17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 351:
Line 351: + − Historians on the left denounce Roosevelt for rescuing capitalism when the opportunity was at hand to nationalize banking, railroads and other industries.[Conkin] Liberal historians argue that Roosevelt restored hope and self-respect to tens of millions of desperate people, built labor unions, upgraded the national infrastructure and saved capitalism in his first term when he could have destroyed it and easily nationalized the banks and the railroads. [Sitkoff]+ − − − − − − − + − − − − − −
→Attacks Right and Left
===Attacks Right and Left ===
===Attacks Right and Left ===
Historians on the left, like Conkin (1967), bemoan that FDR rescued capitalism just when the opportunity was at hand to nationalize banking, railroads and other industries. Liberal historians like Sitkoff argue that Roosevelt restored hope and self-respect to tens of millions of desperate people, built labor unions, upgraded the national infrastructure and saved capitalism in his first term when he could have destroyed it and easily nationalized the banks and the railroads.
Historians on the right like Folsom complain that FDR enlarged the powers of the federal government, built up labor unions, slowed long-term economic growth, and weakened the business community.<ref> Burton W. Folsom, ''New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America'' (2009)</ref>
Historians on the right complain that he enlarged the powers of the federal government, built up labor unions, slowed long-term economic growth, and weakened the business community.
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|A 1936 cartoon shows the GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats.]]
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|A 1936 cartoon shows the GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats.]]
Historians on the left have denounced the New Deal as a conservative phenomenon that let slip the opportunity to radically reform capitalism. Since the 1960s, "[[New Left]]" historians have been among the New Deal's harsh critics. (''For a list of relevant works, see the list of suggested readings appearing toward the bottom of the article.'') New Left historian Barton J. Bernstein, in a 1968 essay, compiled a chronicle of missed opportunities and inadequate responses to problems. The New Deal may have saved capitalism from itself, Bernstein charged, but it had failed to help—and in many cases actually harmed—those groups most in need of assistance. Conkin (1967) similarly chastised the government of the 1930s for its policies toward marginal farmers, for its failure to institute sufficiently progressive tax reform, and its excessive generosity toward select business interests. From the far left [[Howard Zinn]], in 1966, criticized the New Deal for working actively to actually preserve the worst evils of capitalism.
Historians on the left have denounced the New Deal as a conservative phenomenon that let slip the opportunity to radically reform capitalism. Since the 1960s, "[[New Left]]" historians have been among the New Deal's harsh critics. (''For a list of relevant works, see the list of suggested readings appearing toward the bottom of the article.'') Barton J. Bernstein, in a 1968 essay, compiled a chronicle of missed opportunities and inadequate responses to problems. The New Deal may have saved capitalism from itself, Bernstein charged, but it had failed to help—and in many cases actually harmed—those groups most in need of assistance. Paul K. Conkin in ''The New Deal'' (1967) similarly chastised the government of the 1930s for its policies toward marginal farmers, for its failure to institute sufficiently progressive tax reform, and its excessive generosity toward select business interests. [[Howard Zinn]], in 1966, criticized the New Deal for working actively to actually preserve the worst evils of capitalism.
Since the 1970s research on the New Deal has been less interested in the question of whether the New Deal was a "conservative," "liberal" or "revolutionary" phenomenon than in the question of constraints within which it was operating. Political sociologist [[Theda Skocpol]], in an influential series of articles, has emphasized the issue of "state capacity" as an often-crippling constraint. Ambitious reform ideas often failed, she argued because of the absence of a government bureaucracy with significant strength and expertise to administer them. Other more recent works have stressed the political constraints that the New Deal encountered. Both in Congress and among certain segments of the population conservative inhibitions about government remained strong; thus some scholars have stressed that the New Deal was not just a product of its liberal backers, but also a product of the pressures of its conservative opponents.
Since the 1970s research on the New Deal has been less interested in the question of whether the New Deal was a "conservative," "liberal" or "revolutionary" phenomenon than in the question of constraints within which it was operating. Political sociologist [[Theda Skocpol]], in an influential series of articles, has emphasized the issue of "state capacity" as an often-crippling constraint. Ambitious reform ideas often failed, she argued because of the absence of a government bureaucracy with significant strength and expertise to administer them. Other more recent works have stressed the political constraints that the New Deal encountered. Both in Congress and among certain segments of the population conservative inhibitions about government remained strong; thus some scholars have stressed that the New Deal was not just a product of its liberal backers, but also a product of the pressures of its conservative opponents.
==Government Role: balance labor, business and farming==
==Government Role: balance labor, business and farming==