The End Of Liberalism In Recession And War By Alan Brinkley

The further development of industrialisation led to social and economic inequality. This led to a revision of classical liberal ideas to prevent the spread of ignorance and poverty. It is suggested that modern liberals have betrayed classical liberal ideas as they embrace collectivism and diverge from classical liberalism on issues such as freedom. However, it can be argued that modern liberals have simply built on classical liberal ideas such as its commitment to the individual.

A frustrating factor of this book is that Badger doesn’t use footnotes, even with direct quotes. Instead he refers to specific authors, newspapers, and other works within the book. This loss is aided by his lengthy bibliographic essay and a list of abbreviations used within the book and their meanings. This list helps because it clarifies the specific organizations and groups used in the book. Within the book, Badger manages to mix together a number of different interpretations to present an account of both the New Deal and its historiography. Badger proposes a comparison of the reforms instituted and their unanticipated consequences. Many of these were the exact opposite of what the New Deal proposed, for example, the stronger establishment of big corporations, urban sprawl rather than revived inner cities, weak labor laws, and others.

The United States encountered many ordeals during the Great Depression (1929-1939). Poverty, unemployment and despair clouded the “American Dream” and intensified the urgency for solutions to address and control the nationwide damage. President Franklin Roosevelt proposed the New Deal to detoxify the nation of its suffering. It can be argued that the New Deal was ineffective due to the inability to end the Great Depression with its short-term solutions and created more problems, however; it was successful in regards to providing direct relief for the needy, economic recovery and some structural reform for the majority of the general public in the severity of the Great Depression.

The America in the 1930s was drastically different from the luxurious 1920s. The stock market had crashed to an all time low, unemployment was the highest the country had ever seen, and all American citizens were affected by it in some way or another. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal was effective in addressing the issues of The Great Depression in the sense that it provided immediate relief to US citizens by lowering unemployment, increasing trust in the banks, getting Americans out of debt, and preventing future economic crisis from taking place through reform. Despite these efforts The New Deal failed to end the depression. In order for America to get out of this economic

The book “Taking Sides: Clashing Views in United States History” by Madaras, Larry and James SoRelle draws attention on controversial issues. James and Madaras wrote the book in a debate-style format, which intrigues many students, hence supporting them in enhancing their critical thinking skills. James and Madaras ensured that every issue in the book has a summary, introduction, challenge question and postscript. Therefore, the paper will focus on issue 10, which debates on whether the new deal prolonged the great depression. The great depression refers to an era in US history, which happened from 1929 to 1941 during president Franklin Delano Roosevelt era, and it made the US citizens face economic hard times. The great depression era had much overproduction, inequality in wealth distribution and over borrowing. Consequently, the president implemented the new deal with the aim of saving American citizens from the great depression. However, people had different feelings regarding the effectiveness of the new deal, which brought up the debate in the book. For example, Burton Folsom believed that the new deal was not effective because he thought that it prolonged the great depression. On the contrary, Roger Biles alleged that the new deal was effective, and it did not prolong the great depression (Madaras and James 227).

In his inaugural address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt set the tone for the upcoming half century when he confidently said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. In response to the economic collapse of the Great Depression, a bold and highly experimental fleet of government bureaus and agencies known as Roosevelt’s Alphabet Soup were created to service the programs of the New Deal and to provide recovery to the American people. The New Deal was one of the most ambitious programs in American history, with implications and government programs that can still be seen to this day. Through its enactment of social reform and conservation programs, the New Deal mounted radical policies that gave the federal government unprecedented power in the nation’s economy and society, however, the New Deal did not bring America out of the Great Depression and could be considered conservative in the context of the era, ultimately saving capitalism from collapsing in America.

The political shifts in American history during the last two centuries are often explained by Arthur Schlesinger's cyclical explanation of eras of public purpose followed by private interest. What is considered liberal versus what is considered conservative shifts in a similar pattern. While laissez-faire policies are considered liberal in the Roaring 20's, the onset of the Great Depression in

The Great Depression drastically changed America's definition of Liberalism. Prior to the onset of the depression, in the roaring twenties, policies of laissez-faire were considered liberal, radical, revolutionary, and even democratic. This was due to the fact that revolution was a horrifying notion and not until after the laissez-faire and the system of free market fails in the 1920's do people begin to look about for alternatives. The time when people starting to seek alternatives was at the onset of the depression when America's political views drastically change. As the Great Depression, started in 1929, America began to view conservatives as following the policies of social Darwinism, laissez-faire, and having

FDR’s New Deal programs greatly expanded the size, scope, and power of the federal government, giving the President and his Brain Trust near-dictatorial status. “I want to assure you,” Roosevelt 's aide Harry Hopkins told an audience of New Deal activists in New York, “that we are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have a lawyer who will declare anything you want to do legal.” FDR was faced with the same difficult position of putting words into action. The establishment machine forges a “coalition of progressives that were divided into two parties” (54).

The late 1930s were a time of great suffering and uncertainty in the United States. The country was crippled by effects of the Great Depression; the result was a massive decline in jobs and economic stability that dramatically impacted both rural and urban communities. Millions of Americans were out of work, unable to support their families. State organizations and charities were unable to meet the growing needs of the people and many were left to fend for themselves. The Great Depression brought with it a legitimate, tangible fear about the future of America and its citizens. Upon the outcry of the American people a “New Deal” was struck giving the citizens of America a lifeline of hope in the ever-growing State. The New Deal was a succession of programs, organizations and laws, enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, directly addressing the issues of jobs, welfare and uncertainty through direct federal involvement. The creators of the New Deal worked across party lines to reshape the norms of state involvement whilst making a great legislative effort to turn the declining economy around. The New Deal reshaped the federal government’s relationship with its citizens in a time of economic uncertainty helping to grow the State in a time of peace.

“I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people,” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said after winning his party’s nomination in 1932 ("A New Deal for Americans"). The 1930s was a time of great economic depression; in response the New Deal was FDR’s plan for America’s recovery. By 1933, when FDR took office, one in four Americans was unemployed. Furthermore, there was widespread hunger, malnutrition, overcrowding, and poor health. The New Deal was made to combat these tragic conditions and it did so through the means of welfare and government intervention. Indeed, the New Deal was a radical change to the way America had

It was the year of 1934. America was fighting to come out from the worst economic crisis that the world would ever witness. It was also the year of high crime rate, low Gross Domestic Product and the lowest unemployment rate America had experienced. The Depression had paralyzed American labor forces, but there was a hope still alive in every American including J.D. Rockefeller when he said, “These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again” (Rockefeller). At that time, the next president named Franklin D. Roosevelt, famous as FDR, brought Americans back to work through his confident efforts and new series of programs called ‘the New Deal’.

The trajectory of the United States as a capitalist country was effectively changed by the Great Depression. The stock market crashes and continuously failing banks, prompted for the government to become instrumental in the economy to prevent the tragedies occurred during the 1930’s. The New Deal proposed by president Franklin Delano Roosevelt dismantled the laissez-faire economy philosophy in the United States by transforming it to an economy where the government interfered to provide stability. Roosevelt’s new goals started a division between pre Great Depression liberalism and post Great Depression liberalism.

In Ellis W. Hawley’s “The Discovery and Study of a ‘Corporate Liberalism’”, he suggests looking at Progressivism in a new lens. Hawley introduces the conflict between the wealthy who owed their position to the business standards of laissez-faire that were minimally regulated by the government and the lower ranking workers who depended on the political power they wielded with welfare statism. However, this conflict, known as liberal vs. conservative, cast aside other parts of society that did not fit into this clear cut system. The uncovering of these misfits, or Progressivism, caused confusion, which Hawley works to clear up through the procession of his text by explaining the true nature of the misfits: corporate liberalism.

Many times, authors have a title to their work that can be intriguing and thought provoking, as if it were bait to an inevitable hook that would catch and keep you enthralled. In Alan Lawson’s circumstance, this is not the case. In Lawson’s A Commonwealth of Hope: The New Deal Response to Crisis, the title is very straight forward, as most would expect from a work mainly targeting the attentions of colleagues and other scholarly minds. The highly biographical book leads its readers on a chronological story of the Great Depression, the social and political life of Franklin Roosevelt and the progression of reformist ideas that sparked the New Deal.