New Deal Opposition: Assessing Ambition and Effectiveness

Opposition to the New Deal was based on the claim that its measures were not ambitious enough to resolve America's problems. While there were certainly critics who believed that the New Deal fell short in addressing the nation's challenges, it is important to consider the various perspectives and motivations behind this opposition.

One group of critics who believed that the New Deal was not going far enough were left-wing liberals. These individuals argued that President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) was making too many concessions to the business classes and that the policies of the New Deal were rejecting radical change in favor of maintaining existing economic and social inequalities. These critics saw the need for more aggressive measures to redistribute wealth and create a more equal society.

Huey Long, the Democratic Senator for Louisiana, was one of the most prominent critics of the New Deal from the left. Long advocated for greater federal government action to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, as demonstrated by his "Share Our Wealth" plan. Similarly, Dr. Francis Townsend, a retired doctor, opposed the New Deal for its failure to adequately support retired individuals. These critics believed that the New Deal was not ambitious enough in addressing the economic disparities and social injustices of the time.

It is important to note that these criticisms primarily applied to the First New Deal, which was implemented from 1933 to 1935. During this period, the focus was primarily on reversing the rapid decline in the US economy, rather than on achieving social justice and a more equal society. However, it is worth mentioning that FDR did introduce social security for the elderly in the Second New Deal, which addressed some of the concerns raised by critics like Huey Long and Dr. Francis Townsend.

In addition to left-wing critics, there was also opposition to the New Deal from the right. The Liberty League, for example, attacked the New Deal as a socialistic experiment and criticized its perceived infringement upon individual liberties. While politically ineffective, members of the Liberty League expressed their discontent with New Deal policies and personalities.

Another prominent right-wing critic was Father Charles E. Coughlin, known as "The Radio Priest." Coughlin targeted FDR, international bankers, communists, and labor unions as his enemies. He blamed the depression on greedy bankers and accused FDR of being a tool of the moneyed interests. Coughlin eventually resorted to using anti-Semitic language in the late 1930s and formed the Christian Front to advance his positions.

Furthermore, opposition to the New Deal also came from the Supreme Court. Cases such as Schechter vs. United States (1935), US vs. Butler (1936), and Morehead vs. New York (1936) undermined key elements of the New Deal. These court rulings declared the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional, undermined the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and ruled against New York state's minimum wage, respectively.

In conclusion, while there were valid criticisms that the New Deal was not ambitious enough to resolve America's problems, it is important to consider the various perspectives and motivations behind this opposition. Left-wing critics believed that the New Deal did not go far enough in addressing economic disparities and social injustices, while right-wing critics saw it as a threat to individual liberties and capitalism. The Supreme Court also played a role in undermining certain aspects of the New Deal. Overall, the opposition to the New Deal was multifaceted and reflected a range of concerns and ideologies.