are increasing in their agitation that we adopt one or another or parts of their devices in place of our tried individualism. They insist that our social foundations are exhausted, that like feudalism and autocracy, America’s plan has served its purpose—that it must be abandoned.[86]
This point is crucial because Hoover would later believe that the New Deal represented an abandonment of the “American System.”
This is further evidence of Hoover’s conservatism. Just as with Burke, Hoover warned against ideology. “There are those who have been left in sober doubt of our institutions or are confounded by bewildering catchwords of vivid phrases,” wrote Hoover.[87] As an example, American progressives were overly critical of the Constitution and believed that the principles of the American Founding were obsolete. In addition, it was during this time that progressives started to identify themselves as “liberals,” and individuals such as Hoover, who considered themselves liberal in the classical sense of the term, started to use the term “conservative.”
Hoover argued that what made the United States exceptional was the principle of equality of opportunity, which was the foundation of American Individualism. Equality of opportunity, was the spirit of America, which centered on the notion that anyone could advance based upon their own initiative.[88] Hoover’s principle of equality of opportunity was a direct influence from President Lincoln. Equality of opportunity was at the heart of American individualism, as Hoover argued:
Therefore, it is not the individualism of other countries for which I would speak, but the individualism of America. Our individualism differs from all other because it embraces these great ideals: that while we build our society upon the attainment of the individual, we shall safeguard to every individual an equality of opportunity to take that position in the community to which his intelligence, character, ability, and ambition entitle him; that we keep the social solution free from frozen strata of classes; that we shall stimulate efforts of each individual to achievement; that through an enlarging sense of responsibility and understanding we shall assist him to this attainment; while he in turn must stand up to the emery wheel of competition.[89]
Further, Hoover described equality of opportunity as “the fair chance of Abraham Lincoln.”[90] Hoover, just as with Lincoln, were both born into humble means and because of American liberty were able to advance and to be successful. At the time of the publication of American Individualism, Hoover, who was orphaned and worked his way through Stanford University, had established a successful career as a mining engineer, was credited as the “Great Humanitarian” for his relief efforts during World War I, and was now serving as Secretary of Commerce.
Lloyd and Davenport argue that Hoover’s doctrine of equality of opportunity was not just an idea formulated by Lincoln, but it was a principle of the American Founding.[91] Equality of opportunity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, and the Constitution.[92] “The formula by which equality would be achieved for Madison and the Founders was through these two powerful ideas: liberty as the philosophical base, and republican form of government as the system to protect it,” wrote Lloyd and Davenport.[93]
Equality of opportunity existed only because of American constitutionalism, which provided the necessary foundation for liberty and morality. America was exceptional not only because of economic liberty, but also its moral foundation rooted in Christianity and natural law. Walter Friar Dexter argued that Hoover’s Quaker faith shaped his philosophy, which was based upon “moral law.”[94] Hoover’s Christian faith was at the center of his philosophy, and he reflected John Calvin’s belief that public officials had moral responsibilities.[95]
Hoover, Dexter argued, believed that elected officials “must give moral as well as political leadership.”[96] The lasting legacy of Hoover was not political, but his numerous acts of charity and humanitarian efforts across the globe. This is why Hoover believed that the American people were the most humanitarian and philanthropic because individuals, organizations, and communities based upon their own initiative, provided the necessary public support rather than government. Hoover’s mobilization of private relief efforts in response to the great Mississippi River flood in 1927 was an example.
Along with a Christian moral fabric, Hoover argued the conservative principle of individual responsibility was crucial to equality of opportunity.[97] Hoover rejected the idea of equality of outcomes, which still is a pillar of progressivism or modern liberalism.[98] As Hoover wrote:
We in America have had too much experience of life to fool ourselves into pretending that all men are equal in ability, in character, in intelligence, in ambition. That was part of the claptrap of the French Revolution.[99]
For Hoover, equality was before God and before the law, and the responsibility of government was “to assure to the individual through government is liberty, justice, intellectual welfare, equality of opportunity, and stimulation to service.”[100] On a more controversial level this was one reason why Hoover was reluctant to support direct federal relief during the Great Depression. He believed that “federal welfare” would destroy civil society and individual responsibility.
Hoover’s doctrine of equality of opportunity was also referred to as “Rugged Individualism,” a term that resulted from a speech he gave at the close of the 1928 presidential campaign.[101] In his speech, Hoover argued that the nation was confronted with a choice in the aftermath of World War I to either follow the “American System” of constitutionalism or the path of government centralization. As Hoover stated:
We were challenged with a peace-time choice between the American system of rugged individualism and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines—doctrines of paternalism and state socialism. The acceptance of these ideas would have meant the destruction of self-government through centralization of government. It would have meant the undermining of the individual initiative and enterprise through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness.[102]
The Republican Party, Hoover argued, made it a priority to choose the “American System,” which reflected the Harding and Coolidge administrations, which had rejected the progressivism of the Wilson administration.
“Rugged Individualism” is often assumed to be another term for laissez-faire or libertarianism, but this was not the case. Hoover rejected laissez-faire in American Individualism and even described it as an ideology.[103] “In our individualism we have long since abandoned the laissez-faire of the 18th century—the notion that it is ‘every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost,’” wrote Hoover.[104] This did not mean Hoover was against capitalism or supported a planned economy, but rather he took the Hamiltonian conservative view of economics. Hoover believed that government did have a limited responsibility in regulating the economy. This is why Hoover supported anti-trust laws to end monopolies.[105] “A certain measure of governmental legislation was necessary, he felt, to prevent economic autocracy, inequality of opportunity, and the throttling of individual initiative,” wrote Nash.[106]
Nevertheless, it is important to note that Hoover believed that any public policy must be kept within the bounds of the Constitution. Nash wrote that Hoover believed that “the nature and extent of this governmental involvement must be carefully defined and, above all, kept consistent with the broad American traditions of voluntary cooperation, local self-government, and individual initiative.”[107] This is why, as Nash wrote, Hoover “was an uncompromising foe of socialism and the totalitarian state.”[108]
Finally, Hoover’s doctrine of equality of opportunity reflected how James Madison viewed human nature in Federalist Paper 10.[109] In Federalist Paper 10, Madison “argued that part of the reconciliation between equality and liberty requires an understanding of human nature, which unlike the later Progressives, he thought was fixed and not malleable.”[110] This was Madison’s famous argument about factions and that humans “are quarrelsome and contentious by nature.”[111] Lloyd and Davenport argue that this was a direct influence on Hoover’s philosophy of equality of opportunity:
To pursue equality to its fullest form, to quote Madison in Federalist No. 10, would mean giving ‘to every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests,’ something both unrealistic and, with individual liberty, undesirable. Alexander Hamilton agreed with Madison: ‘The door’ to advancement in society ‘ought to be equally open to all.’ But human nature informs us that ‘there are strong minds in every walk of life, that will rise superior to the disadvantages of the situation and will commend the tribute due to their merit.’[112]
Hoover’s American Individualism directly reflected the ideas of Madison and Hamilton.
Hoover, just as with the Founders, stated that “no system is perfect,” and that “our institutions” are not perfect, because “humanity itself is not perfect.”[113] This was also a reflection of John Calvin and the doctrine of total depravity. For Hoover, the Constitution, and the mechanisms contained within, would serve as a protection of liberty along with a society based on ordered liberty and morality.
American Individualism was a direct response to the progressive view that the nation had to change because of a new modern and industrial society. President Woodrow Wilson reflected this philosophy when he wrote:
Our life has broken away from the past. The life of America is not the life that it was twenty years ago; it is not the life that it was ten years ago. We have changed our economic conditions, absolutely, from top to bottom; and, with our economic society, the organization of our life. The old political formulas do not fit the present problems; they read like documents taken out of a forgotten age[114]
Wilson argued that as a nation “we are in the presence of a new organization of society.”[115]
Progressives argued that Hoover’s doctrine of equality of opportunity may have worked in his time, but society had changed and now opportunity was out of reach for most people, and this required the intervention of the federal government. Lloyd and Davenport argue that this debate was important in the battle between conservatives and progressives in what direction the nation would take.[116] Lloyd and Davenport described the progressive view as advocated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
Roosevelt’s and Hoover’s very different diagnoses of the nature of the equality of opportunity problem prepared for fundamentally different paths toward addressing it. In Roosevelt’s view: free land, western expansion, the American frontier, and an agricultural economy. With industrialization and the closing of the frontier, people could no longer expect to make their own way toward equality of opportunity. Instead, government would need to become its guarantor, beating back industrial combinations, regulating business and the markets, and ensuring more equitable distribution of wealth.[117]
Nash argues that Hoover “responded forcefully to such criticisms,” and it was “not the mere availability of abundant land and natural resources that had blessed America,” it was the “American System” that made equality of opportunity possible.[118]
The Great Depression served as the battlefield for Hoover and Roosevelt. Hoover argued that the “American System” did not need to be altered in order to “save democracy” as Roosevelt and the progressives would argue. “Hoover, on the other hand, felt the American system was essentially strong and would survive the Great Depression without fundamental change,” wrote Lloyd and Davenport.[119] For Hoover, the “foundation of equality of opportunity was in the permanent guarantees and structures and structure of America’s constitutional system and not based on the vagaries of a changing economy.”[120]
Lloyd and Davenport argue that “the birth of modern American conservatism” began with Hoover’s response to the New Deal.[121] During the presidential campaigns of 1928 and in 1932, Hoover campaigned on themes that were directly related to the ideas outlined in American Individualism.[122] Some of the key themes in Hoover’s speeches included not only the defense of American constitutionalism, but also equality of opportunity, the importance of ordered liberty and individual responsibility, and a further rejection of laissez-faire. Further, Hoover’s speeches in both presidential campaigns were filled with reminders to the American people about the virtues of the American Founding and the need to adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.[123]
Hoover argued in the opening of the 1932 presidential campaign that the crisis of the Great Depression was not just economic, but spiritual.[124] The severity of the Depression had not only tested America’s economic system of capitalism, but also the very nature of constitutional government. During the campaign, Hoover argued that Roosevelt’s proposed New Deal would fundamentally alter government.[125] “This campaign is more than a contest between two men. It is more than a contest between two parties. It is a contest between two philosophies of government,” stated Hoover.[126] Roosevelt and the New Deal, argued Hoover, had the objective of altering “the whole foundation of our national life,” which have been built “through generations of testing and struggle.”[127]
Hoover’s argument reflected the conservatism of Burke. Hoover believed in the conservative view that change was inevitable, but it had to be prudent and within the bounds of the Constitution. History, Hoover argued, should serve as a guide and the “American System” served as an anchor or a check against ideas that would undermine liberty and constitutionalism. Hoover noted that conservatives should not be “allergic to new ideas,” but rather ideas needed to be tried “slowly without destroying what is already good.”[128] This was the great debate between Hoover and Roosevelt. Hoover argued that the “American System” was “capable of originating and sustaining” society during the Depression, while Roosevelt called for fundamental economic and political reform.[129] “They are proposing changes and so-called New Deals which would destroy the very foundations of our American system,” stated Hoover.[130] Throughout the campaign Hoover argued that Roosevelt’s proposed New Deal would directly undermine federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and erode liberty.[131] The consequence would result in government bureaucracy, planned economy (regimentation), and reckless increases in taxes and spending. Hoover argued that “men who are going about this country announcing that they are liberals because of their promises to extend the government” are “reactionaries of the United States.”[132] Hoover was prophetic when he stated that the outcome of the election “means deciding the direction our nation will take over a century to come.”[133]
Roosevelt won the presidential election in a landslide and received a mandate from the American people to launch his New Deal. The New Deal fundamentally altered government and American constitutionalism. As Lloyd and Davenport argue:
Even as the French Revolution of the eighteenth century prompted Edmund Burke’s foundational conservative document, Reflections on the Revolution in France, establishing Burke as the father of modern conservatism, so too did modern America have its own revolution, President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, and its own contemporary conservative respondent, Herbert Hoover.[134]
Lloyd and Davenport describe the New Deal as being America’s French Revolution, and they compare Hoover to Burke for his “prophetic voice crying in the progressive wilderness of the 1930s, pointing the way toward what has become modern American conservatism.”[135]
Hoover’s response to the New Deal was a “Burkean moment,” that is, he came to the “realization that to be an American conservative meant no longer cooperating or temporizing with progressivism within the American System but shifting to become a defender of the American System against a progressive assault.”[136] In the aftermath of the election Hoover returned to his home in Stanford, California and remained silent in the early days of the Roosevelt administration. As Congress continued to pass one New Deal program after another, Hoover began to see that what he had said on the campaign trail about Roosevelt’s policy agenda was now becoming reality. American constitutionalism was being undermined and Hoover believed that he had a moral responsibility to respond, plus Republicans from across the nation were asking for his advice in how to respond to the popular New Deal agenda.
“The period from 1933 to 1942 may be viewed from two angles: first, as an attempt to revolutionize the American system of life, and second, as a mere continuation of the Great Depression…,” wrote Hoover.[137] In his Memoir, Hoover wrote that “my interest in my country could not be ended by an election, especially as I knew the character and purposes of the men coming into power were not those of traditional America.”[138] In American Individualism, Hoover was concerned about the threat of ideology taking hold in the United States, and now that occurred with the New Deal. As Hoover wrote:
What had been, up to the election, an ideological debate was now transformed into a reality of national experience. In adopting the New Deal, most of the American people did not realize that they had departed from the road of free men. Our people had never been conscious of ideological systems. They had simply lived and breathed our own American manner of life. Moreover, they were little acquainted with the meaning of abstract terms used in such philosophies. They did not believe that hideous dangers to their freedom lurked in generous looking but distorted use of phrases as ‘Liberalism,’ ‘New Deal,’ ‘Economic Planning,’ ‘Planned Economy,’ ‘Production for Use,’ and ‘Redistribution of Wealth.’ A people traditionally willing to ‘try anything once’ welcomed such ideas-first.[139]
“There should be lessons to free men in this experience,” noted Hoover.[140]
Russell Kirk would later find agreement with Hoover and offer a similar argument about the danger of ideology and civic ignorance. “Many Americans are badly prepared for their task of defending their own convictions and interests and institutions against the grim threat of armed ideology,” wrote Kirk.[141] The danger, Kirk argued, is that “the propaganda of radical ideologues sometimes confuses and weakens the will of well-intentioned Americans who lack any clear understanding of their nation’s own first principles.”[142] This was the concern that Hoover had with the New Deal.
Hoover responded to the New Deal with numerous speeches, articles, private correspondence to policymakers and concerned citizens, and he got involved politically by attempting to ensure that the Republican Party remained conservative. Hoover’s main intellectual response to the New Deal came with the publication of The Challenge to Liberty. The Challenge to Liberty, published in 1934, was Hoover’s philosophical response to the New Deal. Hoover’s treatise, which has been forgotten, served as a guidepost for American conservatism. It was even referred to as the “Gospel from Palo Alto.”[143]
Hoover did not mention Roosevelt by name or even specific New Deal programs, but The Challenge to Liberty was both an indictment of New Deal liberalism and a defense of limited constitutional government. “For the first time in two generations the American people are faced with the primary issue of humanity and all government—the issue of human liberty,” wrote Hoover.[144] Hoover argued that the “American system of liberty, a system infused by the philosophy of historic liberalism, was under fundamental assault” from the New Deal.[145]
Within The Challenge to Liberty, Hoover addressed the danger of ideology. Specifically, he explained the ideologies of socialism, communism, fascism, and Nazism.[146] Hoover even addressed the danger being created by the New Deal with the growth of bureaucracy, economic planning, and the overall growth of government which led to massive amounts of new spending and taxes.[147] These ideologies were explained in much more detail than what Hoover had wrote in American Individualism. Hoover was also consistent because he also lashed out against laissez-faire capitalism as another ideology.[148]
The Challenge to Liberty can even be considered as a revised and extended version of American Individulaism. Just as with American Individualism, Hoover defended the “American System, which was based upon the “American constitutional system.”[149] Hoover reminded Americans that the Founding Fathers designed a Constitution to safeguard liberties and to protect natural rights. As Hoover wrote:
In the field of government, the fathers, as the of the philosophy of liberty, devised a mechanism of self-government under a charter of fundamental law designed for the sole purpose of protecting and defending this freedom. Our federal Constitution was based upon the conception that the safeguard of free men rested upon explicit law; and that the law should spring from the expressed will of the majority of the people themselves.[150]
Hoover’s objective was to remind the American people of their constitutional heritage. In addition, Hoover feared that Roosevelt and the various New Deal “alphabet soup” programs were undermining the very structure of constitutionalism.
The structures that Hoover referred to were separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial powers, and federalism.[151] A significant concern for Hoover was Roosevelt’s vast use of executive power and Congress acting as a “rubber stamp” in approving the New Deal agenda. “The first tenet of collectivism is the concentration of power,” wrote Hoover in reference to Roosevelt’s use of executive power.[152] Hoover was considered about the independence of the Congress and the Supreme Court, and he argued that the New Deal was eroding both separation of powers and checks and balances.[153] “We have worried much in our history over the independence of the Supreme Court. We have more cause to worry over the independence of Congress,” stated Hoover.[154] Hoover argued that the Congress had “delegated its conscience.”[155] The abuse of executive power had profound consequences as Hoover argued:
If we examine the fate of wrecked republics the world over and through all history, we will find first comes a weakening of the legislative arm. It is in the legislative halls that liberty has committed suicide. For two hundred years the Roman Senate lingered on as a social distinction and as a scene of noisy prattle after it had surrendered its real responsibilities to personal government.[156]
From the perspective of Hoover, Roosevelt’s executive overreach was a direct threat to the Constitution.
This was especially true when Roosevelt decided to utilize the political capital that he received with his landslide victory in the 1936 presidential election. The United States Supreme Court was the only branch of the federal government that was blocking Roosevelt’s agenda. The Supreme Court declared several prominent New Deal laws as unconstitutional. In response, Roosevelt introduced a court reform plan, which to Hoover was only a disguise for “packing” the Supreme Court with pro-New Deal justices. Hoover argued that Roosevelt’s reform plan has the “implication of subordination of the court to the personal power of the executive.”[157] Further, Hoover argued Roosevelt’s reform plan “far transcends any questions of partisanship,” and “liberties have depended greatly on the independence of the court.”[158] Hoover also described the debate over the court reform plan to be “the greatest constitutional question in these seventy years.”[159] Roosevelt, Hoover, declared was trying to “revise the Constitution.”[160]
Hoover defended the Supreme Court in its various decisions striking down New Deal programs and he argued that the Court was the last holdout in defending the Constitution. If Roosevelt were able to get control of the Supreme Court, just as he did with Congress, Hoover argued it would be detrimental to the Constitution. “If Mr. Roosevelt can change the Constitution to suit his purposes by adding to the members of the Court, any succeeding President can do it to suit his purposes,” argued Hoover.[161] The consequence would be that the “Court and the Constitution thus become the tool of the executive and not the sword of the people.”[162] Roosevelt’s court “packing” scheme would fail, but Hoover was correct in his assumptions. In the aftermath the Supreme Court started to view take a more positive view of various New Deal laws, and eventually Roosevelt was able to appoint progressive Justices as the conservatives on the bench slowly retired.
The Challenge to Liberty was well received among Republicans and conservatives. It served as the philosophical foundation for responding to the New Deal. Further, it was not just a critique of New Deal liberalism and other ideologies, but it also served as a reminder and defense of American constitutional principles. Senator Robert A. Taft, who was a leading conservative Republican, stated that Hoover’s book “expresses so well the essential principles of American government.”[163] Former Vice President Charles G. Dawes noted that Hoover was needed for the “present fight for the reestablishment of American principles…”[164] Overall, Hoover’s objective for The Challenge to Liberty was to not only open the eyes of the nation to the radicalism of the New Deal, but to establish “such a foundation that will make the revulsion to the right instead of to the left.”[165]
Goerge H. Nash argues that what makes American Individualism and The Challenge to Liberty unique is that “Hoover endeavored to define the nature of the American regime, which alone gives these books an enduring interest.”[166] Both books stand as pillars of conservatism in an era dominated by progressivism. Nash correctly argues that both of Hoover’s books “transcends the scholarly concerns of historians and political scientists.”[167] The philosophical arguments that Hoover made are just as relevant today as they were in Hoover’s era.[168] As Nash wrote:
And the interpretations we make of our past—particularly of the years 1921-1933—inevitably mold our perspectives on the crises of the present. To many individuals of the Left, for instance, the New Deal was essentially a moderate reform movement which saved American capitalism from destruction and averted a revolution. To Herbert Hoover, however, the New Deal was a revolution that wrought a profound transformation in the relationship of government to citizen, of government to economy—a transformation that would eventually, inevitably, enervate our wellsprings of our property.[169]
Lloyd and Davenport even argue that some of Hoover’s ideas can be found in the intellectual work of the Austrian economist F.A. von Hayek in The Road to Serfdom and the classical liberal economist Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom.[170]
Although both Hayek and Friedman would disagree with Hoover’s criticism of laissez-faire and his support of Hamiltonian economics, especially protective tariffs, both would find agreement with Hoover in the important point that spiritual, intellectual, and economic freedom are all connected.[171] American Individualism and The Challenge to Liberty also indicate an important point that not only was Hoover’s philosophy conservative, but it was also consistent. Lloyd and Davenport are correct in their identification of Hoover as a constitutional conservative, and this is reflected in both books and his numerous speeches and writings. “In retrospect, a careful study of the rich legacy of Hoover’s own speeches and writings reveals the mind and disposition of a constitutional conservative,” wrote Lloyd and Davenport.[172]
As noted previously, Hoover is not recognized today as a conservative. In fact, both political liberals and conservatives reject him. Nevertheless, this was not always the case. During his active post-presidency, Hoover became not only a national conservative leader, but he influenced future conservatives. The most notable being Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft, who was the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party from the late 1930s until his death in 1953.[173] Hoover would even support Taft’s various bids for the Republican presidential nomination, including his fierce battle with General Dwight D. Eisenhower for the nomination in 1952. Taft was a close friend of Hoover’s, and their philosophy of conservatism was similar. Taft identified himself as a conservative in the tradition of Lincoln and he argued that the Republican Party since Lincoln was “the vehicle of nationalism” in reference to the national conservative policies such as the protective tariff and limiting the size and scope of the federal government.[174] Taft also shared Hoover’s view that the New Deal represented a serious threat to constitutionalism.[175]
Russell Kirk and James McClellan in their biography of Taft describe him as an Edmund Burke style conservative.[176] Taft was guided by “the rule of law” and the Constitution, which created both the “legal institutions of America” and the “traditions of civil social order.”[177] In addition, Taft, just as with Hoover, believed in a strong sense of ordered liberty that was based on “Christian and classical concepts of a moral order, right and duty, charity and justice.”[178] Whether on questions of foreign or domestic policy, Taft and Hoover found common agreement. Both believed in a constitutional limited government and were supportive of Hamiltonian economics. Taft also rejected libertarianism and even described himself at one time as a “liberal conservative.”[179]
Taft also shared Hoover’s belief in prudent change measured by the Constitution. A conservative, Taft stated, “knows and appreciates the importance of stability,” and “while I am willing and ready to consider changes, I want to be darned sure—darned sure—that they are really better than what we have.”[180] In the modern American conservative movement, Taft became the first “movement” conservative, that is, he became the political leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
Taft was not the only conservative that was influenced by Hoover. Others included Michigan Senator Arthur Vandenburg, who regularly sought Hoover’s advice, especially in regard to New Deal legislation. Hoover also became a defender and supporter of General Dougals MacArthur, a young Richard M. Nixon, and the controversial Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy. Hoover also influenced Arizona Senator Barry M. Goldwater. In the aftermath of Taft’s death, Goldwater would become the next leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party, and just as with Taft, he became a “movement” conservative. Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative became the “Bible” for the conservative movement and his 1964 presidential campaign opened the doors to another conservative, Ronald Reagan.
Hoover also influenced conservative intellectuals such as Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr. Kirk recalled a meeting with Hoover, and they were visiting about the virtues of Senator Goldwater as a presidential candidate.[181] In reflection upon the Republican Party since 1932, Kirk, recalled that Hoover expressed disappointment with Republican nominees for president.[182] Hoover had supported conservatives such as Senator Robert A. Taft, but Republicans nominated moderate candidates. Hoover, Kirk wrote, “saw in Goldwater a man of principle, unafraid to make hard decisions,” and would “make a good president.”[183] Hoover, who attended and spoke at Republican Party conventions since 1932, was in declining health and unable to attend the 1964 convention. He was an enthusiastic supporter of Goldwater but did not live to see the disappointing results of the 1964 presidential election.
As a conservative, Hoover supported many conservative causes, organizations, and publications. This included William F. Buckley’s National Review.[184] William A. Rusher, an editor of National Review, recalled that during the fifth birthday celebration of the magazine “two of the most prominent members of the sponsoring committee” included Herbert Hoover and General Douglas MacArthur, both of whom were “holy names to conservatives.”[185] Perhaps Hoover’s most lasting legacy to conservatism was his founding of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University, which today remains not only a significant archive, but also a leading conservative public policy think tank.
Hoover also influenced the direction of the Republican Party. From 1932 up until his death in 1964 he fought to ensure that the Republican Party was conservative. Hoover was not always successful in this endeavor, especially with the battle between conservatives and moderates within the Republican Party. Nevertheless, Hoover had a lasting impact. “Hoover’s anti-New Deal program remains in the foundation of the GOP’s aspirations to decentralize the national government and allocate its functions in a complex global economy to the states,” wrote Elliot A. Rosen[186] Gary Dean Best argues that Hoover “exerted his considerable influence in the Republican Party to maintain the GOP as the bulwark of conservative principles in American politics between 1933 and 1952.”[187] In addition, Best argues that the “victories of Ronald Reagan and the conservative Republican sweep of Congress in 1994 could probably not have occurred had not Hoover kept the torch of traditional American liberalism alive from 1933-1964.”[188]
Nash agrees with Best and argues that many of the conservative policy ideas such as “voluntarism, decentralization of government, restraint of bureaucracy, stimulation of private initiative and entrepreneurship, even reconsideration of the gold standard” are all “new themes yet old themes: Hooverian themes.”[189] Hoover would also be concerned with the escalating national debt and the national cultural decline. Many of the ideas being promoted by “national conservatism” are also rooted in Hoover’s philosophy. National conservatism is very similar to the “Old Right” or paleoconservatism of Hoover and Taft National conservatives are arguing for a policy agenda that includes protective tariffs, a restrained foreign policy that protects sovereignty, restoring Christianity and fighting the cultural war, and a limited government.[190] Former President Donald J. Trump in his bid for the 2024 Republican nomination has repeatedly stated that he does not want to be the next Herbert Hoover, but the former President would be surprised that many of his positions, especially on trade, immigration, and foreign policy reflect the philosophy of Hoover. Hoover was an “America First” conservative.
Hazony’s Conservatism: A Rediscovery is the intellectual foundation for national conservatism, and even though Hoover is absent from the book, the philosophy and policy ideas within are all principles that Hoover advocated.[191] While Hazony may not have acknowledged Hoover, Patrick J. Buchanan, who is considered an “old right” or paleoconservative, readily acknowledges the contribution of Herbert Hoover to conservatism. “Herbert Hoover was a good man and an inspiration to many on the Right—especially for his courage in the face of savage attack,” wrote Buchanan.[192]
Gary Dean Best is correct that Hoover kept the torch of conservatism and liberty alive during the wilderness years of the Republican Party. During the New Deal, Hoover was a voice of one calling in the dessert for Americans to repent and abandon modern liberalism. He told the American people that “being a conservative is not a sin.”[193] Hoover may not have been a polished political philosopher as Russell Kirk, but his conservative philosophy was consistent throughout this tenure in public service, and he was the leading constitutional conservative during the Progressive and New Deal eras.
[1]Jared Cohen, Life After Power: Seven Presidents and their Search for Purpose Beyond the White House, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2024, xviii.
[2]George H. Nash, “The Social Philosophy of Herbert Hoover,” Annals of Iowa 45, no.6 (Fall 1980): 478-496, 491.
[3]A. Ranger Tyler, “Mr. Hoover Defends the Old Order,” The Knickerbocker Press, Albany, New York September 28, 1934, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, Post-Presidential Files, Herbert Hoover Special Collections: The Challenge to Liberty, Box 5, West Branch, Iowa.
[4]Richard Norton Smith, “Preface,” in American Individualism & The Challenge to Liberty, West Branch, Iowa: Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Association, 1989, v.
[5]Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 2021, 475.
[6]Russell Kirk, The Sword of Imagination: Memoirs of a Half-Century of Literary Conflict, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995, 310.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid., 314.
[9]Joan Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive, Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1975.
[10]Murray N. Rothbard, America’s Great Depression, Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2000, 167-168 and Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, New York: Harper Perennial, 1991, 256. Many progressive historians argue that Herbert Hoover was both a reactionary and an anti-government Republican. These historians tend to favor President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
[11]Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, New York: Harper Collins, 2007, 148.
[12]Barry C. Edwards analyzed Hoover’s actions as President and found that he tended to side with conservative Republicans more than the progressives in Congress. For more see Barry C. Edwards, “Putting Hoover on the Map: Was the 31st President a Progressive?” Congress & the Presidency 41, no. 1 (Jan, 2014): 49.
[13]For more on this see Stephen F. Knott, Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2002.
[14]Cicero’s Republic quoted in Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2020, 8.
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Ibid., 104.
[18]Ibid.
[19]Ibid., 106.
[20]Ibid.
[21]George W. Carey, “Herbert Hoover’s Concept of Individualism Revisited,” in Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, 1921-1928, edited by Ellis W. Hawley, West Branch, Iowa: Herbert Hoover Presidential Foundation, 1974, 230.
[22]Ibid.
[23]Ibid.
[24]Herbert Hoover, The New Day: Campaign Speeches of Herbert Hoover, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1928, 153.
[25]George H. Nash, “Introduction,” in The Crusade Years, 1933-1955: Herbert Hoover’s Lost Memoir of the New Deal Era and Its Aftermath, edited by George H. Nash, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, 2013, xvi.
[26]David W. Hall, The Legacy of John Calvin: His Influence on the Modern World, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2008, 24-27.
[27]John Witte, Jr. The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion, and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 2.
[28]Ibid., 2-3.
[29]Ibid., 3.
[30]Mark David Hall, Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic, New York: Oxford University Press, 2013, 2-5.
[31]Ibid.
[32]Hoover, The New Day, 167.
[33]Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered, Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 1997, 230.
[34]Ibid., 12.
[35]Yoram Hazony, Conservatism: A Rediscovery, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 2022, 24.
[36]Kirk, Edmund Burke, 230.
[37]Hazony, 30-31.
[38]Kirk., 226.
[39]Ibid.
[40]Ibid.
[41]Hazony, 30.
[42]Ibid., 30.
[43]Russell Kirk, quoted by Lee Edwards in The Conservative Revolution: The Movement that Remade America, New York, The Free Press, 1999, 16.
[44]Herbert Hoover, On Growing Up: His Letters From and to American Children, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1962, 129.
[45]Hoover quoted by George H. Nash in The Crusade Years, 1933-1955: Herbert Hoover’s Lost Memoir of the New Deal Era and Its Aftermath, xxvii.
[46]Carey, 253.
[47]Hoover, The New Day, 180.
[48]Ibid., 225.
[49]Ibid.
[50]Ibid.
[51]Ibid., 226
[52]Patrick Allitt, The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History, New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press, 2009, 6-7.
[53]Forrest McDonald, “How Conservatism Guided America’s Founding,” Imprimis, volume 12, issue 7, July, 1983, < https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/how-conservatism-guided-americas-founding/> (accessed on March 1, 2024).
[54]McDonald, 10.
[55]Ibid.
[56]Ibid., 11.
[57]Alexander Hamilton, “Report on the Subject of Manufactures, December 5, 1791,” in Hamilton: Writings, New York: The Library of America, 2001, 647.
[58]Ibid., 697.
[60]Ibid., 43-44.
[61]Stephen F. Knott, Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth, Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2002, 85-112.
[62]Michael P. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 2012, 191.
[63]Carson Holloway, “Alexander Hamilton and American Progressivism,” The Heritage Foundation, April 20, 2015, < https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/alexander-hamilton-and-american-progressivism> (accessed on March 1, 2024).
[64]Allitt, 49.
[65]Ibid., 50.
[66]Ibid.
[67]Clarence E. Wunderlin, Robert A. Taft: Ideas, Tradition, and Party in U.S. Foreign Policy, New York: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005, 1.
[68]Abraham Lincoln, “Message to Congress in Special Session, July 4, 1861,” in The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Joseph R. Fornieri, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2003, 586.
[69]David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd, Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, 2023, 34.
[70]George H. Nash, Reappraising the Right: The Past and Future of American Conservatism, Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2009, 260.
[71]Lincoln, “Address at Cooper Institute, New York, February 27, 1860,” in The Language of Liberty: The Political Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, 554.
[72]Allitt, 95.
[73]Greg Weiner, Old Whigs: Burke, Lincoln, and the Politics of Prudence, New York: Encounter Books, 2019.
[74]Allen C. Guelzo, Our Ancient Faith: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2024, 70-71.
[75]Eliot A. Rosen, The Republican Party in the Age of Roosevelt: Sources of Anti-Government Conservatism in the United States, Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2014, 12-13.
[76]Herbert Hoover, “This Challenge to Liberty,” Denver, Colorado, 1936, in Addresses Upon the American Road, 1933-1938, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938, 216.
[77]Gordon Lloyd and David Davenport, The New Deal & Modern American Conservatism: A Defining Rivalry, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, 2013, 2-3.
[78]Ibid., 17.
[79]Ibid., 3.
[80]Ibid.
[81]Nash, “Social Philosophy of Herbert Hoover,” 493.
[82]Herbert Hoover, “The Meaning of America,” August 10, 1948, in Addresses Upon the American Road, 1945-1948, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1949, 77.
[83]Nash, “Social Philosophy of Herbert Hoover,” 491.
[84]Ibid.
[85]Herbert Hoover, American Individualism and The Challenge to Liberty, West Branch, Iowa: Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Association, 1989, 32-33.
[86]Ibid., 33.
[87]Ibid.
[88]Nash, The Social Philosophy of Herbert Hoover, 491.
[89]American Individualism, 34.
[90]Ibid., 35.
[91]David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd, Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, 2023, 5-9.
[92]Ibid.
[93]Ibid., 8.
[94]Walter Friar Dexter, Herbert Hoover and American Individualism, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1932, 31.
[95] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, 1511-1512
[96]Dexter, 34.
[97]Ibid., 248.
[99]American Individualism, 39.
[100]Ibid.
[101]Hoover, The New Day, 154.
[102]Ibid.
[103]American Individualism, 35.
[104]Ibid.
[105]Nash, The Social Philosophy of Herbert Hoover, 492.
[106]Ibid.
[107]Ibid.
[108]Ibid.
[109]Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate, 7.
[110]Ibid.
[111]Ibid.
[112]Ibid., 8.
[113]New Day, 167.
[114]Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1918, 3-4.
[115]Ibid., 3.
[116]Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate, 35.
[117]Ibid.
[118]Nash, The Social Philosophy of Herbert Hoover, 494.
[119]Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate, 36.
[120]Ibid.
[121]The New Deal and the Origin of Modern American Conservatism, 2.
[122]Herbert Hoover, The New Day: Campaign Speeches of Herbert Hoover, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1928. and President Hoover and Calvin Coolidge, Campaign Speeches of 1932 by President Hoover and Ex-President Coolidge, New York: Doubleday, Doran, and Company, 1933.
[123]Equality of Opportunity: A Century of Debate, 36.
[124]Herbert Hoover, “President Hoover, Acceptance Speech, Washington, D.C., August 11, 1932,” in President Hoover and Ex-President Coolidge, Campaign Speeches of 1932 by President Hoover and Ex-President Coolidge, New York: Doubleday, Doran, and Company, 1933, 27.
[125]Herbert Hoover, “The Consequences of the Proposed New Deal, Madison Square Garden, New York, October 31, 1932,” in Herbert Hoover, Addresses Upon the American Road, 1933-1938, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sone, 1938, 1.
[126]Ibid.
[127]Ibid.
[128]Herbert Hoover, quoted in, Kenneth Whyte, Hoover: An Extraordinary Life in Extraordinary Times, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2017, 594.
[129]Ibid.
[130]Ibid., 2.
[131]Ibid., 2-19.
[132]Ibid., 17.
[133]Ibid., 19.
[134]The New Deal and the Origin of Modern American Conservatism, 2.
[135]Ibid.
[136]Ibid.
[137]Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great Depression, 1929-1941, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1952, 351.
[138]Ibid.
[139]Ibid.
[140]Ibid.
[141]Russell Kirk, The American Cause, Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2002, 1,
[142]Ibid.
[143]Whyte, 543.
[144]Herbert Hoover, The Challenge to Liberty, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1934, 1.
[145]George H. Nash, “Introduction,” in The Crusade Years, 1933-1955: Herbert Hoover’s Lost Memoir of the New Deal Era and Its Aftermath, edited by George H. Nash, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, 2013, xix.
[146]Hoover, The Challenge to Liberty, 208-209.
[147]Ibid., 209.
[148]Ibid., 50-55.
[149]Ibid., 4.
[150]Ibid., 20.
[151]Ibid., 20-21.
[152]The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, 369.
[153]Ibid.
[154]Herbert Hoover, “The Obligations of the Republican Party to the American People: Address of the Honorable Herbert Hoover Before the Republican Women of Pennsylvania, May 14, 1936,” in American Ideals Versus the New Deal, New York: The Scribner Press, 1938, 88.
[155]Ibid.
[156]Ibid.
[157]Herbert Hoover, “Packing the Supreme Court, February 5, 1937,” in Addresses Upon the American Road, 1933-1938, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938, 228.
[158]Ibid.
[159]Herbert Hoover, “Hands Off the Supreme Court, February 20, 1937,” in Addresses Upon the American Road, 1933-1938, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938, 229.
[160]Ibid.
[161]Ibid., 233.
[162]Ibid.
[163]Robert A. Taft letter to Herbert Hoover, December 24, 1934, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, Post-Presidential Individual Files, Box 232, West Branch, Iowa.
[164]Charles Dawes letter to Herbert Hoover, August 29, 1934, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, Post-Presidential Individual Files, Box 45, West Branch, Iowa.
[165]Herbert Hoover quoted by George H. Nash in American Individualism and The Challenge to Liberty, West Branch, Iowa: Herbert Hoover Presidential Association, 1989, 18.
[166]“Introduction,” by George H. Nash in American Individualism and The Challenge to Liberty, 25.
[167]Ibid.
[168]Ibid.
[169]Ibid.
[170]The New Deal and the Origin of Modern American Conservatism, 9.
[171]Ibid., 9-10.
[172]Gordon Lloyd and David Davenport, “The Two Phases of Herbert Hoover’s Constitutional Conservatism,” in Toward an American Conservatism: Constitutional Conservatism During the Progressive Era, edited by Jospeh Postell and Jonathan O’Neill, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013, 235.
[173]Wunderlin, 45.
[174]Ibid.
[175]Ibid.
[176]Russell Kirk and James McClellan, The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2010, 2.
[177]Ibid.
[178]Ibid., 3.
[179]Lee Edwards, The Conservative Revolution: The Movement that Remade America, New York: The Free Press, 1999, 9.
[180]Taft quoted in The Conservative Revolution, 9.
[181]Kirk, The Sword of Imagination, 310.
[182]Ibid.
[183]Ibid.
[184] William F. Buckley, Jr., Happy Days Were Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist, New York: Random House, 1993, 393-399.
[185]William A. Rusher, The Rise of the Right, New York: William Morrow and Company, 1984, 91-93.
[186]Elliot A. Rosen, The Republican Party in the Age of Roosevelt: Sources of Anti-Government Conservatism in the United States, Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 2014, 3.
[187]Gary Dean Best, The Life of Herbert Hoover: Keeper of the Torch, 1933-1964, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, xi.
[188]Best, 468.
[189]Nash, “Introduction,” American Individualism and The Challenge to Liberty, 26-27.
[190]Hazony, 33-82.
[191]Ibid.
[192]Patrick J. Buchanan letter to John Hendrickson, August 2, 2004, letter contained in the personal library of John Hendrickson.
[193]Hoover quoted in Whyte, 594.
Print a PDF