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 Canada returned to its former Prime Minister Mackenzie in 1935, shows that they were not coping with the Depression as the US did, since the Us would have never let a past primer minister manage the country if he did as bad as King did. Canada was therefore going through the Depression differently since they decided to have King as the prime minister again after all he did. King's second time as Prime Minister was a lot more efficient than its first time since he went from a laissez-faire politic of the economy (which literally was doing nothing and just let it be) to increasing the trades with the US as well as increasing the government spending which was going to be good for Canada since it was in a miserable situation at that time.
ReplyDeleteCanada and the US were doing compltley differnet things in coping with the depression, while the US kept trying new things until a new thing worked, Canada just went back to its old prime minister, something the US would definitley not have done (done back to an old president). The king was much more effective the second time around, however Canda is the only country that i can see would go back and give someone who was a leader and had failed a second chance at helping the countr.y while the article says war is what ginally brought them out of the depresison, King and his new ways definitley helped people get more jobs and get back on their feet. He did a million times better than he had previously done last time he was in charge.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think the fact that Prime Minister MacKenzie King could return to his office shows Canada isn't just copying from the U.S, in fact they make different choices. I mean they sort of did copy the New Deal but it didn't work out quite well so Canadians figured that they needed someone else. However, the reading didn't talk about why the they chose King to be the prime minister. I would still say that the U.S is more precarious politically. FDR was not forced to leave office, the reason probably was that he did his best. As the second round, King's policy, in fact, was effective. Unemployment rate was lower, gold rush and everything, because of fate and also a big part is from King's policy.
ReplyDeleteThe US and Canada had completely different ways of coping with the depression. The idea that Canada decided to allow Prime Minister MacKenzie to return to office, it is apparent that they had their own ideas, separate from the US in order to over come the crisis. I personally believe that putting MacKenzie back into power was unwarranted and frankly irrational. I think that at the time of this decision, Canada had already tried copying the US' New Deal and being that it failed, they didn't know what else to do. As Paxi said, the US was trying new things until something worked, whereas Canada decided to retreat to prior ways to solve their problems which evidently did not work as well as the US' optimism in new ideas. I think that his second term was exponentially more effective than his first run. I think that this is due to the fact that he realized the opportunity he was given the second time and he chose to actually do something to help.
ReplyDelete