Max Weber’s Politics as a Vocation is important in studying Political Theory. As one of the founders of social science Max Weber has made great contributions to the study of political science. At the end of World War I, when new technology in warfare caused widespread destruction, Max Weber was asked to speak on the aftermath of the war due to his good reputation as one of Germany’s top intellectuals of the time.In Politics as a Vocation, Weber names three distinct attributes for a political leader: “passion(a commitment to the matter in hand), a sense of responsibility, and a sense of proportion.” Weber also contests that passion is not sufficient for political leadership because results or successful completion of a goal or action is
Not only is responsibility one of the three traits Weber lists but responsibility shows how serious one takes something. In reference to Politics as a Vocation, responsibility showcases the “passion” that is needed to be a political leader as Weber states. In order to apply Weber’s theory in politics as a vocation U.S presidencies will be used as a recurring example.In 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast destroying many neigborhoods in the city of New Orleans. President George W Bush was did not respond to the natural disaster in an practical way which ultimately resulted in indefinite destruction of the city (in some areas), displacement in of many residents, and even death in some cases.In this instance President Bush had the resonsility of making sure the residents of New Orleans were safe or in good welfare folloing the storm. President Bush was widely criticized by the way he handled his responsibility as the political leader of the United States. Similarly, 1929 the U.S stock market crashed causing The Great Depression, then President Herbert Hoover had the responsibility of making sure the United States recovered from the financial crisis that caused major unemployment, decline investments and consumer spending. In both instances Bush and Hoover had the responsibility of making efforts to insure that the U.S was able to
A clear sense of judgement in politics outlines the “stern commitment” that the vocation of politics requires. Judgment is paramount in practical leadership because it allows one to act on problems which gives a leader the chance to produce results. In 2008 the united states incurred a major financial crisis which could have led to a crisis similar to the Great Depression. President Barack Obama used great judgement and introduced the stimulus package in order to boost the U.S economy and prevent the financial crisis from becoming as detrimental as the Great Depression. In the same token, President Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) introduced the experimental revidatitization project known as the New Deal in order to help Americans recover from the great Depression. The New Deal provided jobs for Americans, established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to guarantee deposit security and the social security act for universal retirement pensions. Both President Obama and FDR had a good sense of judgement to the issues that were at hand and to produce effective results in attempt to fix the aftermath of The Great Depression and Hurricane
The Great Depression was one of the greatest challenges that the United States faced during the twentieth century. It sidelined not only the economy of America, but also that of the entire world. The Depression was unlike anything that had been seen before. It was more prolonged and influential than any economic downturn in the history of the United States. The Depression struck fear in the government and the American people because it was so different. Calvin Coolidge even said, "In other periods of depression, it has always been possible to see some things which were solid and upon which you could base hope, but as I look about, I now see nothing to give ground to hope—nothing of man." People were scared and did not know what to do to address the looming economic crash. As a result of the Depression’s seriousness and severity, it took unconventional methods to fix the economy and get it going again. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration had to think outside the box to fix the economy. The administration changed the role of the government in the lives of the people, the economy, and the world. As a result of the abnormal nature of the Depression, the FDR administration had to experiment with different programs and approaches to the issue, as stated by William Lloyd Garrison when he describes the new deal as both assisting and slowing the recovery. Some of the programs, such as the FDIC and works programs, were successful; however, others like the NIRA did little to address the economic issue. Additionally, the FDR administration also created a role for the federal government in the everyday lives of the American people by providing jobs through the works program and establishing the precedent of Social Security...
In his presidential acceptance speech in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed to the citizens of the United States, “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.” The New Deal, beginning in 1933, was a series of federal programs designed to provide relief, recovery, and reform to the fragile nation. The U.S. had been both economically and psychologically buffeted by the Great Depression. Many citizens looked up to FDR and his New Deal for help. However, there is much skepticism and controversy on whether these work projects significantly abated the dangerously high employment rates and pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression. The New Deal was a bad deal for America because it only provided opportunities for a few and required too much government spending.
During the great depression, then President, Herbert Hoover disappointed Americans. America was therefore ready for a change. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected as President. He pledged a “New Deal” for the country. According to Exploring American Histories, this New Deal would eventually “provide relief, put millions of people to work, raise price for farmers, extend conservation projects, revitalize America’s financial system and restore capitalism.”
... programs were being enforced so quickly. All in all, President Roosevelt meant well and aimed to keep the nation at the peak of overcoming the Great Depression. The First New Deal had its withdraws but also had advantages. It is important for people in today’s society to understand that without the efforts of FDR to enact the New Deal, that the nation would have been in distress for much longer than it was. There is even a possibility that the nation could have fell into more depression in the long run if federal laws and programs were not made. By looking at the outcomes of the First New Deal and the Great Depression, we can learn a valuable lesson about money and stock management. It takes the consumer to keep the nation in good standing. Without the upkeep of the market, this can hurt many people in the country through loss of work, money, and emotional relief.
In 1932, after Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted the Democratic nomination for presidency, running against Republican president, Herbert Hoover, he promised a “New Deal” to the American people. This New Deal’s sole purpose was to deal with the economic hardships caused by the Great Depression, as well as to help and improve the lives of the millions of Americans who had been affected. Roosevelt was swept into office in a landslide. In his inaugural address, Roosevelt brought a sense of hope to a vast majority of dispirited Americans, assuring them that they had “nothing to fear, but fear itself.” On March 5, 1933, just one day after his inauguration, Roosevelt began to implement his New Deal, beginning his focus on the failing banking
Although Roosevelt is highly praised as an amazing leader during the great depression, one can argue it was the circumstances that put him in his position that made him famous. The New Deal was only partially successful, not entirely. There were parts of it that just didn’t work as much as they should have. For the most part, in more ways than one, historians argue that Roosevelt was not aggressive enough to help the economy. But what it did bring to the table was an end to purely laissez-faire policies – the US was beginning to shed traditional values in favor of European economic aspects. Sure, conservatives whined that every baby step away from capitalism was a monstrous leap toward socialism and even communism. But a little government intervention, especially in a time of crisis, goes a long way.
Certainly, FDR promised much in his inaugural speech in March 1933, where he made assurances to bring back prosperity and “put people back to work.” The newly elected president hoped that his New Deal implemented in his first 100 days in power would bring about a revival in the nation’s fortunes. In order to judge the New Deal’s achievements, one must look at its aims which came three fold: relief, recovery and reform. Relief aimed to provide short-term to aid the millions suffering from the effects of the Great Depression, and many historians such as McCoy convincingly argue that the “New Deal’s greatest success was in the area of relief.” FDR’s New Deal was also successful in achieving its reform aims, as argued by Hill and many other
In response to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt was ready for action unlike the previous President, Hubert Hoover. Hoover allowed the country to fall into a complete state of depression with his small concern of the major economic problems occurring. FDR began to show major and immediate improvements, with his outstanding actions during the First Hundred Days. He declared the bank holiday as well as setting up the New Deal policy. Hoover on the other hand; allowed the U.S. to slide right into the depression, giving Americans the power to blame him. Although he tried his best to improve the economy’s status during the depression and ‘pump the well’ for the economy, he eventually accepted that the Great Depression was inevitable.
Something had to be done about the banking system disintegration, and the most conservative business leaders were as ready for government intervention as the most advanced radicals (Garraty 765). It was unquestionably Franklin D. Roosevelt who provided the spark that reenergized the American people (Garraty 765). “His inaugural address, delivered in a raw mist beneath dark March skies, reassured the country and at the same time stirred it to action” (Garraty 765). Accepting the 1932 Democratic presidential nomination, Roosevelt said, “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people” (Stevenson 125). “The New Deal included federal action of unprecedented scope to stimulate industrial recovery, assist victims of the Depression, guarantee minimum living standards, and prevent future economic crises” (Stevenson 125). At first, the New Deal was concerned mainly with relief, but the later years-beginning in 1935 and often called the second New Deal-emphasized reform (Stevenson 127).
The New Deal period has generally - but not unanimously - been seen as a turning point in American politics, with the states relinquishing much of their autonomy, the President acquiring new authority and importance, and the role of government in citizens' lives increasing. The extent to which this was planned by the architect of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been greatly contested, however. Yet, while it is instructive to note the limitations of Roosevelt's leadership, there is not much sense in the claims that the New Deal was haphazard, a jumble of expedient and populist schemes, or as W. Williams has put it, "undirected". FDR had a clear overarching vision of what he wanted to do to America, and was prepared to drive through the structural changes required to achieve this vision.
Weber, Max. [1991] 1918. “Politics as a Vocation,” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology,
The second impressive feat Franklin D. Roosevelt made is announcing new policies to save the people of the United States from poverty and despair. In the 1930s, the New Deal was made to stimulate the economy and to relieve the pressure caused by the stock market crash. I was surprised by Roosevelt’s crisis management skills because he comforted the Americans and strengthened his control over the federal government. It must be a difficult mission for him and his cabinet because there were people like Charles Evan Hughes opposing their views. Despite the fact that the New Deal did not make a significant change in the U.S. economy in the 1930s, it explains why the federal government should take responsibility for national crises. I believe the
The United States faced the worst economic downfall in history during the Great Depression. A domino effect devastated every aspect of the economy, unemployment rate was at an all time high, banks were declaring bankruptcy and the frustration of the general public led to the highest suicide rates America has ever encountered. In the 1930’s Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the New Deal reforms, which aimed to “reconcile democracy, individual liberty and economic planning” (Liberty 863). The New Deal reforms were effective in the short term but faced criticism as it transformed the role of government and shaped the lives of American citizens.
Franklin Roosevelt’s “optimism and activism that helped restore the badly shaken confidence of the nation” (pg. 467 Out of Many), was addressed in the New Deal, developed to bring about reform to the American standard of living and its low economy. It did not only make an impact during the Great Depression. Although, many of the problems addressed in the New Deal might have been solved, those with the long lasting effect provide enough evidence to illustrate how great a success the role of the New Deal played out in America’s history to make it what it is today.
This research will elaborate in detail the theories of Max Weber and explain his view of the perpetuation of social order, social inequality and social change. Lastly I will explain how Weber theories have impacted my view of society.