New Deal Dbq

The catastrophic stock market crash on October 24th, 1929 brought about widespread panic and the onset of incomparable consequences for America. From this crash, the Great Depression arose which was a long period of increased unemployment, poverty and deflation. The onset of the Depression left society blaming the government and seeking relief from the increased levels of poverty. Due to society being worried and troubled, the government, in which Republican Herbert Hoover was president, took a conservative approach toward reconciling America’s problems, while Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt chose the liberal approach by establishing the New Deal.
These two approaches started a division of the country and debates began over which
approach would have the longer lasting, better effect on America. There was disappointment in most cases since distinct aspects of each philosophy only targeted specific Americans who were in certain situations. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal was claimed by some to only help he poor society, while other’s claimed the New Deal went too far and helped everyone and some even criticized the program for not going far enough. These views were seen in the articles in “Reading the American Past.” Another dispute between these two philosophies was the government’s role in Republican view of Laissez Faire, where the Democratic point of view incorporated the New Deal. There is great disagreement during this hard time after the Great Depression between citizens and their government. In this time it seems the society is thinking on an individual level, which implies that businesses will do what they have to in order to survive. The government should keep greater control over businesses in order to keep any sort of equality. In regards to personal economy, it appears that a more conservative approach should be initiated and in Document 24-5, the thought of every man for himself arises. Both philosophies have certain benefits fro different circumstances. Regardless of which philosophy one sides with, there will always be controversy since it is absurd to think that every citizen can and will be pleased. It is logical to say that the government should work towards the goal of benefiting the greatest number of citizens in a fair manner and to be prepared and accept that those citizens who do not and will not benefit, will voice their opinions and complaints will be made.
Herbert Hoover is a representative of the Republican conservative side of the debate in the context of which philosophy will benefit America in this time of distress and help to decrease the amount of citizens who are facing poverty.
In the Republican Document 24-5, Herbert Hoover and Minnie Hardin criticize Roosevelt’s New Deal. Hoover analyzes the New Deal programs and relates them to enemy nations. For example, “I refused national plans to put the government into business in competition with citizens. That was born of Karl Marx.” By this being said, there is an understanding that the New Deal was supportive of anti-American ideas. It seems as if Hoover purposely worded the statements he made the way he did, to make the New Deal sound like a communist scheme. In retrospect, I believe the New Deal was a positive idea in that it attempted to bring a level of equality to America. However, the middle class was left with the least amount of benefits which resulted in criticisms and outrage toward the government. In Minnie Hardin’s portion of the article, it was obvious she believes it is unfair that the middle class tax payers have a hard time paying taxes for the poor, and the poor do not seem to even be attempting to try and make their lives better, because they are mooching off the help they receive through the New Deal programs. I would have to agree with Hardin here, because there are some citizens, who expect to get money from tax payers, live off that money and
therefore go on their way not trying to better their own lives by helping themselves or in some cases do not even try looking for a job. Some call it lazy, I call it selfish. In the long run the children are the one’s being affected, considering the fact that most children tend to follow in their parent’s foot steps. The government can lend a hand when faced with the hard times, but eventually these people need to provide for themselves and their families. In some aspects there is a relation to social Darwinism that only the strong will survive.
Calvin Coolidge has a Republican stand point prior to the Great Depression.
In the 1925 article in Document 23-1, Coolidge states his view on government control on businesses. In this document he addresses the New York Chamber of Commerce and how the government should step back and not interfere with businesses, however not abandon completely. “Regulation and control are the suffering that the just must endure because of the unjust.” Coolidge claims that it is unfair for businesses to be regulated and controlled only because there are certain businesses that have abused their rights. In agreement with Coolidge, I believe that regulation and control are unfair for the businesses that are just, in spite of the businesses that are unjust. It appears tat the whole reason regulations and control is put on businesses is because if there was no regulation than the ‘just’ businesses would do all they could and would eventually beat out the other businesses. Therefore the government is there to control and make sure that everything is fair especially in this rough time and hardship when businesses are going to break rules and stretch the limits of regulation to ensure the most money. Coolidge also claims that the goal of the Chamber of Commerce is more than just the “desire to gain” and exclaims that, “True business represents to mutual organized effort of society to minister to the economic requirements of civilization.” Coolidge claims that true business leads to
advancements in morals and spirituality. I disagree with this point, even though some businesses are out for the benefit of others and advance morally, generally most businesses posses the sole purpose to make as much money as possible regardless of the lives and other businesses ruined along the way. The Laissez Faire approach to controlling business will not work simply because at times when money is scarce, selfish businesses do what they have to in order to destroy who they need to, to make sure that they themselves are on top. The only one’s who even have a chance at stopping these selfish businesses is the government themselves.
In deed, the theory of social Darwinism is the reason that businesses need to be regulated, because the strongest will survive leaving the weaker businesses to be destroyed if they are not controlled. The Depression would see more negative results id the government allowed the wealthier, stronger businesses to tear down the smaller, weaker ones. In regards to economic and social status, social Darwinism seems to be a necessity sine select lower class people get money from tax payers and do not make an effort to provide for their own well-being. The money that the middle and upper class is paying to tax payers is being used to provide for the lower class. By doing this, it results in the middle and upper classes needing to work extra hard in order to pay the tax payers, which is seen as unfair.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the only democratic president during the Great Depression and was one of the few representatives for a liberal change though out the Depression. Roosevelt encouraged a government for which they would have a lot of involvement, like most democrats, in order to have the importance of control in a time of such a crisis. In order to resume order in a time of panic, there needs to be order and control, Roosevelt accomplished that goal with the launch of the New Deal. The programs that were put into affect helped to dig America out of the deep poverty hole of which they were in and still falling, and helped to prevent future depressions by being very hands on. There was great controversy over whether the New Deal was too hands on, or not enough. Whenever something new and unseen comes about, it will raise problems and dilemmas from the people who oppose the proposal. The New Deal steered smaller businesses into control and regulation which made a fact that all businesses were or could become equal. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s personality as “a friend of the white house,” made it believable that he would see the working classes point of view and he would have a desire to help the small businesses prosper. Roosevelt’s philosophy of personal economy did not seem to make much sense. Taking money from the lower-middle class to present it to the low class meant that he was just expanding the lower class. The low class citizens who were receiving money from the hard working tax payers were going through life making the bare minimum in order to survive, and they did not even attempt to do anything for themselves. They figured everything would be bearable as long as they continue receiving money from those who pay taxes. It is unfair to those citizens who struggle to stay alive and sacrifice their survival and needs by paying taxes to the less fortunate. It is difficult to agree with every aspect of the New Deal, it stirs up mixed feelings regarding each different philosophy.
The Great Depression was a time of panic when American citizens looked to the government for help. There were two philosophies that could have shown support, the Republican conservative approach or the Democratic liberal approach. Each approach offered different benefits in different situations. The conservative approach seemed to greater benefit the working class tax players, since under the liberal New Deal tax payers had to support the poor in what could be seen as an unfair manner. The liberal approach benefits businesses in order to prevent monopolies and unfairness amongst competing businesses. Regardless of which path would be taken to recover and relieve the American people during this time of great distress, there were always citizens who disagreed and believed they were treated unfairly. It is concluded that the path of most righteousness would be to choose the philosophy that benefited the largest number of citizens.