Question

Begin your discussion by addressing the following prompt:
Many people supported Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies. However, some individuals, such as Huey P.
Long, criticized his policies, and the Supreme Court declared some unconstitutional. If you had lived during the
Great Depression, would you have supported Roosevelt's policies or criticized them? Why?

Answer 1

If I had lived through the Great Depression, I would have been broadly supportive of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal while also voicing targeted criticisms — both practical and principled.

Why I’d support it
- Immediate relief and stabilization mattered. Bank holidays, the Emergency Banking Act, the FDIC, and measures to reopen credit quickly stopped the immediate financial panic and restored some trust in institutions. Programs like the CCC, WPA, and TVA put millions to work, provided income to desperate families, and funded infrastructure that had long-term public benefit.
- It created essential reforms and a safety net. Social Security, securities regulation, and labor protections (Wagner Act) established legal frameworks to reduce future systemic risk and give ordinary Americans more economic security and bargaining power.
- It saved American capitalism from collapse. The New Deal’s mix of relief, recovery, and reform aimed at stabilizing demand and reforming the system so it could survive. In the context of mass unemployment and bank runs, decisive federal action was necessary; in that sense, Roosevelt’s pragmatism and willingness to use federal power were appropriate.

Why I’d criticize it
- Incomplete and unequal relief. Many New Deal programs either excluded or shortchanged women, Black Americans, tenant farmers, and domestic workers (for example, some early Social Security exclusions and discriminatory local implementation of relief). That moral and practical failing should have been addressed more directly.
- Some programs overreached or were poorly designed. The Supreme Court’s early decisions (e.g., Schechter Poultry v. United States striking down the NRA, and United States v. Butler invalidating parts of the AAA) reflected real constitutional and federalism questions about delegation of power and the reach of federal authority. Even if one favors strong federal action in crises, design and legal grounding matter.
- Not radical enough for some. Critics like Huey P. Long (Share Our Wealth), Father Coughlin, and Dr. Townsend pushed for much more direct redistribution or guaranteed incomes. I’d sympathize with the urgency behind those proposals — the suffering was immense — but would be wary of some proposals’ feasibility and political risks. Some alternatives lacked workable implementation plans or threatened economic stability.
- Political risks and civil liberties. The expansion of executive power raised legitimate concerns; the later court-packing plan, for example, crossed a line I would have opposed. Emergency action must be balanced with constitutional checks so it doesn’t become permanent overreach.

Overall stance
I would have supported the New Deal’s aims and most of its measures because in 1933 the country needed large-scale, creative, federal action to stop collapse and to create a social compact that protected people from the extremes of market failure. At the same time, I would have pushed for better protections for minorities and poorer workers, greater transparency and legal grounding for ambitious programs, and more attention to direct redistribution where needed. In short: support for bold, pragmatic reform in a national emergency, coupled with insistence on fairness, constitutionality, and stronger remedies for those the New Deal left behind.