(09-26-2016, 10:45 PM)Einzige Wrote: Points one and two conceded (Roosevelt and Wilson were both 'Progressives', but of very different kinds). My point is that, generally Disaster Presidents seem to be radicalized versions of the Prophets of their cycles - LBJ as a radicalized FDR and Bush II as a radicalized Reagan.I don't see LBJ as a radical FDR. FDR was by far the more radical. Radical means "root". A radical seeks to make fundamental change. Using his power as commander in chief, FDR, with the help of people like Eccles and Davis , engineered a fundamental restructuring of the political economy of the U.S. so as to produce greatly reduced economic inequality and a prosperity shared by all income quintiles.
Harding and Coolidge, however, seem to have rejected Teddy Roosevelt's 'Progressivism' in favor of a laissez-faire approach to economics. Certainly Hoover was more like T.R. than his two immediate Republican predecessors.
LBJ mostly wanted to extend the New Deal to people who had been deliberately left out (African-Americans) and to complete the last portion (universal health care) that had been blocked by racist Democrats. These are basically reforms, not radical. In fact LBJ neglected to counter the anti-working class policy trends that had begun under his predecessor.
Bush II was a continuation of Reagan, much as LBJ was for FDR. Where Bush was radical was in his attempt at colonizing new political territory with his pioneering of conservative social programs like the Medicare Drug Benefit and No Child Left Behind. At the time I interpreted this as an attempt to sell the Republican party to minorities (particularly Latinos) which demographics suggested was going to be necessary within not too many decades. In this he was continuing the base-expanding strategies of Nixon-Reagan (Southern strategy) and Eisenhower (big government conservativism). Base-expansion is radical (as it changes the fundamental ideology of the party) but Bush's radicalism was also a continuation of previous radicalism.
You are right that Hoover was more progressive than Coolidge or Harding. I don't see Coolidge's actions as being less economically progressive than TR actions (not talking beliefs here). What exactly did Roosevelt do on the economic front? Most of the progressive economic policy was done at the state level.
He is best known as a trust buster, which is a policy that actually promotes free market competition. Trusts are a form of economic regulation. Laissez-faire refers to an absence of regulation, which gives entrepreneurs a lot of room to do their thing. Cutting back monopolists is reasonably consistent with a laissez-faire preference. Certainly more than the tariffs Republicans had always favored.
The pure food and drug act was passed under Roosevelt and that was regulatory in nature. On the other hand, Coolidge largely shut down immigration, a policy unfavorable to entrepreneurs, who benefitted from cheap labor. Both men sought to maintain the dominance of the corporate establishment. In that sense Roosevelt, as well as Harding, Coolidge & Hoover sought to keep the world safe for capitalism in its current form by implementing policies designed to stabilize the political environment and suppress political unrest that could lead to undesirable (from a business pov) changes in the political economy.