The thirty-second president of the USA, Franklin Roosevelt, was known for many political and historical decisions. His activity influenced not only the lives of U.S. citizens but also of other nations. However, the most widely discussed innovation offered and implemented by Roosevelt was the so-called New Deal ─ the politics aimed at reducing the dramatic outcomes of the Great Depression and war. Several solutions offered in the New Deal were developed by the President to stabilize the country’s economy and make citizens’ lives easier. Still, the proposed set of changes was not warmly accepted by everyone. As well as in the past, nowadays, there are opinions both for and against the New Deal. The present paper will discuss both viewpoints and analyze the arguments supporting and criticizing the policy.
In his editorial, Healy recommends the US government not to waste the guidance provided by the New Deal (1). The author remarks that while the political right-wing criticizes the approach to economic regulation offered in the policy, New Deal had a highly positive impact on the country’s development (Healy 1). The New Deal, according to Healy, enabled citizens of the USA to survive the Great Depression by implementing conservation policies for forestry and farms, renewing infrastructure, and providing job opportunities (Healy 1).
Healy also notes that the programs’ benefits were immense regarding building and repairing bridges and roads, courthouses and schools, parks, and other important objects (1). Therefore, the author is convinced that despite being criticized, New Deal had a positive influence on the country’s development.
In the editorial written by Southern, the New Deal is also regarded as an effective change in the course of the country’s history (B.6). In particular, Southern disclaims the opinion expressed by Gregg Nissly and Amity Shlaes who argue that Roosevelt “not only prolonged but caused the Great Depression” (B.6). Southern remarks that the viewpoint stated by Shlaes lacks historical objectivity and is merely an “ideological assault” on the New Deal that is “wholly selective in its facts” (B.6).
Southern notes that Roosevelt’s politics made it possible to balance the budget and improve the economy (B.6). Moreover, soon after the New Deal’s implementation, the Depression was ended. In his editorial, Southern supports arguments by referring to the Nobel Prize winner in economics, Paul Krugman, who considers that reforms brought about by the New Deal helped to save and establish capitalism (B.6). Thus, the author criticizes the opinions of authors that find the New Deal a negative issue in the USA’s political and economic history.
Unlike Healy and Southern, Morrongiello considers the reforms introduced by Roosevelt as negative ones (1). The main idea of this editorial is that the purpose of the American economy was gaining freedom and not arranging the central economic planning (Morrongiello 1). The author criticizes President Roosevelt for deciding to borrow the methods used in the Soviet Union. Further, he also expresses disapproval of President Obama’s adherence to Roosevelt’s approach (Morrongiello 1).
According to Morrongiello, central planning, which was introduced by Roosevelt, did not work (1). The author mentions that instead of managing the economic problems with the help of conventional methods, Roosevelt decided to “see how the central planners in communist Russia did it” (Morrongiello 1). Thus, Morrongiello is convinced that Roosevelt’s ideas were wrong and that his innovative solutions were not effective.
The reviewed editorials are closely associated with the lecture “A New Deal.” The questions discussed in the lecture pertain to each of the editorials. The material presented in the class video signifies that the New Deal had a beneficial impact on the country’s economic development. Under Roosevelt’s governance, profits grew, productivity increased, and people returned their confidence after losing it during the Depression (“A New Deal”). Roosevelt’s plan for helping people included establishing the powerful executive office and regulated economy (“A New Deal”). Also, he reshaped policies and promoted coalitions between the democratic and republican parties. Apart from that, Roosevelt came up with the idea of increasing farmers’ income and providing people with the opportunity to buy the necessary food and other goods.
According to the lecture, positive changes of the New Deal were also reflected in creating the National Recovery Administration and implementing two major bank innovations (“A New Deal”). Under the new regulations, banks were not allowed to speculate their customers’ money, and citizens could feel confident in regard to their savings. In labor administration, the contribution of the New Deal was established in setting the minimum wage and the number of hours for work.
Thus, it is possible to conclude that in general, the original arguments about the New Deal are supported by two of the three editorials’ authors. Although the lecture also discusses some critique of Roosevelt’s rule, the disapproval focuses on the President’s indifference to lynching and racial issues rather than his contribution to the economic development of the country. The majority of authors whose opinions were analyzed in the paper agree that the New Deal had a highly beneficial effect on the USA’s economy.
Works Cited
Healy, David. “Don’t Waste New Deal’s Guidance.” Editorial. Fort Collins Coloradoan. 2009, pp. 1-2.
Morrongiello, Mike. “Guest Viewpoint: Government Planning of Economy Never Works.” Editorial. The Ithaca Journal. 2012, pp. 1-2.
“A New Deal.” YouTube, uploaded by PJB. 2015. Web.
Southern, David W. “The Real Deal About the New Deal: It Worked.” Editorial. Pittsburgh – Post Gazette. 2009, p. B.6.