A version of this story was featured in the 'What Matters' newsletter. Subscribe for free to receive it directly in your inbox. here .
If there’s a mirror image opposite to Donald Trump’s approach during his potential second term, it would be Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose initial 100 days in office serve as a benchmark for presidents aiming to accomplish significant legislation.
The only president to serve more than two terms, Roosevelt remade government, used his bully pulpit and realigned political coalitions, all things Trump sees himself doing.
Trump, working with Elon Musk, wants to re-define Americans’ relationship with government by firing federal workers, dismantling long-functioning agencies, and branding as much government spending as possible as wasteful. He’s also realigning global trade and reworking international alliances as quickly as possible.
Working alongside Congress, Roosevelt enjoyed popular support for taking all necessary actions to lift America from the grips of the Great Depression. Through his implementation of the New Deal, he expanded governmental roles, persuaded Americans that federal expenditure would enhance their everyday experiences and provide employment opportunities. Additionally, he established the social welfare framework via programs like Social Security, dismantled obstacles to international commerce, and contributed to forging an interconnected network of global partnerships.
I discussed the idea of Trump being an anti-Roosevelt figure with Eric Rauchway, a renowned historian from UC Davis and the writer behind several publications about Roosevelt, notably his latest work titled "Why the New Deal Matters."
The shortened and refined version of our discussion, styled for clarity, which took place via video call, follows below:
Trump has been likened to an anti-FDR figure.
WOLF I've come across the debate made in the press That during his second term, Trump aims to emulate FDR but in the opposite way. Recently, Stephen Bannon suggested that the current state of U.S. politics mirrors a realignment akin to 1932. Given your expertise on FDR, what are your thoughts on these assertions?
RAUCHWAY It appears that the president's strategies are quite contrary to those of the New Deal. It looks like he is dismantling various regulatory systems. There also seems to be a reduction in public funding across multiple sectors, such as the arts among others. From what I understand, he might be cutting back on funds allocated to the Social Security Administration, which was a key component of the New Deal’s early welfare framework. In essence, his approaches stand in stark contrast to the principles of the New Deal.
However, I wouldn't describe his behavior as resembling FDR's or indicate that we're witnessing a genuine political shift. To address the initial point: Roosevelt sought congressional approval for laws enabling him to implement desired policies, whereas the present administration hasn't pursued this approach despite holding majorities in both chambers of Congress.
Roosevelt invoked statutes that enabled his actions, something we rarely observe in today’s administration, which appears to depend heavily on assertions of intrinsic presidential authority. Therefore, I don’t envision this present presidency mimicking the approach of the Roosevelt era at all.
As for the coalition, Roosevelt assembled a political alliance that brought in traditional Democrats such as white Southerners along with various other voter groups who had not previously supported the Democratic Party, including Midwestern farmers in 1936. His constituency comprised a majority of African American voters across the United States. This coalition proved resilient and persisted until around 1968.
Recent off-cycle elections and several other factors indicate that the current president’s popularity appears more personally driven rather than politically aligned with their party. In contrast, Roosevelt revamped the Democratic Party so effectively that subsequent Democrats were able to leverage the infrastructure he established.
WOLF We observe populism in Trump’s rhetoric. There has been a division among voters based on their level of education for quite some time, though this divide became even more pronounced during Trump’s tenure. Do you not think that these underlying dynamics are changing?
RAUCHWAY I won’t participate in forecasting the future. Only when you demonstrate that these factors continue to support future Republican leaders as they have supported the present president would I consider believing in this realignment. Currently, there isn’t enough proof to suggest such a shift.
Is Trump overturning the New Deal?
WOLF Many of the organizations established under Roosevelt's administration no longer operate in their contemporary forms today, though Social Security remains at the core of our social protection system. As Trump moves forward with reducing federal bureaucracy, would his efforts extend all the way back to those initially set up by Roosevelt, or will they focus primarily on newer entities such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education? These latter institutions were created relatively recently compared to some earlier ones.
RAUCHWAY As you noted, the Social Security Administration emerged from the New Deal era. Attacking unions and reshuffling the National Labor Relations Board dismantles aspects of the New Deal. Dismissing board members of executive agencies sets a precedent established during Roosevelt’s time with the New Deal.
The utilization of the president’s power to adjust tariffs is entirely contrary to the pattern initiated during the New Deal era.
Before 1934, setting tariffs was under the purview of Congress. This meant that each time a tariff needed adjustment, extensive debates would have to be initiated in Congress so that various interests could lobby individual representatives or senators. As a result, tariffs often ended up being an assortment of political concessions. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 exemplified this situation.
Beginning with the Roosevelt administration, efforts were made to prevent previous practices and start reducing tariff rates systematically. This led to a continuous trend that lasted up until recently. In 1934, Congress enacted the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, granting the president authority to negotiate tariff reductions with foreign nations based on professional insights from both within the White House and what we know today as the U.S. Trade Commission. The primary aim was to remove politics from the process of setting tariffs, something that the Trump administration subsequently overturned.
Trump claims we've misunderstood the Great Depression. Is he incorrect?
WOLF Trump boldly asserted yesterday that doubling down on tariffs early in the Great Depression could have dampened its impact, as he tried to sell his tariff policies to Americans. This notion sparks discussion among economists and historians. What’s your take on this statement?
RAUCHWAY I mean… Congress implemented doubled tariffs during the early stages of the New Deal; this is essentially what the Smoot-Hawley tariff entailed! The economic decline started towards the end of the summer in 1929. By 1930, when things were clearly deteriorating significantly, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was partly a reaction to that situation, much like the preceding Republican tariff laws from 1921-22 were responses to the earlier recession. This seemed to be a standard move for Republicans at the time. Therefore, it’s challenging for me to grasp how one could argue that doing something they actually carried out—resulting in outcomes identical to our historical experience—would yield dissimilar results. Such hypotheticals often perplex historians.
How did Roosevelt promote his overhaul of the government?
WOLF Did Roosevelt undertake significant endeavors of this magnitude? Was recasting history necessary for him similar to how Trump alters public perception to push policies through? Were his initiatives met with controversy?
RAUCHWAY Roosevelt was considerably ahead of mainstream sentiment when opposing the surge of Nazism. Throughout much of his initial two terms, he dedicated considerable effort to convincing Americans to support him in taking strong stances against Nazism and various forms of fascism and authoritarian rule. This endeavor primarily involved enlightening the populace. However, this wasn’t so much altering historical course as bringing attention to global events’ impact on individuals within the U.S.
FDR's approach to presidential authority compared to Trump's view of executive power
WOLF He was an exceptionally influential president. Could he have been the precursor to the highly potent executive role that Trump aspires to? I am seeking ways to identify parallels between them.
RAUCHWAY As you might have noticed, I don't find many parallels between them. The only similarity is that he holds an office which gained more authority due to additional powers being bestowed upon the presidency during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tenure, particularly throughout and after World War II. These circumstances make comparison difficult. Roosevelt faced severe economic challenges, whereas today's president does not confront such a dire economic situation.
WOLF He could be developing one.
RAUCHWAY As I mentioned, I generally don't focus on the future, but at present it appears that things aren't looking very promising.
Perhaps the crucial point is that not only was Roosevelt addressing a dire economic situation, but also he — along with the party that propelled him into power — was tackling deep-seated issues in the United States, correct?
They were addressing inequalities that had developed long before the Civil War, dating back further still.
Two leaders conversing with the public
WOLF Many Americans may recognize Roosevelt for his use of fireside chats and his innovative approach to connecting with citizens directly in their homes. In comparison, Trump utilized social media to communicate directly with people wherever they carry their devices. How do you see the difference between having these conversations via traditional home-based radio broadcasts compared to reaching individuals personally through platforms like social media on mobile phones?
RAUCHWAY In the 1930s, radio was predominantly a communal platform where individuals gathered together to listen to broadcasts from home radios. These transmissions occurred at specific times. Many accounts recall walking through an American neighborhood during summer evenings when residents kept their windows open; thus, one couldn't help but hear parts of presidential speeches since all houses were tuned into these live addresses simultaneously. This created a collective experience unlike what we see with today's social media platforms.
We usually engage with social media alone, checking our phones whenever we're commuting or standing in lines, perhaps spotting content at various times compared to others. While there can be instances when an event floods the platform simultaneously, for the most part, this interaction tends to remain fragmented and personal.
Roosevelt's court-packing plan versus Trump's attacks on judges
WOLF Roosevelt famously attempted to expand the size of the Supreme Court. Now, supporters of Trump are attempting to impeach district court judges. How does this contemporary battle over courts compare with what Roosevelt aimed to achieve?
RAUCHWAY He was making an effort to create something, but the courts kept thwarting his attempts, whereas Trump seems to be taking the opposite approach, I suppose.
It’s also probably important to mention that during his initial term in office, Roosevelt didn’t have the chance to nominate even one Supreme Court judge. This meant he had to work with a Supreme Court and a broader federal judiciary composed primarily of nominees from his predecessors, most of whom were Republicans, aside from Woodrow Wilson. In contrast, today’s federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, is predominantly shaped by both Republican nominations and specifically those made by President Trump.
Roosevelt was attempting to navigate around a judicial branch that seemed particularly inclined to rule against him due to their political affiliations. This contrasts sharply with the present administration, which appears quite hostile towards a judiciary system that it has predominantly shaped itself.
FDR achieved what Trump desires: serving for over two terms.
WOLF Trump continues to hint at the possibility of another run for a third term. However, this appearsconstitutionally unfeasible since following Roosevelt’s death after serving four terms, the 22nd Amendment was adopted.
Why was that amendment passed? Was there such a distaste for having a president that long? My impression is that he was super popular for most of his presidency. So why did the public get behind term limits?
RAUCHWAY There’s an old jest regarding the Republican Party following Roosevelt’s demise and for quite some duration afterward, where their platform largely consisted of iterations of the phrase, “The New Deal was marvelous but such occurrences should never be repeated.” This sentiment arose because although The New Deal was highly favored, they aimed to prevent similar initiatives from taking place. In this vein, one could interpret the 22nd Amendment similarly.
Evidence suggests that Roosevelt was prepared to step down after his second term but had actually planned to do so until the swift Nazi Blitzkrieg prior to the 1940 election changed those plans.
According to public opinion polls from back then, people likely would have chosen Wendell Willkie as the Republican candidate instead of supporting Roosevelt if there hadn’t been a war in Europe. However, due to the ongoing conflict, they decided to vote for Roosevelt.
FDR aced the midterm exam that Trump flunked during his initial term.
WOLF Roosevelt stood out because the Democrats gained seats during his initial midterm election, defying the typical pattern. The only recent president who experienced something similar seems to be George W. Bush. What enabled Roosevelt to reverse this usual tendency and secure additional seats in that crucial first midterm, thereby shaping the trajectory of his administration?
RAUCHWAY If we examine both the election of '34 and the overwhelming victory in '36, it becomes clear that Roosevelt won over voters due to the effectiveness of his policies. When he took office in 1933, people were thoroughly disillusioned with the Great Depression and felt that the Hoover administration was unable to address their urgent demands. Shortly after Roosevelt assumed power, an economic upturn started, which many economists today attribute primarily to his monetary policies and others like them.
As this economic recovery gained traction during his initial two years in office, it contributed to his party's growing popularity by 1934 and even more significantly in 1936. Certain individuals argue that they can demonstrate Roosevelt’s significant improvements in 1936 were particularly evident in areas where incomes rose substantially throughout his first term. Thus, it appears that the effectiveness of these policies in tangible terms was responsible for the substantial victories at both the midterm elections and subsequently in the presidential election of 1936.
What many Americans overlook regarding Franklin D. Roosevelt?
WOLF What is the information about Roosevelt that you'd like more Americans to be aware of? What misconceptions do people often share with you when they approach you in the supermarket aisle?
RAUCHWAY I hope people showed as much interest and engaged with me at the grocery store regarding these topics. Many seem to have overlooked just how effective the New Deal was during its initial years, prior to the nation’s mobilization for World War II. This early success laid crucial groundwork; without it, Roosevelt and his administration would struggle to implement transformative changes within the government. The economic boost from wartime efforts certainly helped later on but cannot overshadow the foundational achievements made beforehand.
WOLF : Therefore, aim for success. That’s your counsel to presidents.
RAUCHWAY: Effective governance leads to sound policies, and conversely, good policies indicate effective governance.
To get more news and newsletters, sign up for an account here.