The Book, the Man, and the Venue — Herbert Hoover
Book Review — "Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive" by Joan Hoff Wilson
Welcome back to “The Book, the Man and the Venue,” my weekly newsletter that aims to shed light on every U.S. president in a way that is engaging, informative, and hopefully, fun!
Every Monday, I’ll be releasing a new article in which I chronicle my journey through one biography for each U.S. President. Each post will consist of three parts: I’ll offer a brief review of the biography (the Book), share reflections on the president’s character and legacy (the Man), and choose a location where I would spend time with the president if they were alive today (the Venue).
Hopefully, you will find the content both enriching and enjoyable, and if you like what you read, please consider checking out my other articles (and subscribing if you don’t already)!
Without further ado: Herbert Hoover
The Book
To those (if any) who remember Herbert Hoover, he is often regarded as “an arch conservative...out of tune with the urban brand of liberalism arising out of the depression.” As historian Richard Hofstader aptly states, Hoover was a man who was “wed to ideas that had become stale and oppressive, a believer in the ability of capitalism to survive without governmental props, the last presidential spokesman of the hallowed doctrines of laissez‐faire liberalism” that had no place in a post-Rooseveltian society.
And yet, in her 1975 book, “Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive”, Joan Hoff presents a compelling counter-argument to this prevailing sentiment. Rather than portraying Hoover as regressive, Hoff suggests that the 31st president was surprisingly forward-looking in his politics. She suggests that Hoover’s philosophies, now discovered by “disparate political groups ranging (both) from the far right to the far left,” contain ideas which may finally have become appropriate for American society to embrace.
While Hoff’s book is certainly written for an academic audience, it contains many of the characteristics that I enjoy in my favorite biographies. Both the introduction and the conclusion offer insightful glimpses into the personality traits that shaped Hoover as a politician, and the author, while a bit partial towards her subject, appropriately fleshed out “Bert” for both his strengths and his weaknesses. In particular, Hoff’s analysis of Hoover’s Quaker background provided a depth of analysis scarcely found in this short (282 pages) of a biography.
Further, I appreciated Hoff’s scholarly approach towards Hoover’s political values. While the book’s rhetoric was perhaps a bit dense for my liking, the author poses a dearth of intellectual questions which make the reader reconsider their traditional philosophical leanings. While one gets the feeling that Hoff is deeply conservative (she cites Barry Goldwater a few times as someone smart enough to appreciate Hoover’s brilliance), she writes in a way which the reader comes to respect. While I often disagreed with her assertions, I appreciated the manner in which she conveyed arguments.
Nonetheless, the book falls short in a few main ways. First, somewhat like August Heckscher’s “Woodrow Wilson”, Hoff’s rendition is simply a bit boring. Lucky for the reader, its content is brisk, but its material failed to excite me in a way that other biographies have. Whereas the best biographies put the reader inside the mind of its subject, Hoff’s rendition makes the reader feel more like a fly on the wall. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I found myself disagreeing with the book’s main premise. Although Hoff articulates her argument well, I felt that the evidence was largely stacked against her. This disagreement with her key assumptions made the book hard to get through.
Overall, however, I appreciated, and respected, Hoff’s perspective. While her book is probably not suited for those seeking an introduction to Hoover (one should have some baseline understanding of Hoover’s achievements before digging into Hoff’s work), it offered me an intriguing and scholarly view of Herbert Hoover and his ideas. For that, if nothing else, Hoff’s book is worth the read.
Rating: 5.8/10
The Man
Much like John Quincy Adams, Herbert Hoover’s least successful period of his life came during the presidency. Born in Iowa and raised in Oregon, Hoover’s journey to prominence began at Stanford University, where he was part of the inaugural class and graduated in 1895 with a degree in mining engineering. Spotted early on by an engineer who noticed his keen intellect, Hoover’s career took him from San Francisco to the goldfields of Australia and eventually to China.
By the time he was 40, Hoover had established himself as a leading figure in engineering. Already a self-made millionaire, Hoover’s reputation for efficiency and leadership was further solidified when, just before his 40th birthday, Germany declared war on France.
It was at this point that Hoover began his career in public service. After being sought out by the American Consul General to help repatriate stranded tourists, Hoover used his managerial expertise to help 120,000 Americans return home as the conflict escalated.
Hoover’s humanitarian efforts were equally impressive. During World War I, he managed to cut domestic consumption of essential foods without imposing rationing while leading the U.S. Food Administration. Later, as head of the American Relief Administration, Hoover organized food shipments for millions in central Europe and extended aid to famine-stricken Soviet Russia in 1921.
From there, Hoover took his talents to public administration. Serving in the cabinets of Presidents Harding and Coolidge, Hoover greatly expanded the powers of the Commerce Department, helping American businesses become more efficient and bringing together leaders to expand economic productivity.
Due to his success as Secretary of Commerce, Hoover had already become a famous public figure when, in 1928, he became the Republican Presidential nominee. While Hoover’s reputation as the “Great Humanitarian” seemed to make him the perfect man for the Presidency in a time of deep recession, it was ironically at this time that he failed the most.
There are two main reasons why, in my view, Hoover couldn’t live up to the task of the presidency. The first was Hoover’s conception of government itself. Prior to FDR and the New Deal, the government had never before taken such drastic action to provide direct stimulus to the American economy, and the idea itself was anathema to Hoover and his disciples. He believed in a collectivist economic approach where Americans would pick themselves up by their bootstraps. To Hoover, the greatest danger to America was if its citizens abandoned self-reliance in favor of waiting for the government to come bail them out. As Joan Hoff explains:
“In the face of such a display of national weakness he remained true to his principles even if the American people did not. Hoover would not save the American system for them; they must do that for themselves. To act otherwise, he thought, would be not serving the people but ruling them. Trapped on the dialectical tightrope between individualism and collectivism, which he had been walking for so long, Hoover refused to fall off. He urged his fellow citizens to end their own depression in the only fashion he thought honorable—by emulating his delicate balancing act.”
The second reason, I believe, was much more personal. Hoover himself had gone through tough times growing up—he lost both of his parents before he turned ten years old—and built his fortune mostly through his own hard work. Ironically, rather than empathizing with Americans who were struggling with the depression, Hoover’s circumstances made it harder to express sympathy. Since he had been able to get through his problems by himself, he thought the country would be capable of doing so as well.
At certain times – and particularly during periods of crisis – the presidency is largely a symbolic role. People want to feel heard by their leaders and to know that they have someone to look up to when times are tough. By limiting his press interactions, enacting a frigid domestic agenda, and taking unwarranted military action against the Bonus Army of 1932, Hoover failed in his role as first among equals. Unable to forge a connection with the American people, he was destined to alienate them in a time when confidence mattered just as much as policy.
The Venue
Like I did with Benjamin Harrison, I’m going to let myself off on a technicality here. Although I already went fishing with John Adams (doesn’t that feel like a long time ago!), I’m going to allow myself to take Herbert Hoover fly fishing. Hoover was a dedicated fisherman throughout his life, even writing a book titled Fishing for Fun - And to Wash Your Soul shortly before his death in 1964.
As he opens his book: “Fishing is a chance to wash one’s soul with pure air, with the rush of the brook, or with the shimmer of the sun on the blue water…. It is discipline in the equality of man–for all men are equal before fish.”
While my close friends can attest to the fact that I am definitely not built for deep waters (and I apologize profusely to them for having to endure that trip), I’ve always wanted to try fly fishing. Who better to accompany me than the man they call “The Fishing President?”
I hope that you’ve enjoyed this installment of “The Book, the Man, and the Venue.” If you have feedback about today’s issue, or thoughts about future topics, please feel free to send me a message.
And if you liked it, please consider sharing (and subscribing if you don’t already)!
Do you think Hoover would have wanted us to chase the blackfin tuna
Love how detailed the man section was