Review of Herbert Hoover in the White House by Charles Rappleye

According to journalist and biographer Charles Rappleye, President Herbert Hoover “remains very much unknown to most Americans. When he is recalled at all, it is in defeat and in caricature—the clay-footed conservative who preached the old dogmas of laissez-faire, while the false idols of capital came crashing down, handmaidens to the elite, scourge of the huddled masses.” In Herbert Hoover in the White House, Rappleye does not seek to somehow resurrect Hoover’s reputation; he admits that Hoover was a failure as a president, “and not just because of fate or bad timing” (xvi). He does, however seek to provide a more balanced portrait of Hoover as both man and president.  Writing several decades after the end of the 1930s, Rappleye is able to attempt one of the first works about the Hoover presidency “weighed in the scales of time and experience rather than partisan political belief” (xv).

Throughout the biography, Rappleye stresses two main themes, ideas which stand in contrast to key stereotypes about Hoover’s presidency.   First, he argues that Hoover “was not the mild Quaker that his friends liked to portray” (xvi).  Instead, he could be petty and vindictive, was subject to outbursts of temper, and used fear as a weapon, which lead to him “winning some legislative battles but losing the war for hearts and minds” (xvi). 

The second misconception about Hoover that Rappleye attempts to correct is that Hoover did little or nothing to ease the Great Depression. Rather, “Hoover made an active and energetic response to the economic tsunami that hit the nation.” (xvii). No one in the Hoover administration “was more creative in fashioning a response” than Hoover himself (xvii).  Unfortunately for Hoover’s political career and for the nation as a whole, Hoover’s measures tended to be too little, too late, and they tended to benefit the wealthiest members of society rather than the poorest Americans.  This, together with Hoover’s lack of warmth and charisma, led a very large number of Americans to believe he simply did not care about their hardships.

As its title suggests, Herbert Hoover in the White House is not a true biography.  Rappleye flies through Hoover’s early life and his pre-presidential career and devotes about 95% of the book to Hoover’s presidency, with a very brief epilogue concerning Hoover’s post-presidency.  When narrating the events of the presidency, Rappleye discusses economic matters to the near-exclusion of issues such as non-economic domestic affairs, foreign policy, and Hoover’s personal life.  Readers with little interest in and/or knowledge of finance, banking, the stock market, and world currency rates may well find themselves struggling to keep reading.

When I was in graduate school, one of my professors told our class that when we write a book review, we should “evaluate it for the book that it is, not for the book you wish it were.”  Following this sound advice, I will not scold Rappleye for not writing a comprehensive biography, filled with human interest like David McCullough’s biographies of John Adams and Harry Truman.  I would have loved to have learned much more about Hoover’s rags-to-riches story and his great success as a humanitarian, but…I read the title, and I should have known going into it that this book would be almost entirely about Hoover’s unsuccessful presidency.  Still, I could not help coming away a bit disappointed.

In summary, if you are seeking to learn a great deal about President Hoover’s economic policies and his efforts to combat the Great Depression, this is the perfect book for you.  If, however, you want a comprehensive account of Hoover’s life that includes his highly successful career as an engineer, businessman, and humanitarian, you will need to look elsewhere.