The four months between Franklin Roosevelt’s election in November 1932 and his inauguration in March 1933 represent one of the most consequential—and damaging—presidential transitions in American history. During this period, the economy deteriorated dramatically while the outgoing and incoming presidents engaged in a political standoff that prioritized partisan advantage over immediate relief. Understanding this interregnum requires examining both the policy disputes between Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt and their fundamentally different relationships with the financial establishment that had brought the nation to crisis.

The Lame Duck Crisis

When Roosevelt defeated Hoover in a landslide on November 8, 1932, the banking system was already under severe strain. But the constitutional calendar of the era—which would not be changed until the Twentieth Amendment took effect in 1936—meant that Hoover would remain president for four additional months. During this extended transition, conditions worsened catastrophically.

Bank failures accelerated through the winter. By February 1933, depositors were withdrawing cash at alarming rates, and governors across the country began declaring bank holidays to prevent complete collapse. The stock market, which had shown brief signs of stabilization after the election, resumed its decline as uncertainty about future policy paralyzed investment decisions.

Hoover, watching the crisis deepen, grew increasingly desperate for cooperation from the president-elect. He believed that Roosevelt could calm markets and restore confidence simply by endorsing certain policies—particularly a commitment to maintaining the gold standard, balancing the federal budget, and avoiding radical experimentation with currency. Roosevelt, however, repeatedly declined these overtures.

Roosevelt’s Strategic Patience

From Roosevelt’s perspective, there were sound political reasons for refusing to coordinate with Hoover. Any joint statement or policy endorsement would have tied the incoming administration to the failed approaches of the past. Roosevelt had won the election precisely because voters had rejected Hoover’s leadership; aligning himself with the outgoing president would have squandered that mandate before he even took office.

Moreover, Roosevelt and his advisors understood that the deepening crisis actually strengthened their hand. The worse conditions became under Hoover’s watch, the more dramatic Roosevelt’s eventual interventions would appear. A banking system on the verge of total collapse in early March would allow for the kind of sweeping emergency action that might have faced greater resistance under less dire circumstances.

This calculation appears coldly political, and critics—both contemporary and historical—have argued that Roosevelt’s refusal to cooperate prolonged suffering that might have been alleviated. Hoover himself was convinced that Roosevelt deliberately allowed the crisis to worsen. In his memoirs, Hoover accused Roosevelt of “deliberate and intentional postponement” of action to “intensify the crisis and thus increase his glory.”

There is considerable evidence supporting the view that Roosevelt saw advantage in delay. His advisors, including Raymond Moley, later acknowledged that the transition team consciously avoided commitments that would limit future options. The famous “Hundred Days” of emergency legislation that followed Roosevelt’s inauguration were made possible, in part, by the very desperation that the interregnum had intensified.

The Question of Ideas

A particularly bitter aspect of this period involves the origins of policies that would later become associated with the New Deal. Hoover had, during his final months, proposed or considered various measures that bore striking resemblance to Roosevelt’s eventual programs. Bank deposit insurance, which would become one of the most enduring New Deal innovations, had been discussed in the Hoover administration. Emergency lending programs, public works projects, and agricultural relief efforts had all been explored.

Hoover came to believe that Roosevelt was deliberately withholding support for these measures so that he could later implement them as his own initiatives. This interpretation has some merit. Roosevelt was notably vague during the transition about his specific plans, offering little indication of what his administration would actually do. This ambiguity served multiple purposes—it avoided premature commitments, kept opponents guessing, and preserved the element of surprise that would characterize the Hundred Days.

When Roosevelt finally took office and immediately declared a national bank holiday, imposed emergency restrictions, and pushed through sweeping legislation, many of these measures built upon foundations that Hoover had laid or proposed. The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, passed within days of Roosevelt’s inauguration, incorporated elements from plans developed by Hoover’s Treasury Department. Yet Roosevelt received full credit for decisive action while Hoover remained associated with paralysis and failure.

Two Different Relationships with Wall Street

To understand why Hoover and Roosevelt responded so differently to the crisis—and why their political fortunes diverged so dramatically—it helps to examine their distinct relationships with the financial establishment.

Herbert Hoover came to the presidency as a self-made millionaire who had earned his fortune through engineering and business ventures around the world. His wealth was substantial, and his social circle included many of the bankers and industrialists who had dominated American economic life during the 1920s. Yet Hoover’s relationship with this class was complicated. He had made his money through technical expertise and managerial competence rather than through financial speculation. He distrusted the excesses of Wall Street even as he moved in its circles.

During his presidency, Hoover’s approach to the business community reflected this ambivalence. He genuinely believed that voluntary cooperation among industry leaders could address economic problems without heavy-handed government intervention. His conferences with business executives, his appeals for maintaining wage rates and investment levels, and his resistance to direct federal relief all stemmed from a faith that responsible businessmen would act for the common good if properly encouraged.

This faith proved disastrously misplaced. Business leaders, facing their own survival, cut wages, laid off workers, and hoarded cash despite Hoover’s pleading. By the end of his term, Hoover had grown bitter toward the very class he had tried to protect. He felt betrayed by men who had promised cooperation and then pursued narrow self-interest.

Franklin Roosevelt’s background was entirely different. Born into old money and Hudson Valley aristocracy, Roosevelt had never needed to earn a fortune. His family’s wealth was established and secure, removed from the volatile world of stock speculation and industrial competition. This social position gave Roosevelt a curious freedom: he could criticize Wall Street without attacking his own class, because his class was not Wall Street.

Roosevelt’s circle included bankers and businessmen, certainly, but his social identity was not defined by them. He could speak of “economic royalists” and “money changers in the temple” without the personal contradiction that such rhetoric would have created for a self-made businessman like Hoover. Roosevelt’s attacks on financial elites during the 1932 campaign were politically effective precisely because they seemed to come from a position of confidence rather than resentment.

This difference in social positioning had practical policy implications. Roosevelt was willing to impose regulations and restrictions on financial institutions that Hoover had resisted, not because Roosevelt was more radical by temperament, but because he had less invested—psychologically and socially—in the existing financial order. The Glass-Steagall Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and other regulatory measures of the early New Deal represented interventions that Hoover had considered but ultimately rejected as too disruptive to the business relationships he valued.

The Long Shadow of the Interregnum

The bitter transition of 1932-1933 had consequences extending far beyond the immediate economic damage. It established a pattern of partisan conflict during presidential transitions that would recur throughout American history. It contributed directly to the passage of the Twentieth Amendment, which moved inauguration day from March 4 to January 20, reducing the lame duck period by six weeks.

More broadly, the interregnum crystallized public memory in ways that shaped political discourse for decades. Hoover became synonymous with failure, his very name attached to the shantytowns of the unemployed. Roosevelt became the savior who acted decisively when action was desperately needed. This narrative, while containing important truths, obscured the more complicated reality of the transition—including Roosevelt’s own contribution to the paralysis of those four months.

The economic suffering of the winter of 1932-1933 was not solely Hoover’s fault, nor was it entirely avoidable. But the political dynamics of the transition—the refusal of cooperation, the strategic patience of the incoming administration, the desperate frustration of the outgoing one—ensured that the crisis would reach its nadir precisely at the moment of transfer of power. Whether this represented Roosevelt’s political genius or his moral failure remains a matter of historical interpretation. What seems clear is that both men, products of different relationships with American capitalism and different calculations of political advantage, contributed to a transition that deepened the Depression before recovery could begin.

---

This blog was inspired by my current listening 1929 by Andrew Ross Sorkin via Audible. Listen or read it follow this LINK. I’ll have a book review posted the first week of December.

---

The 1932-1933 transition offers enduring lessons about the costs of partisan conflict during national crisis and the ways that political incentives can diverge from immediate public welfare. Students examining this period should consider not only what each president did, but what motivated their choices—and what alternative paths might have been possible.