Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Return to Mackenzie King
Does the fact that Canada returned to its former Prime Minister MacKenzie King in 1935 show that it is completely different from the United States in terms of coping with the Depression? While FDR did face some criticism the US kept him in office for four consecutive terms. Is Canada much more precarious politically? How effective, in your opinion, was King as Prime Minister the second time around?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The fact that the former Prime Minister Mackenzie King returned to office shows that Canada is coping differently then the United States because Canada was in a fragile state and needed someone familiar. Politically, during the Depression, Canada was unstable compared to the United States. The depression in Canada showed that, “the municipalities and provinces were not equipped to deal with the welfare on the scale that the downturn had required.” Canadians became dependent on the Federal Government rather than looking to provinces for relief because, “they realized [that] only the federal government had the necessary resources.” In my opinion, the second time around as Prime Minister, Mackenzie king was more effective. Unlike in 1930 where King took a laissez-faire approach, his second time around, in 1935 onward, King increased trade with the U.S., increased federal government spending, and enacted the Rowell- Sirois Commission. The Rowell- Sirois Commission was set up to, “investigate federal and provincial relationships.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren, I think the people did just need a familiar face throught this hardship. They also might have come to an agreement that Mackenzie King might have changed. Before King was very standoff-ish and would just let everything "work itself out." Now in 1934, he had a new standpoint, "King may have accepted that the economy would not right istelf and direct action by federal government was necessary." He also came up with many new ideas that might have been appealing to the people. I think Canada was much more precarious because they only had the federal government to look to for support, and as said previously the government cannot please everyone. The people could only turn to the federal government because the "provinces were not equipped to deal with welfare on the scale that the downturn had required." Yes I believe King was much more effective the second time around because he ditched his old view that things would work itself out and started taking action. He ultimately had many new ideas to "restore international trade."
ReplyDeleteI think Canada's return to its former Prime Minister McKenzie King shows their return to common sense. It shows they were not completely caught up in the emotional fanatics of the Depression and saw the federal governments involvement as too much. If you notice the box/diagram on the last page it goes from laissez-faire to a higher government involvement to the next box, the reelected King, a slightly more hands on approach but still smaller than Bennett. There is also the idea that they know who King is and during a time as hard as the Depression they wanted someone they knew and someone whose political persona they were familiar with.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Canada returned to its former Prime Minister MacKenzie King in 1935 shows that it is completely different from the United States in terms of coping with the Depression because in terms of returning, just like what Lauren said that people needed familiar leader. It is difficult whether Canadian politic is more precarious or not because it may be not so precarious because of only one government (China has only one government and this government dominant China but China seems fine so far), but it may also be much more precarious because the power is too concentrated and nobody is going to balance it. According to King's action (trading with the US, develop more diverse economy...) I think his second term is more effective.
ReplyDeleteAfter I read the text, I feel Canada's former Prime Minister Mckenzie shows that they were not completely caught up in the emotional problems of the Depression. The Federal government was also involved way to much. I also feel that The depression in Canada showed that, “the municipalities and provinces were not equipped to deal with the welfare on the scale that the downturn had required.” The Canadians were reliant on the Federal Government rather than looking to provinces for relief because, “they realized that only the federal government had the necessary resources to stay up.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the prime minister returned to its power in Canada shows complete indifference in political theories between Canada and the US. The US would probably have more pride, and would never let that happen. But Canadian hospitality and mindset proves to be different one again. It shows they really needed help, FDR didn't just stay in office because of a pride issue, he was actually implementing changes that had supporters and proved to be working. Canada was clearly desperate, and figured bringing back someone that was once in power could be beneficial because he was familiar with the legal system. And having some time out of office may have given him some perspective. King's second term was more effective because it dragged them out of a little out of their economic position.
ReplyDeleteKing definitely learned his lesson from the last term. He totally changed his strategy of lassies faire to direct government intervention. King realized that the economy need to be saved but the federal government. Therefore, he increased trade with USA, increased federal government spending and hired Rowel-Sirois commission. King got rid of the concept of "balanced budget" and agreed to deficit spending. He also hired expert to investigate "federal and provincial relationship", but the royal commission did not really work. The expert team had not came up with a report until the second world war, in which Canada's economy rapidly recovered from the war. Overall, King was not completely effective, but did put in effort during his second term.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Canada switched back to their prime minister shows that they are completely different than the US when it comes to coping with the depression. The US would never go back to a leader who put them into such a huge mess, and they would never give them another chance. This shows how they are different because Canada didn't really care what King did before and they decided that going back to him would be good. Even though FDR was in office for 4 terms the US wouldn't have elected someone else as president and then go back to him. FDR was making mistakes throughout the depression, but was also helping the US in many ways. King was more effective his second time around because he knew what had to be done and he already had ideas that he could use to help him and his country. He really used his second chance to show Canada that he was a good leader and helped them to get out of the depression. He put in a lot more effort during his second term, a lot more than he did in his first term.
ReplyDeleteKing as a Prime Minister as a second term made a big improvement from the first one. Before, when he was the prime minister for the first time, he basically did nothing because he thought that leaving the economy alone would be the best way to get the country out of the depression. However, in his second term, he realized that he should make actions in order to get the country out of the depression. Therefore not only did he made an agreement with the USA to reduce the high tariffs between the countries but also he agreed to deficit spending to pay for job creation schemes. Due to his efforts, some areas of the economy rebounded. Manufacture, automobiles, cinema and radio recovered. Plus, he had raised income taxes by almost 50 percent and sales tax fron one to eight per cent in order to bring back the economy.
ReplyDeleteTaking back their Prime Minister shows that Canada was really desperate for stability. Even though they didn't like King's actions (especially financially), they kept him for fear of somebody worse taking over. It is similar to the US, because we keep our president when we don't see any hope in the new candidates. HOWEVER it is not the same for the US. If our president completely messed up, then we would be scrambling to find new hope. Only if there was no hope, would we stay with our current president.
ReplyDeletechange has always been a concept that America has never truly been able to grasp. especially in times of despair FDR came in with new ideas and comforting speeches reminding america on how great it once was. canada wanted change and results fast and it knew that king could deliver because he had in the past.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason why King returned for a second term was because the people of Canada didn't know how well they had it until they lost it. I mean that they voted out King for Bennett and once the people saw that Bennett was even a worse leader than King, they re-elected King. I think that this does prove that Canada was not copying the US in terms of the Great Depression because at this point, Canada is staring to realize that they need to do what is best for them, their people, their country and not what seems to be working for other countries and hope it works for them too.
ReplyDeleteSince Canada returned to its former leader Prime Minister Mackenzie King, it shows that they coped with the depression differently than the US did. They needed a familiar leader, and King was that guy. Before, during his first term, he didn't accomplish much because his tactic was to give indirect aid. However, during his second term, he became more involved and I believe that he accomplished much more than he did in his first term. King increased trade and set up the Rowell Sirois Commission
ReplyDeleteEveryone's said it all really That something like putting a former leader back in charge that put them in this mess would never happen ever in the United States. That just shows how different US and Canada is. How Canada has faith in everyone and giving someone a second chance and he improved the country and helped many people. Now in the US this would never happen after someone messes up they want that person out of power as soon as possible.
ReplyDelete