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 broadly supported Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal — while also criticizing and pushing to revise specific programs that were unconstitutional, harmful in practice, or threatened constitutional checks and civil liberties.

Why I’d support it
- The emergency was enormous. By 1933 unemployment and bank failures had devastated millions; something bold and rapid was necessary. The New Deal’s relief and recovery programs (CCC, WPA, TVA, direct relief) put people to work, rebuilt infrastructure, and gave many families an immediate lifeline.
- Stabilizing the financial system was crucial. Reforms such as the Glass–Steagall provisions, the FDIC (bank insurance), and the SEC helped restore basic confidence in banks and markets — a prerequisite for recovery.
- The New Deal began building a social safety net and regulatory framework (e.g., Social Security, labor protections) that addressed underlying structural problems the Depression had exposed and reduced the chance of future collapse.

Why I’d criticize or want changes
- Some New Deal measures went too far in practice or were poorly designed. The National Recovery Administration (NRA) attempted near-central planning of industry and was struck down in Schechter Poultry Co. v. United States (1935) for exceeding federal commerce power. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) had the effect in some places of evicting tenant farmers and sharecroppers, harming the very poor it intended to help (the AAA was also struck down in Butler v. United States, 1936).
- Constitutional and institutional concerns matter. Roosevelt’s 1937 court‑packing proposal raised real fears about undermining judicial independence and separation of powers. Even in crisis, preserving democratic checks is important to prevent later abuse.
- I would be wary of concentrating too much discretionary power in executive agencies without clear accountability, and of programs that favored large businesses or patronage over equitable relief.
- I’d reject demagogic or extreme alternatives. Figures like Huey P. Long proposed radical redistribution (Share Our Wealth) and concentrated personal power in ways that risked authoritarianism. Populist anger was understandable, but I wouldn’t endorse solutions that threatened democratic institutions or rule of law.

A practical stance I would take
- Support immediate relief and job programs, and the financial and regulatory reforms that stabilized the system.
- Press for redesigns of programs that produced perverse effects (e.g., policies to protect tenant farmers when agricultural subsidies were paid to landowners).
- Defend the constitutional order: accept judicial review and respect checks and balances while using Congress’s powers aggressively to pass reform.
- Favor transparency, accountability, and targeted relief over vague centralized planning or open-ended executive discretion.
- Continue experimenting and adapting policy — the New Deal rightly treated policymaking as an iterative process in an unprecedented crisis — but insist experiments be assessed and recalibrated rapidly.

In short: given the scale of human suffering, I would have supported Roosevelt’s New Deal as a necessary, pragmatic government response that saved lives and rebuilt institutions — but I would have been an informed critic where programs were unconstitutional, inequitable, or risked damaging democratic checks.