A part of source F follows with the theme of the increased role of government. Raymond Moley, Head of the Brain trust from 1930-1935, whom believes the “First New Deal was a radical departure… it put more power in the hands of the central government”. Repeatedly, this shows the role of the government increasing, which a large change is caused by the New Deal. However, Raymond Moley also makes other claims, which will be followed further on.
In the New Deal taxes were raised steeply as the demand of money for the government to provide jobs, relief, to build infrastructure and provide economic aid. Source C supports this point by describing a tax law on employers whom “pay for each calendar year an excise tax”. This is a change in tax policy, as in the past taxes have been relatively low, whereas the New Deal rose taxes high to increase government spending. Moreover, government spending has been low in the past due to the republican’s idea of rugged individualism. Respectively, the tax law doesn’t state how much tax is imposed, thus can only be trusted to a certain extent, however since government spending increases, tax must have increased significantly. Source C has particular reference to source E, which includes a statement from Morganthau “what businessmen want to know… is, are we headed to state socialism or are we going to continue on a capitalist basis”. This is linked to business regulations of C as businessmen are worried by the more left wing approach by the government under FDR. This supports the radicalism of the New Deal seeing that so much reform is taking place that capitalists of the system have too little “confidence to invest”. It also mentions “once again in 1937” which suggests that both the first and second New Deal undertook reforms.
Following the business theme, source B also has parallels to C and E. The National Recovery Act in B is aimed at “national industrial recovery [and] to foster fair competition” allowing workers unions: “Co-operative action among trade groups” and force “employers [to] comply with the maximum hours of labour, minimum rates of pay”. Implementing business regulations was a whole new policy, so it supports the radicalism in the New Deal. However, the yield of regulation including minimum rates of pay and maximum hours of labour isn’t included thus the source is only so reliable, but it is safe to assume the regulation is considerable as allowing trade unions is a huge step.
Where the first part of F concurred with radicalism of the New Deal, Raymond Moley claims the Second New Deal controlled by FDR “did not follow any particular policy until after 1936” leading to the economy “slid[ing] downhill- unemployment increased- after that”. Here, F disagrees with the radicalism of the Second New Deal as Raymond believed that it was “an entirely different thing” from the First New Deal which was radical. However, this source can be hugely biased as Raymond was the head of the brain trust from 1930-1935. This suggests he was fired after 1935; the Second New Deal began in 1936. Thus, it can be said he opposed Roosevelt after he was fired. Source G also disagrees that the New Deal was radical. It shows a picture of FDR leading Uncle Sam or the US through the path with the signpost “The way of Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln”. The other signpost read “Radical shortcut” and shows Bolshevism drowning in the marsh in that direction. This explains that the New Deal was acceptable to the conservatives of “The salt lake tribute”, but also acts as a warning as to threaten FDR if he ever turned too left wing.
All sources but half of F and G agree that the New Deal was a radical reform. Although not all of the sources can be fully trusted, there is an overwhelming support from the sources that the New Deal was indeed radical.
PART B. “There was little effective opposition to the New Deals because of Roosevelt’s success in dealing with the problems caused by the depression.” How far do you agree with this statement?
FDR was no doubt successful in dealing with the problems of depression to a certain extent. Thus, it could be said, the New Deal was opposed little due to Roosevelt’s success. However, there was still some effective opposition including the Supreme Court which attacked a significant number of laws and policies in the New Deal and made them unconstitutional. To decide how far this statement is true or not, opposition groups must be analysed to reveal their effectiveness compared to the success of the New Deal.
First of all, the New Deal was unquestionably effective to a certain degree. In the first 100 days it was said by Raymond Moley, the head of the brain trust believed “that capitalism was saved in the first 8 days”. Roosevelt shut down all the banks for four days in 6th May 1933 and passed the Emergency Banking Act which gave the treasury the power to check banks in danger of collapse. The Reconstruction Finance Corp wrote off bank debts and the Glass Steagall Act outlawed banks from investment banking which stimulated the bull market in the 1920s. Roosevelt himself gave people confidence to put their money back into the banks by speaking to them and assuring them over the successful fireside chats. Banking was indeed saved and money was slowly returning to the banks, which could be opened again. This is a huge success of the New Deal. As a result, right wing opposition- the Liberty Leaguers were largely ineffective. People saw that Roosevelt had already saved the capitalist system and felt that the Liberty Leaguers were being unfair on Roosevelt who already saved them.
Huey Long, also known as Kingfish, the senator of Louisiana is an example of very effective opposition. A secret poll revealed that 4 million Americans may vote for him in 1936. This shows his ideas were popular and the massive support he had, indeed opposed Roosevelt. Kingfish believed in redistribution of wealth and created the “share our wealth” scheme. Due to the considerable number of people in poverty, his scheme was largely popular. The New Deal gave relief and aid to those in poverty as well as jobs; however, poverty was far from gone. It can be said that the New Deal was never really successful, unemployment was still high and wages and salaries still low. Thus, “share our wealth” schemes became popular, particularly among the poor. Moreover, those whom believed the New Deal wasn’t radical enough saw Long’s ideas as a bigger step. Long was shot in September 1935 and with him his opposition fell short, but he had huge potential.
The New Deal was also opposed by its own government. The Supreme Court rendered 11 laws unconstitutional just in the years 1935 and 1936, when only 60 laws in the 140 years before 1935 were found so. The Supreme Court is the most effective opposition to the New Deal because it had the power to nullify its laws and policies. As part of the checks and balances system, it monitored the power of Roosevelt and gave him restrictions on what he could do. The Supreme court was opposed to the New Deal because all the judges were from an older generation so most were conservative and republican, they saw the New Deal as a too radical a step or gave too much power to the government and felt some of its laws and policies went against the principles of the founding fathers. In the face of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt found he was useless against them. In attempt of attacking the Supreme Court by trying to add 6 new justices and retiring those that were over 70, Roosevelt lost the notion heavily. However, it can also be said that the Supreme Court made the New Deal more effective by forbidding the policies and laws that were seen as perhaps ineffective. Hence, perhaps it didn’t resist the New Deal; it regulated it so the New Deal could be more helpful to Americans.
The old felt that they should have been given more pensions and benefits. It was thought that it could also boost the economy by increasing spending this way. Francis Townsend- a retired doctor thought of a scheme where those that were 60 all older who didn’t work, would received 200$ a month which must be completely spent and not saved, this was known as the Old Age Revolving Pensions Inc. The aim was to increase spending power which would stimulate production and thus open up more jobs. Moreover, if those over 60 were given an incentive to retire, others could take their spaces. There was moderate support of 500,000 members and the government was being pressured to take action. During this period under the first New Deal, there were no old age benefits and it was found that many of the old were in poverty. The opposition was not very effective however, due to fact that the pensions would take up to half of the national income as well as a vast system of administration to monitor spending. On the other hand, it might have given Roosevelt some ideas; in 1935 the Second New Deal presented the Social Security Act, which included giving out pensions to the old as well as unemployment benefit. Although it was hardly anywhere as strong in magnitude to the Old Age Pensions Act that Townsend offered, it was still part of Townsend’s idea. Thus, the opposition was not entirely ineffective; it might have edged Roosevelt on making the decision to allow Social Security. After creating the Social Security Act, Townsend’s support diminished as the New Deal proved itself able to offer some old age benefit without using such an impractical scheme as the Old Age Pensions Inc.
