Dear jefcc,
The assertion that the New Deal was more of a "political than economic
success" could be debated upon. Since I understand you seek "Homework
Help", I explain how to debate this statement.
The first thing you have to do, is write an introduction, which
consists of your aims in writing this answer - "I attemp to examine
the statement..." "I would like to assert the assumption that..." etc.
After you do that, you get to the arguments. Basically, in this case,
you have two different arguments:
(1) New Deal was more political than economic
(2) New Deal was more economic than political
One can say, that the New Deal consisted of economic success, first
and foremost. The number of the hungry, the unemployed, the poor, was
reduced drastically. It should be remembered, that the New Deal ended
the recession triggered by the 1929 Wall Street crash. You can find
many "proofs" and “evidences” for this economic success on- and
offline (see resources bellow), which you can insert as much as you'd
like - this argument with the examples should consist about third of
the essay.
However, perhaps there was no President in history than FDR, a
president who was elected four times(!) to office. Moreover, there are
some claims that the New Deal was not such a huge success - until the
war, which streamed some of the workforce to the military, there were
still economic problems. Thsi economically conservative institute
claims that "The unemployment rate during the 1933-1940 period
averaged about 18% and was as high as 28.3% in March of 1933. By the
end of 1938, on the eve of World War II, the U.S. unemployment rate
still hovered at just over 18 percent and was higher than it was in
1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first year in office"
(http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=55&month=1). Moreover,
FDR is remembered as a popular politician (disputed by those who
opposed his government oriented policies), who also forced his way on
the Supreme Court in many cases. The Democratic Party was never more
successful as in FDR period. New Age initiative did not always work,
but it was a political and psychological success because " it restored
hope to a nation battered by the Great Depression" (Sternsher, 1999)
However, one cannot separate the economic and the political legacy of
a regime, or of an era. Indeed, it can be claimed, that " The economic
success of a presidency is often the barometer by which people will
remember an administration" (source:
<http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/features/inaug/section25.html>).
Another important argument, is that FDR himself linked his politics
and policies to the economic recovery of the country, and therefore,
the two - the economic success and the political one - cannot be
separated. That can be your summary, but if you reach another
conclusion, you should add a summary which concludes your thoughts on
the subject.
Books that might assist you:
* Ian Campbell, The USA, 1917–1941
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521568641/ltc-political
* Bernard Sternsher (editor) 1999., Hope Restored - discusses
especially the issue you're referring to.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0929587847/ltc-political
More resources:
http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=new_deal&OFFID=se1
http://newdeal.feri.org/
http://www.roosevelt.edu/newdeal/
I think that answered your question. However, if you need any
clarifications, please let me know before you rate the answer. |
