Burton W. Folsom, Jr. in his book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?” points out some interesting facts starting on page 7. Mr. Folsom cites the “adulation” of Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris, two of the most distinguished American historians of the twentieth century. It is pointed out that Commager “…wrote over forty books and became perhaps the bestselling historian of the century. From the first year of Roosevelt’s presidency, Commager lectured and wrote articles in defense of the New Deal.”
Furthermore “Richard Morris, his junior partner at Columbia, was a prolific author and president of the American Historical Association."
Mr. Folsom points out their “…assessment of Roosevelt and the New Deal: The Character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties had been pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive.”
It is noted that:
“Commager and Morris’s assessment highlights four main points of defense for Roosevelt and the New Deal that have been adopted by most historians for the last seventy years: first, the 1920s were an economic disaster; second, the New Deal programs were a corrective to the 1920s, and a step in the right direction; third, Roosevelt (and the New Deal) were very popular; and forth, Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader.”The story goes on about how:
“These four points constitute what many historians call ‘the Roosevelt legend.’” Also it is important to note that: “…the works of Arthur M. Shlesinger, Jr., and William Leuchtenburg have been essential in shaping and fleshing out this view of Roosevelt….”
Schlesinger won “…the Pulitzer Prize and was probably the best-known historian in America.” And “his three volumes on the rise of Roosevelt and the early New Deal became landmark books.”
In addition to this “Leuchtenburg, a professor at Columbia University and the University of North Carolina, wrote the standard one-volume history of the New Deal. Leuchtenburg studied and wrote his Ph.D. dissertation under the direction of Commager.”
It does not end here, we find that "No one has ever, and maybe will ever, train more New Deal historians than William Leuchtenburg.”
We are told: “These four parts of the Roosevelt legend have a strong cumulative effect and historians regularly place Roosevelt among the top three presidents in U.S. history.”
Mr. Folsom notes that “The four points of defense are currently intact, and are usually found in most histories of the New Deal and in virtually all of the American history textbooks today.”
As we continue, it is noted that Kennedy “…cites Leuchtenburg, Schlesinger and four other similar historians and writes, ‘Though I sometimes disagree with their emphases and evaluations, they laid the foundation on which all subsequent study of that period has built, including my own.’” And it is pointed out that: “Thus, the Roosevelt legend seems to be intact.”
Now let us take a look at what the world-renowned Jim Powell has to say in his book “FDR’s Folly”. Up front in the introduction page [xv] we find that Powell draws “…on major findings by economists about the actual effects of the New Deal – how it promoted cartels, imposed confiscatory taxes, made it harder for companies to raise capital, made it more expensive for companies to employ people, bombarded companies with dubious antitrust lawsuits, and relentlessly denounced employers and investors, prolonging high unemployment. Published during the last four decades, whose findings have been virtually ignored by pro-New Deal political historians like James MacGregor Burns, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Frank Freidel, William Leuctenburg and Kenneth S. Davis. In his autobiography, Schlesinger acknowledged that he ‘was not much interested in economics.’”
Now if we jump to “The great Depression – America, 1929 – 1941” by Robert S. McElvaine who “…is Elizabeth Chisholm Professor of Arts and Letters at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi.…”
We noted in the introduction of this book, reasons to “tread with care” and McElvaine seem to confirm this reasoning when he tells us that “Any work of History is a matter of selection.” He could have added opinion too!
We then find where McElvaine tells us “The more apparent one is that counter-cyclical policies that were begun in the New Deal as a means of trying to combat the Great Depression worked largely as they were intended to.”
This is contrary to historical evidence. We then find what we feel are nothing more than plain damn bigotry. He continually takes swipes at Ronald Reagan and the Republicans and perhaps there would be nothing wrong with that but we find that in a lot of instances there just are not any historical evidence to support what he advocates.
McElvaine puts forth: “Oddly, although Ronald Reagan is usually taken to have been far more ideologically committed than FDR was, Roosevelt worried more about the ill effects of continued deficits and tried repeatedly to cut back on speeding. Reagan paid lip service to spending cuts, but he proved far more willing to accept massive deficits (and their short-run economic benefits to the country and political benefits to him and his party) than FDR ever had been during peacetime.”
Historical records prove Roosevelt only became concerned with deficit spending when he felt it would effect his chances for reelection. As for his jab at Reagan, the Reagan administration’s record is a matter of public record.
There is much more information on how Roosevelt’s legacy was shaped and it is not a pretty picture.
With the cards stacked like this Hugo Chávez could come out in the top tier.
We would like to hear your comments or e-mail at wetrack@windstream.net.
Have a nice day.
No comments:
Post a Comment