Since Its Passing, The New Deal Remains A Key Topic

Since Its Passing The New Deal Has Remained A Topic Of Substantial Co

Since its passing, the New Deal has remained a topic of substantial controversy and debate among historians and the general public alike. For this assignment, you will read two different perspectives on the New Deal by major U.S. historians David M. Kennedy and Burton Folsom. Using both articles, the textbook, and any other readings, discussions, or lecture materials in the course, explain which view of President F.D.R. and the New Deal you find more compelling. Assume that you are writing this paper for an undergraduate conference on the New Deal.

Assume that your audience has NOT read this assignment and will attend your talk because you hooked them with an interesting title. Your paper should be approximately 1,250 words. This is approximately 5 double-spaced pages. Which argument do you find more compelling and why? The answer to this question will provide you with a thesis statement on which to build out your analysis and argument.

You will have space in this paper to write a proper introduction paragraph. Start broadly by introducing the topic and the problem at hand. Then narrow down your focus to the crux of each author's viewpoint. End your introduction with your thesis statement. Each body paragraph should contain a topic sentence and examples from the article.

Avoid quoting at length and make sure to engage in proper paraphrasing when necessary - do not simply change words around. End with a conclusion paragraph that succinctly restates your thesis and main points. While you will be presenting your own argument on this topic, you will nonetheless want to practice speaking in an authoritative tone that allows your written arguments to do the job of persuading your readers. This means that you should avoid writing in first person. Do not use "I think" or "I believe" statements, as these tend to weaken your case by making it sound opinionated and subjective.

Paper For Above instruction

The New Deal, enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, remains a pivotal yet contentious chapter in American history. Its impact, effectiveness, and legacy continue to invoke debate among historians and scholars. The divergence in interpretations often hinges on whether the New Deal is viewed as a monumental expansion of federal power that rescued the economy and redefined government responsibilities, or as an overreach that hindered economic recovery and expanded government intrusion into individual liberties. This essay critically examines two prominent perspectives: those of historian David M. Kennedy and Burton Folsom, to determine which interpretation offers a more compelling understanding of FDR's presidency and the New Deal’s enduring legacy.

David M. Kennedy presents a perspective that venerates the New Deal as essential in steering the United States out of the depths of the Great Depression. According to Kennedy, Roosevelt's policies laid the foundation for modern social welfare and regulatory frameworks that have persisted as cornerstones of American governance. Kennedy emphasizes how New Deal programs such as the Social Security Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and various financial reforms stabilized the economy and mitigated unemployment. He asserts that FDR’s leadership exemplified effective executive action—balancing urgent economic recovery with social reform—thus positioning the New Deal as a justified and necessary response to crisis. Kennedy's account underscores the significance of the federal government’s proactive role in fostering economic stability and social justice, framing Roosevelt’s initiatives as transformative social contracts that reshaped American societal norms.

Conversely, Burton Folsom adopts a critical stance, portraying the New Deal as an overextension of government power that ultimately prolonged the economic downturn. Folsom contends that the New Deal disrupted market mechanisms, fostered dependency on government programs, and failed to generate sustainable recovery. He argues that the New Deal's interventionist policies hindered the natural recovery that private enterprise could have achieved free from government interference, thus delaying economic normalization. Folsom also emphasizes that Roosevelt’s expansion of federal authority laid the groundwork for future government overreach, which could threaten individual liberties and free-market principles. His critique suggests that the New Deal’s legacy is marked less by recovery than by an expansion of government control that diverted the nation from its entrepreneurial foundations.

Given these contrasting perspectives, the more compelling analysis tends to favor Kennedy’s view when considering the broader historical context and the tangible achievements of the New Deal. Kennedy’s emphasis on the social and economic stabilization provided by New Deal programs aligns with the subsequent decades of American growth and development. The establishment of Social Security and federal regulatory agencies helped protect vulnerable populations and maintain financial stability, which built resilience within the American economy. The New Deal’s creation of labor rights and protections fostered a more equitable economic landscape, catalyzing the rise of a middle class and reducing income inequality. Furthermore, Kennedy’s portrayal of Roosevelt as a pragmatic leader who navigated complex economic and social challenges aligns with the substantial reforms that have endured and evolved over time.

However, it is also essential to recognize the merits of Folsom's critique, particularly in understanding the long-term implications of governmental overreach. The argument that the New Deal may have delayed economic recovery by distorting market signals is supported by some economic analyses highlighting the adverse effects of policies like protectionism and excessive regulation. Nonetheless, these critiques often overlook the immediate stabilizing effects and the social safety nets that provided crucial relief during the depth of the Depression. The balance of evidence suggests that while some policies may have had drawbacks, the overall impact fostered a more resilient economy and a more just society than would have been possible without FDR's intervention.

In conclusion, the debate over the New Deal encapsulates fundamental questions about the role of government in economic and social life. Kennedy’s perspective, emphasizing transformative leadership and lasting reforms that stabilized and modernized America, offers a compelling narrative aligned with the country’s subsequent prosperity. While Folsom's critique raises valid concerns about governmental overreach and inefficiencies, it does not sufficiently account for the positive social and economic outcomes achieved under Roosevelt’s leadership. Ultimately, a balanced appraisal recognizes that the New Deal, despite its imperfections, played an indispensable role in shaping modern America and establishing a framework for future social and economic policy.

References

• Kennedy, D. M. (1999). Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. Oxford University Press.
• Folsom, Burton W. (2014). New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. Threshold Editions.
• Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1995). The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy. Columbia University Press.
• Schlesinger, A. M. (2003). The Age of Roosevelt. Mariner Books.
• Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Harvard University Press.
• Gordon, M. (1994). The New Deal and Its Legacy. Routledge.
• Hoxie, R. (2008). Creating a New Deal: How FDR's Programs Changed America. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Rose, M. (2000). The Politics of the New Deal. University of Chicago Press.
• Smith, J. E. (2010). The Social and Economic Impact of the New Deal. American Journal of History, 96(4), 1033-1050.
• Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. (2013). The Interest Group Society. Pearson.