Words: 672
Did the new deal prolong the great depression? Gary Dean Best argues that “Roosevelt established an ant business environment with the creation of the New Deal regulatory programs, which retarded the nation’s economic recovery from the Great Depression until World War II. In contrast to this view Roger Biles argues that “in spite of its reforms and non-revolutionary programs, the New Deal created a limited welfare state that implemented economic stabilizers to avert another depression” (212). The great depression triggered by the 1929 Wall Street collapse crippled the American economy.
Gary Dean Best writes “My principal problem with Roosevelt and the New Deal was not over his specific reforms or his social programs, but with the failure of the United States to recover from the depression during the eight peacetime years that he and his policies governed the nation” (214). Best explains that this failure was tragic because of the image that the depression-plagued United States projected to the world during this crucial time in international affairs. Best views democracy and capitalism during this time period as an overall failure by Roosevelt’s unwillingness to embrace Keynesian spending.
He expressed that “Recovery came during World War II because the war at last forced Roosevelt to spend at the level required all along for recovery” (215). Best’s assessment of an administration seeking economic recovery will do as little as possible that might inhibit recovery and will consult with competent business and financial leaders, as well as economists, to determine the best policies to follow, which Roosevelt failed to do during this time period. Best overall perception of Roosevelt projects him as a narrow minded individual who only sought to attack big business and not deal with the problems at hand.
Best says “There were certainly positive contributions under the New Deal, but they may not have outweighed the negative aspects of the period” (224). Roger Biles begins his paper by quoting Roosevelt saying “All of the proposals and all of the legislations since the fourth day of March have not been just a collection of haphazard schemes, but rather the orderly component parts of a connected and logical whole” (225), which portrays Roosevelt with a careful, planning personality who had a general plan for the recovery of the economy. Biles writes “Innovative or not, the New Deal learly failed to restore economic prosperity” (226). He agrees that Roosevelt’s resistance to Keynesian formulas for spending placed barriers in the way of recovery that only war could remove. He states that the new deal was responsible for the numerous other notable changes in American life and implanted several stabilizers that have been more successful in averting another such depression. He also points out that “more progress was made in public welfare and relief than in the three hundred years after this country was settled (227).
Biles states that “Traditionally attentive only to one group (big business), policy makes in Washington began responding to other constituencies such as labor, farmers, the unemployed, the aged, women, blacks and other disadvantaged groups” (228). Due to this new involvement Americans came to expect the national governments involvement in the problems of everyday life. Biles overall assessment is that “The New Deal achieved much that was good and left much undone. ” (230). Both Biles and Best agree that the New Deal concentrated a tremendous amount of power in the executive branch of the government.
They both also agree that it was World War II that pulled the United States out of the depression not the New Deal reform program. Both of these authors have outstanding facts to support their claims, and they find some common ground when comparing the outcome of the new deal and the change of the relationship between government and society. Their assessments are that the New Deal failed in the short term but succeeded in the long run to prevent a similar depression. Although both their arguments have different outcomes, we can asses that the change in government and social relationships improved the economy as a whole.