Roosevelt’s New Deals (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Achievements of the New Deal
Introduction
Roosevelt framed the New Deal's objectives around three aims: relief, recovery and reform. Assessing the programme's success requires examining these goals against actual outcomes between 1933 and 1941. Historical debate about the New Deal's achievements has focused particularly on its economic record and its transformation of the federal government's role in American society.
Understanding the New Deal's achievements requires evaluating it against Roosevelt's stated objectives rather than applying modern standards. The context of the Great Depression—with its unprecedented unemployment and economic collapse—shapes how we assess what was accomplished during this period.
Economic effects
Limited recovery
Economic recovery during the New Deal years proved disappointing. Roosevelt's commitment to maintaining a balanced budget prevented him from embracing the large-scale government spending that might have stimulated faster growth. He failed to recognise that substantial federal expenditure could compensate for reduced private sector spending during depression conditions. This reluctance to accept budget deficits constrained recovery efforts throughout his presidency.
By 1938, the budget deficit stood below $2.5 billion—less than the $2.5 billion deficit Hoover had accumulated in 1932, which Roosevelt had criticised during the presidential campaign. Roosevelt's cautious fiscal approach contradicted the expansionary policies needed to drive economic revival.
Roosevelt's commitment to balanced budgets was one of the greatest obstacles to economic recovery. This conservative fiscal approach, while politically popular, prevented the kind of large-scale government spending that Keynesian economists would later identify as necessary to combat severe economic downturns.
Statistical evidence of limited success
The economic data reveal modest progress that fell far short of returning America to pre-Depression prosperity:
National income
- 1929: $86 billion
- 1939: $73 billion
Despite a population increase of 9 million during the decade, national income remained substantially below pre-Depression levels.
Unemployment
- 1933: 18 million unemployed (approximately 25% of workforce)
- 1939: 9 million unemployed (approximately 17% of workforce)
Whilst unemployment fell during the early New Deal years, much of this reduction resulted from people employed in alphabet agencies rather than genuine private sector recovery. The Roosevelt Recession of 1937 saw unemployment rise again, with 19% of the workforce jobless in 1938. The government appeared resigned to maintaining a permanent unemployment level of at least 5 million.
The term "alphabet agencies" refers to the numerous New Deal programmes identified by their initials—such as FERA, WPA, CCC, NRA, and NYA. These agencies provided employment but critics argued this was artificial job creation rather than genuine economic recovery.
Wages
- 1929: $25.03 per week average
- Ten years later: $23.86 per week
Average wages actually declined over the course of the decade, indicating that workers who retained employment experienced reduced living standards.
The role of World War II
Most historians acknowledge that genuine unemployment reduction came only with America's preparation for war. The amendment of the 1935 Neutrality Act in November 1939 allowed belligerents to purchase from the USA. Within one year, orders arrived for 10,800 aircraft and 13,000 aeroplane engines. This military production, rather than New Deal programmes, finally absorbed surplus labour.
The War Economy vs. The New Deal
The stark contrast between the New Deal's limited economic impact and the war economy's rapid absorption of unemployment raises a crucial historical question: Was the New Deal a failure, or was it simply insufficient in scale? Many economists now argue that Roosevelt needed to spend far more—something only the war made politically acceptable.
Political effects
Nature of reform
The New Deal constituted a comprehensive reform programme that transformed American political, economic and social structures. These reforms aimed to rescue capitalism from its worst failures and establish a more rational operational framework. Roosevelt permitted labour unions to participate in industrial relations and reluctantly accepted that federal government had a legitimate role in resolving labour disputes.
Changing government role
Roosevelt gradually recognised that government expansion would be permanent. His initial attempt to reform the Supreme Court failed, yet the Court became increasingly sympathetic to New Deal legislation, acknowledging the political realities of the later 1930s. The New Deal expanded state and local government functions, particularly regarding welfare provision. Administrative systems became more modern and better equipped to address twentieth-century citizens' needs.
Shift in public expectations
Citizens increasingly expected government to accept responsibility for their welfare. The Social Security Act, combined with relief and job creation agencies, considerably expanded government's role. This represented a departure from previous limited federal involvement in citizens' daily lives.
Breaking with Laissez-Faire
The New Deal marked a fundamental break with the laissez-faire economic philosophy that had dominated American political thought since the nation's founding. The principle that government should not interfere in the economy was replaced by the belief that government had a responsibility to actively manage economic and social welfare.
Social effects
Relief programmes
One of the New Deal's most substantial achievements involved changing federal government's relationship with disadvantaged Americans. Relief agencies such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and Works Progress Administration (WPA) offered hope to millions.
New governmental departments assumed responsibilities for citizens' welfare. The Social Security Act, whilst financed through recipient contributions rather than operating purely as relief, established a national system of old-age pensions and unemployment benefit for the first time.
Setting Precedents
The amounts provided proved inadequate for a population enduring prolonged depression. Nevertheless, important precedents were established that could be developed subsequently. Never before had the Federal Government become directly involved in granting relief or benefits.
Roosevelt initially conceived relief agencies as temporary expedients until economic recovery materialised. However, by offering direct relief, he substantially increased federal government's role. This development led to expanded responsibilities for state and local governments as partners, though many initially participated reluctantly in these programmes.
Women and the New Deal
Women occupied more prominent government positions during the New Deal era than at any previous time or subsequently until the 1990s. Mrs Roosevelt was among the most politically active first ladies. Frances Perkins served as Secretary of Labour from 1933 to 1945. Ruth Bryan Owen became the first female ambassador (to Denmark) in 1933.
Despite these advances, the New Deal itself accomplished little for women specifically. Unlike African Americans, women did not vote as a cohesive group, consequently politicians did not specifically court their support. Much New Deal legislation worked against women's interests:
- The Economy Act of 1933 prohibited members of the same family from working for federal government. A total of 75% of those who lost employment through this measure were married women.
- National Recovery Administration (NRA) codes permitted unequal wages for women.
- Some agencies, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), excluded women entirely.
Women suffered particularly in professions where, even by 1940, approximately 90% of positions were held by men. Where women did find employment, the necessity of supplementing family budgets meant they concentrated in low-status, poorly remunerated positions. On average during the 1930s, at $525 per annum, women earned half the average male wage.
African Americans and the New Deal
Roosevelt required Southern Democratic support and consequently the New Deal included no civil rights legislation. Many measures—particularly the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)—worked against African American interests.
African Americans suffered particularly severely during the Depression, typically being dismissed first and hired last. Many poorly paid, menial positions previously reserved for them were taken by whites. NRA codes allowed employers to pay African Americans less than whites for identical work. Some African Americans termed the NRA the 'Negro-run-around' because of its unfairness. The CCC operated under Southern racist management who discouraged African American participation; those who joined faced strict segregation.
Failed Opportunities for Civil Rights
Anti-lynching bills were introduced into Congress in 1934 and 1937, but Roosevelt offered no support and both were defeated. This represents one of the most significant failures of the New Deal—the refusal to challenge racial injustice despite the political capital Roosevelt possessed.
The President did employ more African Americans in government, notably Mary McLeod Bethune at the National Youth Administration (NYA). Whilst more African Americans held government office, some spoke of an exaggerated 'African-American cabinet' addressing racial issues. The civil service tripled the number of African Americans in its employment between 1932 and 1941, from 50,000 to 150,000. Some unofficial positive discrimination occurred, particularly in the NYA where African American officials were typically appointed in areas with predominantly African American populations.
Native Americans
The new Commissioner for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, John Collier, was determined to reverse government policy towards Native Americans and abolish assimilation.
The Indian Reorganisation Act of 1934 recognised and encouraged Native American culture in a shift from the former policy of assimilation. Tribes were reorganised into self-governing bodies that could vote to adopt constitutions and establish their own police and legal systems. They could control land sales on reservations, whilst new tribal corporations were established to manage tribal resources.
However, many argued that respect for traditional Native American culture and society contradicted efforts to modernise and join mainstream society. Indeed, 75 out of 245 tribes vetoed the measures when asked to vote on them, revealing significant divisions within Native American communities about the best path forward.
These measures failed to relieve Native American poverty. Officials made their best efforts to ensure Native Americans could access New Deal agencies such as the CCC and Public Works Administration (PWA) to find employment, but Native American poverty was so extensive that these measures, despite good intentions, could have only limited effect. As New Deal programmes reduced in the 1940s, Native Americans established pressure groups to promote their development, but they often remained among the USA's poorest people. In 1943, for example, a Senate enquiry found widespread poverty among Native Americans on reservations.
The historiographical debate
Historians have differed substantially in assessing the New Deal, though judgement cannot rest solely on economic performance. In the years following the New Deal, many historians offered supportive interpretations. Writing in the 1950s, Carl Degler described it as 'a third American revolution' because of the growth in government involvement and the break with laissez-faire policies.
However, during the 1960s, historians associated with the New Left such as Paul Conkin became more critical, arguing the programme was too limited in scope and represented a missed opportunity for radical change. More recently, right-wing historians such as Amity Shlaes have criticised it for stifling economic recovery. They contend that high wage rates, partly resulting from union activities, discouraged employers from hiring additional workers. The emphasis has shifted from overview to specifics—examining excessive government involvement, particularly the legalisation of labour unions which supposedly stifled the private sector's ability to create more employment.
Evolution of Historical Interpretation
Historical assessments of the New Deal have evolved significantly over time, reflecting changing political climates and economic theories:
- 1950s: Generally positive, emphasising revolutionary transformation
- 1960s-1970s: New Left criticism for not going far enough
- 1980s onwards: Right-wing criticism for going too far and hindering recovery
Contemporary assessments
Contemporary observers also differed in their evaluations. An article in the Economist (October 1934) acknowledged limited achievements: "The achievements of the New Deal appear to be small. Relief there has been, but little more than enough to keep the population fed, clothed and warm. Recovery there has been, but only to a point well below pre-depression level." Nevertheless, the article concluded that compared with the situation Roosevelt confronted in 1933, "it is a striking success" and praised Roosevelt as "the first president of modern America to ask the right questions."
Contemporary Criticism: John T. Flynn (1944)
John T. Flynn, writing in The Roosevelt Myth (1944), offered harsher criticism:
"Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."
Flynn argued Roosevelt proceeded "by a succession of blunders, moving one step at a time, in flight from one problem to another, until we are now arrived at that kind of state supported economic system that will continue to devour a little at a time the private system until it disappears altogether."
Modern Historical Assessment: S. Willoughby (2000)
S. Willoughby, writing in The USA 1917-45 (2000), offered a more balanced assessment:
"The New Deal helped to give birth to the idea within America of the 'semi-welfare' state, that the government had the responsibility to look after the welfare of its citizens. It extended the rights of workers and began for many of them social security payments. It introduced much needed controls on the banking system and began the idea of government having responsibility for regulating the economy. At a time of economic depression it helped to restore national morale."
Key Points to Remember:
-
Economic recovery during the New Deal remained limited; national income stayed below 1929 levels and unemployment only fell substantially due to World War II preparations from 1939 onwards.
-
The New Deal fundamentally transformed the federal government's role, establishing precedents for direct relief, welfare provision and economic regulation that previously did not exist in American governance.
-
Relief programmes like FERA, WPA and the Social Security Act created a new relationship between government and citizens, though the amounts provided proved inadequate for Depression-era needs.
-
The New Deal's social impact was uneven: women gained some visibility in government but faced discrimination in programmes; African Americans received no civil rights legislation and encountered widespread discrimination despite some federal employment gains; Native Americans' Indian Reorganisation Act reversed assimilation policies but failed to address poverty.
-
Historical interpretations have varied considerably, from Degler's view of 'a third American revolution' in the 1950s to later criticism from both New Left historians (too limited) and right-wing historians (stifled economic recovery), reflecting ongoing debate about the programme's ultimate success.
-
The Roosevelt Recession of 1937 demonstrated the risks of premature fiscal retrenchment and highlighted the limitations of New Deal economic policies.
-
The New Deal's most enduring legacy was not economic recovery but the permanent expansion of federal government responsibility for citizens' welfare and economic stability.