Why the financial crisis has benefited conservatives

Conservatives might have benefited similarly from the financial crisis of 1929, if not for two factors. First, a Republican president was in power for the first three years after the crisis began. As a result, voters held Republicans solely responsible for the 1929 crash and the weak economic recovery that followed. This left the reputation of the Republican Party in tatters and discredited conservatism, the ideology most closely associated with the party, even though President Hoover himself was a progressive, not a conservative. This time, things are different: voters are split over which party is more responsible for the slow pace of the recovery, and the longer the economy remains mired in recession, the more voters will blame Obama and liberalism for it.

But more importantly, conservatives didn’t benefit from the financial crisis of 1929 because they never offered voters a clear choice. Hoover’s solution to the economic malaise—a surge in government spending—was the same as FDR’s. In fact, during the 1932 presidential campaign, FDR attacked Hoover for “reckless and extravagant” spending, while FDR’s running mate, John Nance Garner, accused Hoover of “leading the country down the road to socialism.” Forced to choose between two liberals, Americans chose FDR, the candidate who they didn’t hold responsible for the financial crisis.

The 2010 midterm elections are fast approaching, and the federal deficit is certain to be a major campaign issue. Whether Republicans take back control of Congress will hinge in part on how Republicans approach that issue. If they present a clear contrast between their position and the Democrats’, between conservatism and liberalism, they should be fine. Then again, it’s not too late for history to repeat itself.

Peter Tucci is a freelance writer living in New York City.