Reflect after reading about the experiences of the US and Canada and consider if King's second term was any different. Is it the policy or the person that really matters?
At this point in the depression I think it is the person that matters. Because of all of the policies Bennet attempted with his "New Deal", King's role may have been just to serve as a refreshed leader rather than an worn-down, sickly, and rigid policy maker. I am thinking of what we talked about today and how we said that maybe King was just a familiar leader and that was what the Canadians needed to pull them out of the Depression.
In Canada's situation i think that it was the person that mattered to the people more then the policies. King was seen as a good guy with even better connection with the U.S. after opening up the boarder for trade, people really started to like what king was all about and what he could get done in office. I also think that being so close to FDR and practically being his apprentice was very influential as well because Canada looked at the U.S for direction and leadership and when king was seen with FDR and was seen being very close to him, it just reenforced the fact that King knew the right people and would have the right leaders to base his policies off.
In Canada, I think the person matters more but in the U.S. I believe the policy was of more value. The Canadian people were clearly in search of a good person as their leader (King) following Bennett with his several new policies. As for the U.S., I think the policies outweighed the person themselves. Although a majority obviously liked FDR as a person, his several new approaches and promises for "change" truly seemed to grasp the American peoples' votes, enabling him to win by a gigantic margin.
I believe that the person ends up mattering the most. I am basing this off the knowledge and experience I have had In the past election. I believe that policies are extremely important, but in the end, the more likeable and most sincere candidate will win. Take George Bush for example, he ran on an extremely humble foreign policy, that preached not causing unnecessary wars and not policing the world. I believe he was re-elected because many believed he handled the 9/11 tragedy very well. It seems the idea that he did not implement his beliefs and promises correctly was overlooked. This has a lot to do with King. Although he may not have done everything he promised, he was a well liked guy who looked reletively well, and he resembled a lot of what FDR preached, and FDR was an extremely well liked dude.
i believe that it was more to do with the person than policy. King had a "holier-than-thou" personality and thrived on it in times of crisis. King was hole some and he was present and patriotic, what's not to like? When looking at King's policies, however, at the start of his term one wonders how he got elected. He did not believe in Deficit financing-something very important to solving an economic crisis (as Hoover so kindly proved)- until after a colleague argued with him about the idea. It is also fascinating that when faced with a troublesome opponent, rather than looking at his policies to destroy him, King scourged for gossip and rumors about him for comfort. this implies that in times of crisis, many will look at the person rather than the policies.
While maybe not applicable or effective in all situations, but for the people to have a real leader, who seems to know what he's talking about, and is comforting, can change the course of an economy that flourishes only when the people have faith in the free market. When the people lose faith in the economic system and the country's industry as a whole, there is a problem. In my mind, fear and uncertainty is one of the biggest reasons that the Great Depression lasted so long, and was so devastating in North America. Yet, some situations need policies to fix a broken system. Since the Canadian Great Depression in particular was dependent on America, little could be done other than polices to comfort the people.
I think it is the person that matters. The overall character of the person outshines the policy. King was familiar and "safe". The people knew they could trust him. I don't think his policies were as important to the Canadians as having a president they could trust and confide in. FDR and King both were familiar faces and there character took the interest of the majority.
I think it's a combination of both, but with more emphasis on the personality. In America it's said that people vote for the person they would like to have coffee with instead of taking an in-depth look at their policies (although to have a good conversation you have to have at least some common ground. I don't think this is true all the time, but I've met some people who would vote for someone just because of party rather than policy. I think that that happened to King, he was seen as changing to improve himself and if he did that then of course he would improve the country. When people have confidence in their leaders they're much more willing to spend and are more hopeful which has numerous benefits on the economy.
People tend to elect who they know because let's face it; the majority is terrified of change. They will go on and on about how much of a mess their country is in, but come election time it's always the attitude of 'what if the other guy is worse?'. This is why candidates spend their first term not doing anything too risky so that they can get re-elected. This is why I think it's the person that matters over policy in the election stage.
The personality matters a lot in the most campaign no matter in the US or Canada, since people are human-beings,they could be emotional and simply behave with feelings all the time. May be candaian back then did not want progressive polocies as much as Bennet wanted, when the crisis comes,it's like when people get drugged into situition that is dangerous and uncomfortable they would like to go home to feel a sence of safety and secure. The characters of King matchs those needs properly, been a personal friend of FDR, and graudate from Haward proves that he's got close tie with America,which is much better compare to Bennet's special relationship with Britain. He is the one like a public friend who is more likely to bring the country together, he is the good guy that is trusted by the people.
I believe that there is a mix of both the policies and the people. the reason i say this is because a lot of the policies created jobs and after a couple of years, they werent out of the depression, but there was a major change in the way people lived their lives. however, believe that the person is very important as well. They gave a figure to the policies. The people would like this more because they can have someone to look up to and trust. So in ways, they both work together to give the nation a good leader.
In Canada, it appeared as though the person themselves matter more than the polices. While from a political stand point that would seem counterintuitive and counterproductive but from a human standpoint that makes total sense. I find it surprising given Canada situation. One would like to assume you would want a balance of personality and policies (and probably leaning toward policy) rather than person. But in the long run its works out.
King was a true politician, not one of those ideologues that seem to have taken over American politics today. His left his policies malleable which made him open to new ideas like the Keynes type economic thinking that was necessary to battle the depression. The man is important in politics, but when you see people like Scott Brown with sky high favorability ratings losing to faux native Americans lineage.
I think that King was really lucky that he had just picked the less worse parts of the Depression for his periods. Although he lost the election in 1930 because people thought he was incompetent, he later managed very well to make a good impression next to the exhausted Bennett in the new election. I think this was the reason he won the election, rather than his archievement before his depression. The fact that ue seemed just more competent of handling the situation, people voted for him. His policy, his indifferent attitude towards the depression, the memory of all that was certainly not the reason he was elected.
At this point in the depression I think it is the person that matters. Because of all of the policies Bennet attempted with his "New Deal", King's role may have been just to serve as a refreshed leader rather than an worn-down, sickly, and rigid policy maker. I am thinking of what we talked about today and how we said that maybe King was just a familiar leader and that was what the Canadians needed to pull them out of the Depression.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada's situation i think that it was the person that mattered to the people more then the policies. King was seen as a good guy with even better connection with the U.S. after opening up the boarder for trade, people really started to like what king was all about and what he could get done in office. I also think that being so close to FDR and practically being his apprentice was very influential as well because Canada looked at the U.S for direction and leadership and when king was seen with FDR and was seen being very close to him, it just reenforced the fact that King knew the right people and would have the right leaders to base his policies off.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, I think the person matters more but in the U.S. I believe the policy was of more value. The Canadian people were clearly in search of a good person as their leader (King) following Bennett with his several new policies. As for the U.S., I think the policies outweighed the person themselves. Although a majority obviously liked FDR as a person, his several new approaches and promises for "change" truly seemed to grasp the American peoples' votes, enabling him to win by a gigantic margin.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the person ends up mattering the most. I am basing this off the knowledge and experience I have had In the past election. I believe that policies are extremely important, but in the end, the more likeable and most sincere candidate will win. Take George Bush for example, he ran on an extremely humble foreign policy, that preached not causing unnecessary wars and not policing the world. I believe he was re-elected because many believed he handled the 9/11 tragedy very well. It seems the idea that he did not implement his beliefs and promises correctly was overlooked. This has a lot to do with King. Although he may not have done everything he promised, he was a well liked guy who looked reletively well, and he resembled a lot of what FDR preached, and FDR was an extremely well liked dude.
ReplyDeletei believe that it was more to do with the person than policy. King had a "holier-than-thou" personality and thrived on it in times of crisis. King was hole some and he was present and patriotic, what's not to like? When looking at King's policies, however, at the start of his term one wonders how he got elected. He did not believe in Deficit financing-something very important to solving an economic crisis (as Hoover so kindly proved)- until after a colleague argued with him about the idea. It is also fascinating that when faced with a troublesome opponent, rather than looking at his policies to destroy him, King scourged for gossip and rumors about him for comfort. this implies that in times of crisis, many will look at the person rather than the policies.
ReplyDeleteWhile maybe not applicable or effective in all situations, but for the people to have a real leader, who seems to know what he's talking about, and is comforting, can change the course of an economy that flourishes only when the people have faith in the free market. When the people lose faith in the economic system and the country's industry as a whole, there is a problem. In my mind, fear and uncertainty is one of the biggest reasons that the Great Depression lasted so long, and was so devastating in North America. Yet, some situations need policies to fix a broken system. Since the Canadian Great Depression in particular was dependent on America, little could be done other than polices to comfort the people.
ReplyDeleteI think it is the person that matters. The overall character of the person outshines the policy. King was familiar and "safe". The people knew they could trust him. I don't think his policies were as important to the Canadians as having a president they could trust and confide in. FDR and King both were familiar faces and there character took the interest of the majority.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a combination of both, but with more emphasis on the personality. In America it's said that people vote for the person they would like to have coffee with instead of taking an in-depth look at their policies (although to have a good conversation you have to have at least some common ground. I don't think this is true all the time, but I've met some people who would vote for someone just because of party rather than policy. I think that that happened to King, he was seen as changing to improve himself and if he did that then of course he would improve the country. When people have confidence in their leaders they're much more willing to spend and are more hopeful which has numerous benefits on the economy.
ReplyDeletePeople tend to elect who they know because let's face it; the majority is terrified of change. They will go on and on about how much of a mess their country is in, but come election time it's always the attitude of 'what if the other guy is worse?'. This is why candidates spend their first term not doing anything too risky so that they can get re-elected. This is why I think it's the person that matters over policy in the election stage.
ReplyDeleteThe personality matters a lot in the most campaign no matter in the US or Canada, since people are human-beings,they could be emotional and simply behave with feelings all the time. May be candaian back then did not want progressive polocies as much as Bennet wanted, when the crisis comes,it's like when people get drugged into situition that is dangerous and uncomfortable they would like to go home to feel a sence of safety and secure. The characters of King matchs those needs properly, been a personal friend of FDR, and graudate from Haward proves that he's got close tie with America,which is much better compare to Bennet's special relationship with Britain. He is the one like a public friend who is more likely to bring the country together, he is the good guy that is trusted by the people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a mix of both the policies and the people. the reason i say this is because a lot of the policies created jobs and after a couple of years, they werent out of the depression, but there was a major change in the way people lived their lives. however, believe that the person is very important as well. They gave a figure to the policies. The people would like this more because they can have someone to look up to and trust. So in ways, they both work together to give the nation a good leader.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, it appeared as though the person themselves matter more than the polices. While from a political stand point that would seem counterintuitive and counterproductive but from a human standpoint that makes total sense. I find it surprising given Canada situation. One would like to assume you would want a balance of personality and policies (and probably leaning toward policy) rather than person. But in the long run its works out.
ReplyDeleteKing was a true politician, not one of those ideologues that seem to have taken over American politics today. His left his policies malleable which made him open to new ideas like the Keynes type economic thinking that was necessary to battle the depression. The man is important in politics, but when you see people like Scott Brown with sky high favorability ratings losing to faux native Americans lineage.
ReplyDeleteI think that King was really lucky that he had just picked the less worse parts of the Depression for his periods. Although he lost the election in 1930 because people thought he was incompetent, he later managed very well to make a good impression next to the exhausted Bennett in the new election. I think this was the reason he won the election, rather than his archievement before his depression. The fact that ue seemed just more competent of handling the situation, people voted for him. His policy, his indifferent attitude towards the depression, the memory of all that was certainly not the reason he was elected.
ReplyDelete