Asked by Mathew Jameson
In this discussion, you will talk with your peers about the effectiveness of New Deal policies.
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?
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
Short answer: I would have supported Roosevelt’s New Deal overall, but I would have criticized important parts of it — both on practical and constitutional grounds — and pushed for stronger protections for the poorest and for racial minorities.
Why I’d support it
- The scale of the emergency mattered. By 1933 unemployment was roughly 25% and banks were failing; people were desperate. Strong federal relief and job-creation programs (CCC, WPA, Federal Emergency Relief) saved lives, put people to work, and stabilized communities. In that emergency I’d favor decisive government action.
- The reforms reduced systemic risks. Banking reforms (1933 Banking Act, FDIC), securities regulation (SEC), and later Social Security created safety nets and rules that made future collapses less likely and gave people long-term security.
- Some long-term gains came from New Deal institutions and laws: labor protections (Wagner Act/NLRB), infrastructure investments, and social insurance that became the backbone of 20th‑century social policy.
- Politically, the New Deal rebuilt public trust in government’s ability to respond to crisis and created mechanisms for collective recovery.
Why I’d criticize or push for changes
- Not all New Deal programs were fair or effective. Programs sometimes channeled benefits to landowners and businesses rather than to sharecroppers or the unemployed poor (e.g., in parts of the AAA and some WPA hiring practices). African Americans, women, and other marginalized groups were frequently excluded or discriminated against in implementation. I would have pressed for more equitable administration and explicit anti-discrimination safeguards.
- Some policies overreached constitutionally. The Supreme Court struck down the NRA (Schechter Poultry Co. v. United States, 1935) and parts of the AAA (United States v. Butler, 1936) on separation-of-powers and commerce‑clause grounds — critiques that had legal force. I would have been wary of congressional delegations that gave the executive too much unchecked regulatory power.
- The court‑packing plan (1937) was a serious political mistake. Even if motivated by frustration with the Court, it threatened judicial independence and alienated potential allies.
- Economically, the New Deal helped but did not fully end the Depression. Recovery was partial and uneven; the recession of 1937–38 showed fragility, and mobilization for World War II ultimately finished the job. I’d support stronger, sustained fiscal measures and job programs to prevent backsliding.
On Huey Long and other critics
- Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth plan tapped real grievances — massive inequality and concentrated wealth — and had broad popular appeal. I would have found his diagnosis understandable.
- But I’d be wary of his remedies and rhetoric. Long’s approach veered toward demagoguery and concentrated political power in ways that risked authoritarianism. Many of his proposals also raised questions about feasibility and property rights; they would have required careful design to be both effective and constitutional.
- Other critics (Townsend, Coughlin, conservatives in business) raised valid points about distributional fairness or the limits of federal power; each critique deserved response rather than dismissal.
Overall judgment
- In the context of the Depression, I’d have supported Roosevelt’s general direction: federal relief, jobs, financial stabilization, and structural reforms. Those actions reduced suffering and created durable institutions (FDIC, SEC, Social Security).
- I’d simultaneously criticize and seek to reform particular programs that were unfair or unconstitutional, oppose any trend toward undermining checks and balances, and push for stronger protections for minority groups and for more progressive, sustainable revenue measures to fund relief.
Question for discussion: Which New Deal policies do you think were most effective and which do you think did the most harm or missed the mark — and why?
Why I’d support it
- The scale of the emergency mattered. By 1933 unemployment was roughly 25% and banks were failing; people were desperate. Strong federal relief and job-creation programs (CCC, WPA, Federal Emergency Relief) saved lives, put people to work, and stabilized communities. In that emergency I’d favor decisive government action.
- The reforms reduced systemic risks. Banking reforms (1933 Banking Act, FDIC), securities regulation (SEC), and later Social Security created safety nets and rules that made future collapses less likely and gave people long-term security.
- Some long-term gains came from New Deal institutions and laws: labor protections (Wagner Act/NLRB), infrastructure investments, and social insurance that became the backbone of 20th‑century social policy.
- Politically, the New Deal rebuilt public trust in government’s ability to respond to crisis and created mechanisms for collective recovery.
Why I’d criticize or push for changes
- Not all New Deal programs were fair or effective. Programs sometimes channeled benefits to landowners and businesses rather than to sharecroppers or the unemployed poor (e.g., in parts of the AAA and some WPA hiring practices). African Americans, women, and other marginalized groups were frequently excluded or discriminated against in implementation. I would have pressed for more equitable administration and explicit anti-discrimination safeguards.
- Some policies overreached constitutionally. The Supreme Court struck down the NRA (Schechter Poultry Co. v. United States, 1935) and parts of the AAA (United States v. Butler, 1936) on separation-of-powers and commerce‑clause grounds — critiques that had legal force. I would have been wary of congressional delegations that gave the executive too much unchecked regulatory power.
- The court‑packing plan (1937) was a serious political mistake. Even if motivated by frustration with the Court, it threatened judicial independence and alienated potential allies.
- Economically, the New Deal helped but did not fully end the Depression. Recovery was partial and uneven; the recession of 1937–38 showed fragility, and mobilization for World War II ultimately finished the job. I’d support stronger, sustained fiscal measures and job programs to prevent backsliding.
On Huey Long and other critics
- Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth plan tapped real grievances — massive inequality and concentrated wealth — and had broad popular appeal. I would have found his diagnosis understandable.
- But I’d be wary of his remedies and rhetoric. Long’s approach veered toward demagoguery and concentrated political power in ways that risked authoritarianism. Many of his proposals also raised questions about feasibility and property rights; they would have required careful design to be both effective and constitutional.
- Other critics (Townsend, Coughlin, conservatives in business) raised valid points about distributional fairness or the limits of federal power; each critique deserved response rather than dismissal.
Overall judgment
- In the context of the Depression, I’d have supported Roosevelt’s general direction: federal relief, jobs, financial stabilization, and structural reforms. Those actions reduced suffering and created durable institutions (FDIC, SEC, Social Security).
- I’d simultaneously criticize and seek to reform particular programs that were unfair or unconstitutional, oppose any trend toward undermining checks and balances, and push for stronger protections for minority groups and for more progressive, sustainable revenue measures to fund relief.
Question for discussion: Which New Deal policies do you think were most effective and which do you think did the most harm or missed the mark — and why?
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.