Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did the New Deal work?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Darth_Ole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 11:50 AM
Original message
Did the New Deal work?
I'm a junior in high school and our AP US History is studying the New Deal at the moment. Our teacher (who is an enormous conservative) goes on long spiels each day on why the New Deal didn't work, we were close to becoming a communist state, etc.

To some degree, he's right. Unemployment still loomed larged by the late 30's. The number of unemployed went from 13 million in 1933 to merely 9 million by 1939. Not until WWII did the country finally pull out of the depression due to the new supply and demand of goods and resources.

However, I think the New Deal brought stability to the country and gave people a sense of security, which is important. In the early 30's, there was a real sense of a revolution being needed, but FDR's handouts eased most of these feelings.

Also, this guy says the TVA didn't work because of its socialism and in the long-run it didn't work because the South is still culturally, economically, and educationally behind.

The TVA, in some respect, deserves to be called "socialistic," but it brought jobs and energy to the region. As to the South being progressively behind, that's something that's been ingrained since the old plantation days and has thus been around for centuries.

So whaddya think? In some respects my teacher may be correct, but I'd like to be able to play devil's advocate to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Obviousman Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Had the New Deal not been enacted
The capitalistic system would have utterly collapsed one way or another. While WWII helped to finally push the country out of the depression, without the new deal, this country would have looked very different
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. the New Deal was the bare minimum FDR could do so that the US
would NOT become a communist state. People were starving, although their death certificates always said "pneumonia" or "heart failure."

Tell your conservative teacher that the huge growth in the middle class in this country came about as a result of FDRs policies, and the dismantling them has resulted in a shrinking of the middle class along with rapid growth in the number of poor.

Then ask him for examples of any truly democratic cultures that have survived wealth concentration. Mention Rome, Greece, the Saxons. Then let it go.

I'm sorry, but your teacher is a moron. He won't teach you what you need to know to pass that AP exam in history, either.

My advice is to keep a fairly low profile in class and concentrate on reading. You'll have to pass that exam in spite of him, not because of him. Since you were bright enough to realize he's talking through his rectum, I'm sure you'll manage to do so quite easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldleftguy Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
3. The greatest gift of New Deal was,,,
...not in its programs but the psychological "hope" given our nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Can you articulate what is "wrong" with socialism?
Or do you just have a knee-jerk reaction to the word?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darth_Ole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. That's not what I meant.
I merely meant it deserved to be called socialistic.

I think capitalism is a great thing. Competition and free enterprise are good, and essential in a free society. However, I think some of this country's most crownig achievements are in complete defiance of capitalism, and thus, socialistic in nature: abolishment of child labor, establishment of minimum wage, etc...

So, no, that wasn't a judgment on socialism, necessarily. I was just qualifying the "charges" against things like the TVA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. There is no such thing as absolute "pure capitalism"
nor would it be desirable. Corporations have no conscience or compassion. They are not affected by pollution in the air or water. They are unaffected by doing serious damage, even killing, a few of their customers (in the absence of class-action lawsuits). We even have anti-monopoly laws, which prevent companies from consolidating too much (sort of an end-state of capitalism) and breaking the competitive nature of "healthy" capitalism.

Look at other countries where there are even more "socialistic" tendencies and assess their quality of life, you may be surprised. Use google to research "best places to live", "quality of life", etc.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes
We did not go Fascist - like Argentina (which actually had a higher per capita Gross National Product the we did in the 1920's)

We did not go Socialist - like England (which also actually had a higher per capita Gross National Product the we did in the 1920's)

We - to some extent - avoided the racism of Father Coughlin, Lucky Lindy, and the KKK - who were parading in American Main Streets - along with the Communists. There was rioting in the cities -- there was a massive march on Washington by WW1 vets for their "Post War Bonus."

We some how steered a middle course between Communism and Fascism (tell your teacher - only Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin had good employment numbers).

I think you hit the real issue - the New Deal (and the Post WW2 "GI Bill") created a stable "middle class" society and a stable "middle class" social contract - and steered us away from the "-isms" of the extreme right and extreme left.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sportndandy Donating Member (710 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. If it wasn't for TVA
then all those Red state voters would be watching TV in the dark.

My recommendation is to not cross your teacher. He has the ability to fuck up your college aspirations, so you humiliate him at your own risk. Conservatives are desperate to trash FDR's legacy, to help their goal of dismantling the New Deal. They are desperately jealous of the success of FDR, not only in keeping this country from revolution, but in creating a cohesive political movement which lasted more than 40 years. Social Security is the most popular government program ever, and that helps to explain why they are so desperate to get rid of it. Spiteful shits. They hate everything about democrats. Don't forget to remind them that every recession we have had began under republicans, and every war we ever won was won by democrats. He will hate that.

Socialistic is a nasty word in the sense that your teacher uses it. Social security is socialistic, the bureau of weights and measures is socialistic, even drivers licenses have an element of socialism attached. Don't be afraid of the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Wally Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
8. Tell your teacher
we were close to becoming a communist state, etc.

While there may have been communistic aspects (and some communists) in the new Deal, the activism of the New Deal did keep the US from having either a Communist or a Fascist takeover. In much of what FDR did, he was constrained by the need to keep the more conservstive elements of his party in line.

To some degree, he's right. Unemployment still loomed larged by the late 30's. The number of unemployed went from 13 million in 1933 to merely 9 million by 1939. Not until WWII did the country finally pull out of the depression due to the new supply and demand of goods and resources.

There was a long, slow recovery from 1929 and much of the gain was lost in a nasty recession in 1938. Ramping up for WWII was the 'silver bullet". Many of the New Deal programs were "make work" pallatives, but they did stave off an un-democratic (small-D) revolution.

However, I think the New Deal brought stability to the country and gave people a sense of security, which is important. In the early 30's, there was a real sense of a revolution being needed, but FDR's handouts eased most of these feelings.

One of the big legacies of the New Deal was the adoption of keynsian economics used since by Democratic and Republican administrations to limit the depth and duration of economic downturns. Having the government ensure the stability of the banks also helped. Can you imagine the S&L crisis without the government??

Also, this guy says the TVA didn't work because of its socialism and in the long-run it didn't work because the South is still culturally, economically, and educationally behind.

The weaknesses of the TVA are due to being a bureaucracy and featherbedding. The TVA and the more widespread Rural Electrification are an example of the government providing utilities when the private sector cannot. If something is needed and isn't there, you can either subsidize the private sector (e.g. providing govt lands to railroads as an inducement to build through sparsely settled country) or to set up a government agency to do it (building highways). That is why some municipalities have publicly owned warteworks and some have private companies owning their water works.

The TVA, in some respect, deserves to be called "socialistic," but it brought jobs and energy to the region. As to the South being progressively behind, that's something that's been ingrained since the old plantation days and has thus been around for centuries.

No, the south really got behind during the period after the Civil WAr when it became an economic "colony" of the northeastern states.

So whaddya think? In some respects my teacher may be correct, but I'd like to be able to play devil's advocate to him.

No, you don't play "Devil's Advocate", you just try to put in little tidbits every now and then about how FDR was working without a net sometimes and if it wasn't for him we might have ended up with Harry Wallace in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes it was successful
What about the BPA? It was started in the 1930's too. Is the northwest still culturally, economically and educationally behind? No, because Progressive economics works. What about Hoover Dam and the Grand Coulee Dam? FEMA? Fair Labor Standards that ended child labor? FDIC? Social Security that has done more to end poverty among the elderly than anything the free market ever hoped to do. Unemployment was down to 10% in 1941, which was before Pearl Harbor and the war. Not only did FDR's programs work at the time and may well have worked more quickly if they weren't being overturned and fought by the Republicans, they are exactly what has created an economy where we don't have the kind of poverty we had before the 1920's. The bottom doesn't drop out of the economy anymore because there's always a consistent flow of money into food, power, housing, health care.

Do you know why we have a free lunch program? Because during WWII the military discovered they were having to turn away alot of men because of malnutrition related infirmities. Nothing in this country is about "hand outs". When you get past the blowhard bullshit, all the programs benefit the economy as a whole much more than they benefit the individual.

If your teacher doesn't believe in them damned communist programs, he should stop sucking off the public school gubmint teet and go open his own damned school and see how well he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UdoKier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
10. It worked VERY well.
Much of the New Deal was public works projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority - rural electrification, roads, dams, etc - those projects are STILL producing huge economic benefits to this day! It took time for a lot of them to get on line, but they stimulated the economy throughout and after WWII.

The New Deal saved capitalism from revolution. Your professor is an idiot.

"However, I think the New Deal brought stability to the country and gave people a sense of security, which is important. In the early 30's, there was a real sense of a revolution being needed, but FDR's handouts eased most of these feelings."

The new Deal was not about handouts. It created work for an idled population that desperately needed it. I think your prof's rhetoric has sunk in a bit too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. Ask your principal: why is this teacher imposing his politics on you?
like the neo nazis and right wingers republicans who are always complaining about the brainwashing so called liberal profs and teachers are doing, you might ask you principal why this teacher is running a campaign of political indoctrination instead of sticking to the facts of the historical record.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

PS - you might ask about audio taping his class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. What the New Deal showed was that this country could run on a mix
Edited on Sat Feb-26-05 01:22 PM by John Q. Citizen
of private capital and government spending. It didn't have to be all one or the other. Whether your teacher's analysis of "successful" is based on ideology or on some other data would be good to know.

9 million as compared to 13 million unemployed is a long shot better, 5 million new jobs created sounds a lot more successful to me than the bush net loss of jobs. So if the New Deal was a failure, the last bush term must have been a catastrophe. Based on that data the new deal had a measurably positive impact on the situation.

If one measures success by the mood of the country then the New Deal was a resounding success. Why do you think the Republicans pushed to pass the amendment limiting Presidents to 2 terms?


War, it must be pointed out, is one of the greatest of socialist efforts, with millions of everyday people joining together for a government sponsored endeavor funded by public monies.

When the government reached war levels of expenditures, yes, it had much more economic effect than when the government was spending less on public works projects. The unemployed were deployed.

One of the great public works projects after the war was the GI Bill, an out right socialist project that sent millions of returning GI's to school and subsidized home ownership and in effect created the middle class in the US. This project had a huge impact on the south as well as all over the country with enormous positive economic effects for the whole country.

Edited to add... there is reams of data to show the positive economic and health benefits brought about by rural electrification and "New Deal" programs enacted before, during, and after the war.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
14. Good answers here, the best one being to...
lay low. This guy is, after all, the one who decides the grade you get in the course. On the extremely slim chance you find your brilliant arguments bring him to his knees, you might find that to be the single worst thing you could do in high school.

I had one of these blazing libertarians in high school, and it is disturbing for any teacher to try to ram personal political opinions down students' throats in the guise of "education." Even those on the other side I agreed with.

Having said that, noting that the US had gone through a severe recession around 1920, during the '30s there was a very real fear that it was the end of capitalism as we knew it. Communism was a very strong force here and in Europe, and far too many were willing to give it a shot. Krupp and others supported Hitler simply because he was seen as the strongest alternative to a Communist takeover of Germany, and fascists arose all over Europe arguing the same.

The New Deal made many mistakes, tightening the money supply early being possibly the worst, but it was a brilliant alternative to the mounting battle between the fascists and communists here. That might be its greatest achievment-- it saved us politically, not economically.

It put many to work, gave us hope, and built some awesome public works. That it was not perfect is no reason to bash it.

It also, I might add, kept the steel mills and other industries working so that we had the capability to build when we ended up in the war.

The TVA being responsible for the South being backwards is just so ridiculously wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-26-05 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
15. The New Deal was a resounding success for american citizens ....
Edited on Sat Feb-26-05 01:18 PM by Trajan
The 'free marketplace' was a cesspool of fraud and theft during the GOP controlled 20's .... FDR instituted a number of protections against securities fraud, banking fraud, strengthened labor unions and work rules, and Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs for working citizens EVER established .....

The New Deal was successful beyond their wildest dreams ....

From Liberalism Resurgent:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

TIMELINES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION:

This page features two timelines: the first for general events of the Roaring 20s and the Great Depression, the second for leading economic indicators.

The importance of these timelines cannot be emphasized enough. Seeing the order in which events actually occurred dispels many myths about the Great Depression. One of the greatest of these myths is that government intervention was responsible for its onset. Truly massive intervention began only under the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, who was sworn in after the worst had already hit. Although his New Deal did not cure it, all the leading economic indicators improved on his watch.

But don't take my word for it -- here is the raw data:

TIMELINE OF GENERAL EVENTS

1920s (Decade)

* During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors of the economy.

* An average of 600 banks fail each year.

* Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually decline.

* The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.

* Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.

* "Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-automatic machinery.

* Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than 6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations will control over half of all American industry.

* By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.

* By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.

* The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.

* Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from 1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156 to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.

1922

* The conservative Supreme Court strikes down federal child labor legislation.

-snip-

Our nation, it's markets, and more importantly, it's citizens, were saved by FDR and the New Deal ....

FDR and the New Deal werent perfect, but they were certainly BETTER than the results unbridled, unrestricted capitalism brought to the masses .....

Ask your instructer to tell you of any time in history when so many common citizens enjoyed the benefits of a middle class existence, as we have for the last 50 years, where conservatives ruled the marketplace with laissez faire economic policies ...

Have him mention ANY such time and place in history when so many have gained so much .....

It is also interesting to note that MANY future corporatists became filthy rich from the spending of that middle class .... which may have never happened under the former GOP regime ....

....................

No wonder they wanted to overthrow FDR and install a fascist government ....

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm

THE BUSINESS PLOT TO OVERTHROW ROOSEVELT

In the summer of 1933, shortly after Roosevelt's "First 100 Days," America's richest businessmen were in a panic. It was clear that Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Roosevelt had to be stopped at all costs.

The answer was a military coup. It was to be secretly financed and organized by leading officers of the Morgan and Du Pont empires. This included some of America's richest and most famous names of the time:

* Irenee Du Pont - Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League, the organization assigned to execute the plot.
* Grayson Murphy - Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks.
* William Doyle - Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup.
* John Davis - Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan.
* Al Smith - Roosevelt's bitter political foe from New York. Smith was a former governor of New York and a codirector of the American Liberty League.
* John J. Raskob - A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. In later decades, Raskob would become a "Knight of Malta," a Roman Catholic Religious Order with a high percentage of CIA spies, including CIA Directors William Casey, William Colby and John McCone.
* Robert Clark - One of Wall Street's richest bankers and stockbrokers.
* Gerald MacGuire - Bond salesman for Clark, and a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion. MacGuire was the key recruiter to General Butler.

The plotters attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead the coup. They selected him because he was a war hero who was popular with the troops. The plotters felt his good reputation was important to make the troops feel confident that they were doing the right thing by overthrowing a democratically elected president. However, this was a mistake: Butler was popular with the troops because he identified with them. That is, he was a man of the people, not the elite. When the plotters approached General Butler with their proposal to lead the coup, he pretended to go along with the plan at first, secretly deciding to betray it to Congress at the right moment.

What the businessmen proposed was dramatic: they wanted General Butler to deliver an ultimatum to Roosevelt. Roosevelt would pretend to become sick and incapacitated from his polio, and allow a newly created cabinet officer, a "Secretary of General Affairs," to run things in his stead. The secretary, of course, would be carrying out the orders of Wall Street. If Roosevelt refused, then General Butler would force him out with an army of 500,000 war veterans from the American Legion. But MacGuire assured Butler the cover story would work:

"You know the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspapers. We will start a campaign that the President's health is failing. Everyone can tell that by looking at him, and the dumb American people will fall for it in a second…"

The businessmen also promised that money was no object: Clark told Butler that he would spend half his $60 million fortune to save the other half.

And what type of government would replace Roosevelt's New Deal? MacGuire was perfectly candid to Paul French, a reporter friend of General Butler's:

"We need a fascist government in this country… to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers, and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight."

-snip-


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC