How important was the strength of opposition to impact the New Deal in the period 1933-1937.

Authors Avatar

Shane Sylvester

Investigation History- The New Deal

How important was the strength of opposition to impact the New Deal in the period 1933-1937.

The New Deal had serious competition, which was fundamental towards the New Deal particularly in the period of 1933-1937 in numerous ways. There were alternatives which factored towards helping the economy providing radical yet simplistic reforms, several pressure groups also hindered the success of the New Deal, it was scrutinized by both sides of the political spectrum where Hugh Brogan claims the “Left for not doing enough” this is true, certain left wing activists such as Francis Townsend, Father Coughlin and Huey Long did not enhance their potential to cause everlasting impact. He also claims the “right for doing too much” this can be interpreted differently, but I partially agree that the Liberty League tried to prevent the success of the New Deal “as business leaders were not going to help him” this suggests the Right aimed to hinder rather than help the New Deal. The strength of opposition had potential to cause serious impact, this varied as some more than others contributed. It is unclear how opposition enforced certain policies, but they certainly cause change to some extent, where many were able to prosper, as it was clear that “society needs reform”.  Politically there was enough opposition to create severe importance however there were also other schemes that contributed to impacting the New Deal, but I believe due to the New Deals success in the beginning created no opportunity for oppositional groups to contribute any significance, no matter how strong they were to influence the New Deal.

From the Left, many activists had their own ideologies and beliefs, many like Huey Long, Francis Townsend and Father Coughlin believed the New Deal “were not going far enough” which Coughlin envisaged, yet he initially stated “the New Deal is Christ’s Deal” however he turned against the New Deal because Roosevelt failed to carry on his radical reforms, which should not be underestimated as “Roosevelt was afraid of Coughlin’s influence” his sheer strength alone was enough to cause change, he had influenced 40 million Americans listening to his radio sermons, this was more popular than “FDR’s fireside chats” his significance was minor however he did prove to be a threat, but It is evident that Coughlin could not of done much to impact the New Deal because it seems his polices were “vague” his inconsistency of ideologies proved to be his downfall, when attacking the New Deal  he believed it was a communist conspiracy, yet he too fought for similar polices which I believe worsened his credibility, overall his authority and strength did impact the economy, his significance undoubtedly was there yet lost popularity consequently losing his radio program, but he was too radical to have any importance towards the New Deal “his radical style seemed to alienate his audience” this again was another reason why he could not generate enough support to overwhelm the New Deal, numerous historians such as  .  

Join now!

Evidently Townsend was different from conventional opponents of the New Deal, “he wanted to improve the New Deal” this was successful as he implemented many ways that prolonged the New Deal becoming more effective. Clearly suggests that “Townsend’s idea’s influenced Roosevelt’s thinking of the New Deal” Pennington believed that Townsend proved to be beneficial, similar to Coughlin he too had support of 5 million members, but in my view he was inadequate, yes he helped pass through the Social Security Act, which incorporated the Old Age Revolving Pensions however “it was not received by elderly people” which undermines his impact of the New ...

This is a preview of the whole essay