American Individualism by Herbert Hoover

Earlier this Fall I had the chance to visit the Presidential library of Herbert Hoover in West Bend, IA. It was an enjoyable and educational experience. I wanted to learn more about Hoover's ideas and philosophies, so I bought a pamphlet he originally published in 1922 called American Individualism. It has proven to be very insightful, and even relevant for today. After experiencing 7 years of war and reconstruction efforts, Hoover penned this pamphlet defending America's system. He contends,

“We cannot ever afford to rest at ease in the comfortable assumption that right ideas always prevail by some virtue of their own. In the long run they do. But there can be and there have been periods of centuries when the world slumped back toward darkness merely because great masses of men became impregnated with wrong ideas and wrong social philosophies. The declines of civilization have been born of wrong ideas. Most of the wars of the world, including the recent one, have been fought by the advocates of contrasting ideas of social philosophy” (32).

He goes on to defend, “War is destruction, and we should blame war for its injustices, not a social system whose object is construction” (23). By that, he was referring to Democracy, which he explains, “... is merely the mechanism which individualism invented as a device that would carry on the necessary political work of its social organization. Democracy arises out of individualism and prospers through it alone” (22). He agrees, “No doubt, individualism run riot, with no tempering principle would provide a long category of inequalities, of tyrannies, dominations, and injustices. America, however, has tempered the whole conception of individualism by the injection of a definite principle, and from this principle it follows that attempts at domination, whether in government or in the processes of industry and commerce, are under insistent curb” (4). That tempering comes from the equality of opportunity, which Hoover calls “the firm and fixed ideal of American individualism”. He explains, “Equal opportunity, the demand for a fair chance, became the formula of American individualism because it is the method of American achievement” (30).

Hoover continues, “Socialism of different varieties may have something to recommend it as an intellectual stop-look-and-listen sign, more especially for Old World societies. But it contains only destruction to the forces that make progress in our social system” (30). This is reminiscent of Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions where he discusses one element of contrast in the two visions is the equality of opportunity versus equality of outcomes (even a “distribution of wealth” of any resource). Hoover would defend the former as the only real American way.

My “idol”, Dennis Prager, regularly references the distinction between the American Revolution and the French Revolution (liberty vs. equality respectively). Hoover points it out as well, saying

“We in America have had too much experience of life to fool ourselves into pretending that all men are equal in ability, in character, in intelligence, in ambition. That was part of the claptrap of the French Revolution. We have grown to understand that all we can hope to assure to the individual through government is liberty, justice, intellectual welfare, equality of opportunity, and stimulation to service” (9).

Hoover elaborates, “To curb the forces in business which would destroy equality of opportunity and yet to maintain the initiative and creative faculties of our people are the twin objectives we must attain. To preserve the former we must regulate that type of activity that would dominate. To preserve the latter, the Government must keep out of production and distribution of commodities and services. This is the deadline between our system and socialism. Regulation to prevent domination and unfair practices, yet preserving rightful initiative, are in keeping with our social foundations. Nationalization of industry or business is their negation” (24,25). How fitting for today!

Hoover understands “...the most potent force in society is its ideals. If one were to attempt to delimit the potency of instinct and ideals, it would be found that while instinct dominates in our preservation yet the great propelling force of progress is right ideals, it is true we do not realize the ideal; not even a single person personifies that realization. It is therefore not surprising that society, a collection of persons, a necessary maze of compromises, cannot realize it. But that it has ideals, that they revolve in a system that makes for steady advance of them is the first thing. Yet true as it is, the day has not arrived when any economic or social system will function and last if founded upon altruism alone” (8).

And yet, “It is one of the most profound and important of exact psychological truths that man in the mass does not think but only feels. The mob functions only in the world of emotion. The demagogue feeds on mob emotions and his leadership is the leadership of emotion, not the leadership of intellect and progress. Popular desires are no criteria to the real need; they can be determined only by deliberative consideration, by education, by constructive leadership” (11). How desperately we need such leadership even today! Emotion, and altruism as the premise for policy, which are the governing ideals of socialism, is patently anti-American.

And finally, Hoover warns, “An even greater danger is the destructive criticism of minds too weak or too partisan to harbor constructive ideas. For such, criticism is based upon the distortion of perspective or cunning misrepresentation. There is never danger from the radical himself until the structure and confidence of society has been undermined by the enthronement of destructive criticism. Destructive criticism can certainly lead to revolution unless there are those willing to withstand the malice that flows in return from refutation. It has been well said that revolution is no summer thunderstorm clearing the atmosphere. In modern society it is a tornado leaving in its path the destroyed homes of millions with their dead women and children” (31).

Much to think about!