The New Deal failed to revive the U.S. economy.

How far do
you agree with this view?
The New Deal has long been a topic of historical controversy. Historians who debate the
accomplishments of the New Deal are most commonly divided between liberal historians,
who discuss the successes of the New Deal, and conservative historians, who maintain its
failures. However, it is a common belief amongst almost all historians that the New Deal was
a time of bold experimentation that helped preserve democracy in a notable period of
uncertainty and crises.
Source 10: A History of the American People by Paul Johnson, proposes several arguments for
the failure of the New deal to accomplish its objectives to revive the U.S. economy. Johnson
appears to take a rather sarcastic and condescending view of the New Deal when he claims
that If government intervention worked, it took nine years and a world war to demonstrate
the fact. Similarly, Source 11: The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by
Amity Shales, also maintains that the New Deal failed to revive the U.S. economy. However,
Source 11 does acknowledge the fact that a few of the New Deal endeavours contributed to
some progression of the U.S. economys health. Lastly, Source 12: A History of the United
States by Philip Jenkins, demonstrates a similar viewpoint to that of Source 11. Source 12
acknowledges the 100 days where it remarks on success in Roosevelts first term but also
comments that the New Deal only softened the worst effects of the crisis.
All three of the sources provided mention the theme of the high frequency of unemployment
during the New Deal. However, only Sources 10 and 12 comment on the significance of the
unemployment figures of 1937 and its changeability during the economic downturn of 193738. Source 10 claims that The only reasonably good year was 1937, when unemployment
stood at 14.3 per cent. Source 12 agrees with Source 10 that 1937 was a reasonably good
year, claiming that Even in 1937, unemployment only just dipped below 8 million.
However, in comparison to unemployment figures of 1933, where unemployment reached
levels of 25%, one could argue that the New Deal provided significant relief to the economy
to deliver even just a slight respite in unemployment. However, from mid-1937 through most
of 1938, the U.S. economy experienced a severe decline in the economy. This is
acknowledged by both Sources 10 and 12. Where they comment that, By the end of the year
the economy was in free fall again and that 1938 brought a brief but painful economic
contraction. It is often suggested that the 1937-38 recession was caused by the drastic
budget cuts of two essential New Deal programs: the Public Works Administration and the
Works Progress Administration. Source 12 underscores this devastating effect on the U.S.
economy where it reveals that the federal debt grew from $22.5 billion in 1933 to $40.5
billion in 1939. These figures would certainly suggest that the New Deal failed to revive the
U.S. economy. An element of unemployment not mentioned by Sources 10 and 12 but
included in Source 11, is the explanation for such high unemployment figures. Source 11
attributes these figures to the National Recovery Agency (NRA), where it claims that NRA
rules were so inflexible they frightened away capital and discouraged employers from hiring

workers. This explanation for the high unemployment figures contributes another
dimension to the failures of the New Deal to revive the U.S. economy. However, the high
levels of unemployment cannot be attributed to the failures of the NRA alone.
Another theme existing in all three of the sources is the prevalence of industry and changing
levels of production which occurred during the New Deal. Source 10 comments on the
negative aspects of production during the New Deal when it says that In 1937 production
briefly passed 1929 levels but soon slipped below again. However, Source 12 appears to
disagree with Source 10 when it claims that GNP bounced back to $113 billion by 1937 and
that GNP per head rose from [] $881 in 1937 [] to $954 by 1940. These figures would
suggest that the New Deal did revive the U.S. economy. However, Source 10 comments that
the real explanation for the increase in production was due to America being on the brink
of war and not due to any particular New Deal legislation. This would imply that the New
Deal failed to revive the U.S. economy. Source 11 has taken a rather unique perspective on
industry where it claims that Where the private sector could help to bring the economy
back, Roosevelt often suppressed it. Source 11 focuses on the Tennessee Vallee Authority
(TVA) as an example of this suppression, saying that The creation of the Tennessee Vallee
Authority snuffed out a growing and potentially successful private sector effort to light
up the South. However, this is simply not true. The TVA was a highly successful aspect of
the New Deal which did indeed light up the South. The success of the TVA can be
demonstrated by the fact that it is still operational today. This would suggest that the New
Deal did revive the U.S. economy from the perspective of industry. Furthermore, there are
also several important industry-related New Deal legislations not mentioned by any of the
three sources such as the National Industry Recovery Act (NIRA). Contrastingly, neither of the
three sources make any mention of agriculture, despite it being a vital part of the U.S.
economy. Because neither of the three sources mention agriculture, they also fail to discuss
the success of some of the more successful acts of the New Deal, such as the Agricultural
Adjustment Act, the Commodity Credit Corporation and the Soil Conservation Service.
Another theme present in a majority of the sources is the theme of legislation passed during
Roosevelts first term. Both Sources 11 and 12 agree that the Alphabet Agencies created in
Roosevelts first term were useful, such as the financial institutions he established upon
entering office. Source 12 agrees with this view in stating that The New Deal had its
greatest success in Roosevelts first term. However, it is only Source 11 which mentions a
specific success of the first term of the New Deal being the Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) which is described as being inspiring. In fact, by 1936, the CCC employed over
500,000 young men in its camps. This would certainly suggest that the New Deal helped to
revive the U.S. economy as it provided plentiful employment. However, this employment
was not available to African-Americans, Native Americans or women as much as it was for
young, white men. Source 10 makes no mentioned of Roosevelts first term, instead focusing
on its slow and feeble recovery. Perhaps Source 10 omits these key legislations in order to
argue its conclusion that it took nine years and world war to demonstrate economic
revival.

In order to conclude whether The New Deal failed to revive the U.S. economy. It is
important to consider the relative significance of the successes and failures of industry in
comparison to unemployment. Although both industry and unemployment had peaks and
troughs in terms of success, I would argue that the progression of industry demonstrated a
revival of the U.S. economy. This progression of industry is illustrated by the rise in GNP
described by Source 12. However, it could be argued that the success of industry was not
solely due to the legislations of the New Deal but the result of a wartime economy as
described by Source 10.