Objective: Historians continue to debate the effectiveness of Roosevelt's New Deal in combating the Depression. In this exercise your students will examine some statistical data from the era, hypothesize what it reveals about the economy's performance during the 1930s, and decide whether or not this performance might be linked to the New Deal.
This statement by Roosevelt during the election campaign of 1932 caught the attention of the American public. The "New Deal" has become the accepted name for the policies followed by the Roosevelt administrations during the 1930s.
Effective? Hmm...that's what you're going to decide today. And no, we're not talking about your new haircut. We're talking about—what else?—FDR's New Deal. It is the title of this unit, after all.
Examples were the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA).
FDR threatened to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices to 15, thus giving him more power (Court Reorganization Plan).
Congress opposed this idea, but the Supreme Court gradually came to accept FDR's ideas.
However, conservative members of Congress became suspicious of FDR and thus passed fewer measures for the New Deal Criticism for the New Deal OPPONENTS OF
THE NEW DEAL New Deal Reasons for Criticism - Though hailed by many as the lifeline of America,
it generated much harsh criticism.
- He believed that only FDR would be able to pull America out of the Great
Depression and protect them from communist threats
- Once FDR became president, he kept his audience up-to-date on the
happenings in Washington, lending prayers and well-wishes
- At first, Coughlin supported FDR and the New Deal
plan for the hopes of monetary reform
(silver coinage) and nationalization of
major industries Demagogues: A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
The beginning of an end is hard to see: the moment when a marriage started to fall apart, the half-sentence of heartless scorn, an unmendable cut; the hour when the first symptoms of a fatal illness set in, dizziness, a subtle blurring of vision, a certain hoarseness; the season when a species of sparrow, trying to fly north, falls, weakened by the heat; and the day when the people of a nation began to lose faith in their form of government. The election of Donald Trump, like all elections, is an ending, the ending of one Presidency and the beginning of another. But, unlike most elections, Trump’s election is something different: it ends an era of American idealism, a high-mindedness of rhetoric, if not always of action, which has characterized most twentieth- and twenty-first-century American Presidencies, from F.D.R. to Eisenhower, from Reagan to Obama, from the New Deal order to the long era of civil rights.
Opposition to the deal is especially strong in New York and Florida, which have large numbers of Jewish voters, many of them conservative or right-wing on matters related to the Middle East, so Nelson, from Florida, and Gillibrand, from New York, were two senators whom AIPAC and other anti-deal forces were hoping to win.
The Supreme Court operates in counterpoint to the rest of the government. The Justices do not initiate; they respond. Every major political issue of the day eventually winds up in their courtroom, and they either embrace or resist what’s happening in the rest of the world. When Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed the New Deal through Congress, the conservatives on the Court, for a time, fought him to a standstill. When the civil-rights movement gathered steam, the Justices gave first a hesitant and then a fuller endorsement of the cause. But resistance from the Justices never lasts too long. The truism that the Supreme Court follows the election returns happens to be true. Elections have consequences.
However, after FDR attempted to replace all judges over the age of 70.5 years with additional justices, the supreme court took a more defensive position regarding the Roosevelt's New Deal.
How Huey Long Changed His Ideas How Father Coughlin Changed his Ideas How The Supreme Court Changed Its Opinion - Coughlin eventually turned against FDR and his New Deal,broadcasting toward
millions of listeners during the latter 1930s and declaring FDR as a "tool
of Wall Street"
- He denounced the deal as acting too kindly to bankers while driving farmers
and citizens off their homes
- He also supported politicians such as Senator
Huey Long and William Lemke
- By the 1940s, he preached of antisemitism
and of his National Union of Social Justice
- Eventually, he was charged for this and for
supporting the Nazis; for similar reason, the
government eventually canceled his broadcasts Huey didn't change his ideals, in fact he was planning on enacting them once he became president.
Huey Long Senator/ dictator of Louisiana
Criticized the New Deal as being too timid
Promoted Marxists ideas of evening out the classes
Promised equal distribution of wealth despite it not being practical nor possible to garner enough money to provide such demands
Became so powerful that he threatened FDR's power (Federal government had to donate power & money to Long's opponents to curb him) Father Charles Coughlin Catholic Priest, a Radio Broadcaster The Supreme Courts ( & Republicans) During FDR's 1st term, the conservative Supreme Court(Dominated by Republicans) repealed much of his administration's acts.
You may need to help break up this work within their groups to make sure they have everything covered. And remind them that they are looking for evidence to support their side of the motion—either that the New Deal did or didn't contribute to the improvement of the economy.
Still, despite failing in its most important objective, the New Deal forever changed the country. Roosevelt built a dominant new political coalition, creating a Democratic majority that lasted for half a century. The structural stability and social security provided by the New Deal's reforms underlay a postwar economic boom that many historians and economists have described as the "."