Many Americans during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration felt “satisfied with the New Deal” (71), however, Bradford A. Lee goes into depth about what was wrong with Roosevelt’s social programs, criticising that “the New Deal lack[ed] the epic quality that it has for many who lived through it” (75)- that the New Deal does not seem as remarkable to modern day society as it was during the Great Depression.
Despite Lee’s argument, he does claim that the New Deal had significant actions in the revitalization and the reshaping of the quality of life for Americans (62). However, FDR’s goal of equality applied to only a certain fraction of the population as well as no improvement to the economy. Lee reveals that some of the policies had narrowed the economic gap, but others had widened it (70), he provides the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) program as an example of favoring the bigger farms over the smaller ones as they had more potential. The smaller farms received fewer subsidies with little concern towards them by the government (71).
FDR’s goal to distribute wealth equally failed as he mostly invested in bigger businesses, revealing the automatic support and faith for corporations and the “tendency for the most vulnerable to be left behind” (71). His narrow-vision for economic rehabilitation costed the unemployed percentage to stay at the bottom- as they were not paid, whereas the top percentage of the wealth continued to increase as minimum wage began to increase. On the other hand, the social programs allowed people a greater quality of life despite the economic ruins of the US (74), revealing the extent of FDR’s revitalizing programs that affected only a portion of his goal.
With government intervention, the economy had little to no effect, however, the individual’s had little to suffer from the devastation as the result of welfare programs provided by FDR. In regards to Calvin Coolidge’s quote, Lee would disagree in the case of social being, as he praises FDR’s programs ability to maintain the quality of life during the Depression, however would agree in reference to the economy, as with FDR’s intervention with businesses had little effect, and distinctive division of groups. In an essay, using this source allows me to reference one of history’s greatest example of social welfare, where many people bring praise about it, however, with a deeper investigation, there came consequences. This reveals that government intervention does not resolve fully problems, supporting my position that even though an administration desires a goal, it is not always met through force.
McKenzie, Francine. “Faith, Fear, and Free Trade.” International Journal, vol. 69, no. 2,
2014, pp. 233–245. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24709504.
Francine McKenzie analyzes the terms of CETA (the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement) under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s administration through the shaping of Canada’s international and national trade history. Harper “predicted that there would be major economic gains to Canadians”, specifically in regards to the increase of bilateral trade, CAD$12 billion added to its economy, elimination of tariffs and 80, 000 jobs to be created (234). However, some Canadians opposed as they feared that national healthcare and the democratic system would be implicated, corporations would better benefit from the trade than workers and national identity and culture would be threatened (234). McKenzie argues that “free trade creates winners and losers” (244), explaining that free trade creates unreliable odds of either harming or helping society.
McKenzie backtracks to Canada as a land of resource for Europe, who then began to distinguish themselves as a country, practicing protectionism- putting tariffs and protecting Canadian goods. As a newly, small nation, protectionism wouldn’t sustain living standards of the people- unable to provide enough goods for Canadians, leading to the practice of free trade led by John A. MacDonald (235). Canada grew more competitive and protectionism soon diminished (235). However, when the Great Depression drastically affected the people, Prime Minister R. B. Bennett believed that “there was still a pressing need into foreign markets” for Canadian goods (235), thus reverting back to protectionism. Bennett wanted to take advantage of the foreign markets wishing that the tariffs would lessen the effects of the Depression (235). Because of the worldwide economic crises, “the logic of protectionism was wrong for trading countries” which led to the creation of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), moving back to free trade (236).
The idea that in times of trouble, the government always found their way back to free trade, this marks that free trade is essential to the revitalization of the economy. McKenzie states “the importance of exports to the Canadian economy is incontestable” (236), revealing that the link between exporting, importing and labor is strong. “The Harper government asserts that one in five jobs in Canada are “linked to exports” (236). Though the relations between export and labor is strongly bonded, the economy is constantly changing with new supplies and demands. Harper’s quotation may not be reliable as his administration is advocating for CETA, by saying this, he could be trying to persuade voters, without acknowledging the inconsistency of the marketplace. At the same time, as a member of the government, he is trusted to tell the truth. This ties in with McKenzie’s thesis of how free trade is unreliable. Free trade makes the public question their social and economic safety. Advocators of free trade say that the benefits will show in the long run, whereas, those who oppose saying we can’t tell the future (238).
In regards to Calvin Coolidge’s quote, McKenzie’s article supports Coolidge’s argument in reference to self-resolution, where the economy will work on its own to provide jobs, increase of money, however, Mckenzie would also say that the free market will not always be as generous but can also be detrimental. In an essay, using this reference allows me to point out that grey area of free trade rather than the black-and-white aspect. This gives thought to what does work and what doesn’t work for society in regards to the economy, that Coolidge only sees one-sidedly. This source would support my position that government intervention is not a completely controllable force, in what the government desires.
Powell, F. (2017). Why the welfare state matters. In The political economy of the Irish
welfare state: Church, state and capital (pp. 13-30). Bristol: Bristol University Press.
doi:10.2307/j.ctt22p7jz0.5
Fred Powell goes into depth of why the welfare state is necessary for our modern day society. How it “promotes nation building by creating the concept of a reciprocal society, supported by its citizens, thus enhancing social and political cohesion” (14), meaning that welfare not only benefits the well-being of society but also encourages morality and unity. Powell begins by introducing the three wave of the welfare state, the first came during the industrial revolution and the Great Depression, practicing President Roosevelt’s New Deal (15). The second wave was aimed in “post-war economic recovery” (15), as it promoted “social citizenship rights and the ‘decommodification’ of labor through John Maynard Keynes’ Keynesian economics (15), moving away from getting out of economic ruins and focusing on how benefiting the people will benefit the economy. The third wave, commonly known as “social investment welfare state”, the idea of balancing social citizenship and economic growth (18).
In contrast to Bradford Lee’s article ‘The New Deal Reconsidered’ (1982), Powell would disagree with Lee’s argument of social gain rather than economic gain, as he associates economic gains with social gains, in order for there to be a well quality of life, the economy must be stable (16). Powell solely focuses on the relationship of welfare to the citizens, stating that without welfare, social and economic gaps would widen as the result of capitalist ideologies (19), revealing that intervention is necessary to give every individual an equal chance to opportunity, as well as agreeing with Paul Spicker’s article ‘Misunderstanding Social Security’ (2017) that social welfare to level rather than help the vulnerable.
Powell’s article is a general knowledge in regards to what welfare state is. With this source, plays the middle ground of identifying factors that can be used to compare and contrast with the other sources. Powell would argue against Coolidge as he believes that with the effects of capitalism would much reduce the quality of life which would ultimately affect the economy, as they both play a close role to each other.
Spicker, Paul. “Misunderstanding Social Security.” What’s Wrong with Social Security
Benefits?, 1st ed., Bristol University Press, Bristol, UK; Chicago, IL, USA, 2017, pp.
13–30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1t894kf.6.
Paul Spicker reveals the myths of social security within the UK and refutes these common oppositions: “Spending on social security is out of control; People have become dependent on the welfare state; There are massive disincentives to work; there are families where no one has worked for generations; immigrants come to Britain to take advantage of the benefits system” (13).
Through his investigation, Spicker reveals that benefits are restrictive and carry many conditions (21). That they are not as lineate as what most of the public argue to be. However, with those misconceptions comes stigma, towards immigrants, towards to lower class- creating hostility towards those groups because “of the ‘dependent’ or ‘shameless’ population being dependent on the decent and respectable to pay for them” (19). This represents the lack of knowledge behind social security and the automatic assumptions that are presented towards those who rely on or use the programs. Spicker identifies welfare state not as “‘a safety net for the most vulnerable.’” … but an action that “guarantee[s] individuals and families a minimum income… narrowing the extent of insecurity by enabling individuals and families to meet certain ‘social contingencies’ [and] ensuring that all citizens without distinction of status or class are offered the best standards available in relation to a certain agreed range of social services” (17-18). By acknowledging welfare as “a safety net for the most vulnerable” projects an image of poor, allowing the majority to victimize and resent, however by presenting welfare as an opportunity allows the public to see it in an equality perspective, leveling the field to make sure that everyone can succeed.
In regards to Calvin Coolidge’s quote, Spicker rejects his ideology on welfare state and government intervention, as it does not make the people weaker, but allows them to grow. This source is a direct objection towards anti-government intervention viewpoint, allowing me to view an opposing side of Coolidge’s argument. It reveals the ignorance of knowledge towards welfare states, and even politicians may only see the surface level in helping citizens that need the programs to take that first step in moving forward. Though this source does not support my position of government intervention to an extent, this allows me to compare and contrast, as well as fend off opposing factors in regards to anti-government intervention.
Swartz, Katherine. “Tax Cuts and Cynicism.” Inquiry, vol. 38, no. 1, 2001, pp. 3–5.
JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/29772929.
Katherine Swartz criticizes the Bush administration, of 2001 in the United States’, and their decision to tax cuts and reveals the detrimental factors that would follow. She identifies three groups that would drastically suffer: “baby boomers and the generations born since 1970, children and uninsured adults and the elderly” (3-4). The baby boomer population is living longer and the population is increasing, which means that they rely heavily on pensions, Medicare and Social security (3). The uninsured rely heavily on the reduced pricing funded by the government, whereas the elderly, with their given age and slowly deteriorating health rely on prescription drugs with the reduced price (4). However, with tax cuts leads to less discretionary funds, which means that “without such funding, we will be imposing unnecessary burdens on people of all ages in the future- and on the economic health of the country” (5). Her article reveals the cynicism portrayed through the government’s action, as those groups must rely on themselves, despite having the income to support the increasing prices of programs, addressing the lack of empathy that the government carries for those on the bottom spectrum of the economy.
Swartz article is very one-sided and evidently opposed to tax cuts, however, many people vote for tax cuts. She solely addresses the consequences without addressing the benefits. This source is used to support an aspect of my position as it reveals the how beneficial welfare is to the less fortunate, however it addresses the social viewpoint rather than an economic viewpoint, which restricts my knowledge in according to tax cuts. With this source, this allows me to identify what is reasonable and what ideas need further developing.