Can This Election Produce Another Hundred Days?News at Home
Seventy-five years ago this month, Franklin Roosevelt assumed the presidency amid mass unemployment, a collapsing bank system and rapidly escalating poverty. Over the next five years the New Deal came to be associated with major regulatory reforms, labor laws and social welfare legislation.
This is well known. But less attention has been paid to the stagnation of the New Deal in the 1950s and its dismantling after 1980. With the watershed election of Ronald Reagan what can be called the anti-New Deal arrived.
A massive defeat of the anti-New Deal Republicans at both the presidential and congressional levels this November would give the next president the kind of majorities that Franklin Roosevelt depended upon when he won approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Social Security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, a 40-hour workweek, and the Works Progress Administration that built new roads, bridges, dams, post offices, classrooms and libraries.
This year, with votes from young people as well as those who had largely given up on the system, the Democrats' victory might be large enough to sustain a new hundred days.
The post-World War II history of the New Deal followed the history of the Cold War. Harry Truman's New Deal-derived Fair Deal program, including a Social Security-based national health insurance system, became a casualty of both Cold War priorities and a Cold War political mentality.
Lyndon Johnson advanced New Deal priorities, including Medicare, Medicaid, and federal aid to education. But his Great Society became a casualty of the Vietnam War and a political backlash against the radical movements the 1960s.
Neither the New Deal nor its advances through the Great Society were repealed. Most analysts concluded by the 1970s that the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations, with leading groups in business, had quietly made peace with the New Deal, content to thwart its advance but unwilling to risk its repeal. Few Americans thought that they would ever see homeless people on the streets again or the spectacular disparities in wealth that have characterized post-1980s America.
They were wrong. Ronald Reagan championed deregulation. Anti-tax crusades flourished. Reagan and his supporters embraced the recommendations of the economist Milton Friedman that relied on the Federal Reserve to manipulate interest rates to pump money in and out of the economy. What Roosevelt called rights, Reagan disparaged as entitlements.
The Democratic administration of President Clinton accepted and sought to moderate the anti-New Deal in the 1990s much as the Republicans had done in the 1950s. Clinton's policies greatly strengthened the right wing of the Republican Party, leading to the conservative Republican victory in 1994 and twelve years of Republican control of Congress.
Today, it is important to remember that the New Deal ushered in the biggest period of economic expansion in U.S. history. Its institutions worked towards economic equality. It also provided the foundation for greater social justice through the inclusion and integration of women and minorities. The anti-New Deal has only worked for corporations and wealthy Americans.
A national debt that was a trillion dollars in 1981 exceeds ten trillion today. Income inequality has grown substantially during the years of the anti-New Deal after declining during the years of the New Deal ascendancy. Large sectors of the population are saddled with expanding credit-card debt, many having to pay interest that was previously considered usurious. They also suffer from crippling mortgage debt. Nearly 50 million people are without any health insurance. The departing Bush administration has made things worse for them.
But real change may be at hand. The 2008 elections can be a historic turning point in the conflict between the New Deal and the anti-New Deal. But, like FDR's first hundred days, it will take the political will of voters and officeholders to bring it about.
This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.
comments powered by Disqus
Oscar Chamberlain - 3/26/2008
As much as I would like to see a lot of reforms from a Democratic Congress and president, I think that the expectation of FDR's 100 days is something of a trap. The original 100 days was a hodge-podge of actions, some that helped and some that did not.
FDR and Congress were responding to imminent crises as well as attempting to solve long-term problems. Some of the long term solutions that began then--the SEC and deposit insurance are examples--had beneficial short and long-term legacies.
The AAA and its successors had greatly strengthened the farm economy by the late 1930s, though not so much as to pull the nation out of the depression. (It's impact on farm laborers was something else again.) Whether the subsidy approach to farming should have continued after World War II is another question.
As a post above notes, the NRA was a bad bust, and it was the centerpiece of the first 100 days. Some of its specific provisions were beneficial, but as a whole it was a extraordinarily clumsy attempt to create cartels. As many historians have noted, ruling it unconstitutional was a major favor to FDR from the Supreme Court.
So I don't want a new 100 days. I do want to see carefully drawn economic reforms and the beginning of a coherent policy for redstributing the costs (and therefore the benefits) of globalization. But that does not need to be done in a frenzy.
Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 3/24/2008
Napoleon lost the Battle of Watterloo after 100 days, but I don't think we can impeach Obama that fast.
Ted Andrews - 3/24/2008
I often wonder why the New Deal is held up as such a model for modern day presidents. The two major pieces of "new" legislative ideas that FDR introduced during the 100 days, the NRA & the AAA, failed to pass judicial muster. FDR himself did little actively to encourage any of the major social movements of the era; he simply (& properly) was smart enough to put himself at the head of the parade once he saw which way the wind was blowing. Last but not least, since when did the New Deal usher in a period of major economic expansion. I always thought it was World War II that did that!
William J. Stepp - 3/24/2008
I didn't know the New Deal was dismantled in the 1980s.
When were the SEC, Social Security, unemployment "insurance," the minimum way, the 40-hour work week, and government building of highways, etc. abolished?
As for Ronnie's deregulation and tax reductions, you forgot to mention that deregulation began under his predecessor, the First Peanut Farmer, and that Ronnie also raised taxes, and closed tax "loopholes."
Actually, deregulation began under the sainted FDR. After the banking system collapsed in 1930 and 1931, thanks to the existence of anti-branch banking laws, which weakened banks and denied them access to the capital that would have stemmed bank runs, 22 states repealed these laws by 1935.
The economy grew under Reagan and was stronger than it was in the disastrous recession and stagflation of the 1970s.
- Carla Hayden says Frederick Douglass "might have a lot to do with the fact that I am a librarian”
- Baton Rouge area Catholic school responds to student's racist essay about Black History Month
- How the ‘guerrilla archivists’ saved history – and are doing it again under Trump
- Trump visits the National Museum of African American History and Culture
- New Book Says Bob Woodward Burned Hillary Clinton’s Ghostwriter
- Historian and Antiwar Activist Marilyn Young Dies at 79
- Trump Chooses Historian H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser
- Holocaust Historian Deborah Lipstadt Explains Why People Believe Trump's Lies
- Princeton’s Harold James warns World War Three is now a "serious threat”
- Israeli schools' history lessons create good soldiers, says pundit