Lame Duck

Franklin Roosevelt was first elected president on November 8^th, 1932 but didn’t take office until March 4^th. The cruel winter in between was tragic for the nation. Herbert Hoover was moving frantically on domestic stimulus measures that FDR would later build on. He pleaded with the president elect to collaborate with him on that, on European war debt, and on an international economic conference to be held in January. FDR refused, partly because he genuinely believed the depression to be a strictly domestic issue, and partly, as he infamously remarked, to make sure any further deterioration was “Hoover’s baby.” He was as wrong on the first count as he was callous on the second. The United States depended then as it does now on a global economy. International cooperation was desperately needed to deal with a crisis that affected the entire world. It would take the incoming president some time to understand that. Concerted action by FDR and Hoover in early 1933 might have taken years off the worst depression this country has ever known. It didn’t happen and hard times dragged on.

With talk of a new depression in the air some pundits are remembering what became known as the interregnum and suggesting now might be time to narrow it further, to within a few days of the election. But the history doesn’t support such a move. There is no reason to suppose that had Roosevelt’s famous 100 days begun earlier they would have been more effective. The London Monetary Conference didn’t convene until June, 1933. FDR sent his Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, with a delegation but undercut them with his own ambivalence and in the end rejected the stabilization plan they negotiated. He completely misunderstood the international nature of the depression. Taking office earlier would not likely have helped. He would have been no better prepared.

It seems to me new presidents elect need some time to get organized. They spend two years or more running their campaigns and doing little else. They have positions on all major issues of course but until they actually take office they have no experience at all in implementing policy. They tend to be desperately short on specifics. To expect them to step in immediately and take the reins of power is asking too much, especially in times of crisis. They need to know who their cabinet members will be, and incoming staff need time to prepare as well. No, orderly process with transition as smooth as possible is much to be preferred over abrupt and hasty takeover.

Not that transitions are necessarily smooth, but we haven’t had a repeat of 1933. January inaugurations have served us reasonably well through the years. Cooperation between incoming and outgoing administrations has been cordial if not warm, including several during war time. Eisenhower took over from Truman at the height of the Korean War, as did Nixon from Johnson in 1969 with Vietnam raging. American embassy personnel were held hostage in Iran until Ronald Reagan was sworn in, Iranians spitefully withholding their release until Jimmy Carter was gone. It would be hard to make a case that taking office immediately after election would have helped those administrations.

So why make a change now? Many of those advocating such a move are old enough to remember earlier times of stress. I don’t hear them making their arguments in the context of history. Could it be they’ve forgotten it? Do they really think today’s troubles are so different they warrant a one off constitutional amendment? Or are they just so caught up in their preference for a particular candidate, or their dislike for an incumbent that their judgment is clouded? I suspect the latter.