Given the New Deal’s powerful grounding in freedom and the striking advances it ushered in for most Americans, why was the right able to reverse the New Deal in just one generation?
Frances Moore Lappé’s tribute to the New Deal in The Nation is nothing short of a worship of government based in a profound ignorance of economics.
Lappé praises government intervention into the market, arguing that this in and of itself is freedom:
In emphasizing rights, Roosevelt clearly did not view the New Deal as a giant safety net; rather, he saw it as a way to advance freedom. Freedom rests as much on economic as political rights, he argued, because both are necessary to security and peace, which in turn are the basis of citizens’ freedom from fear and to the liberation of our talents. “Necessitous men are not free men,” he said.
Free men live in a society where their property is not stolen from them by “legitimized” force, where they are the sole owners of their possessions, and where they make decisions about where they will go in the marketplace. When the government gets involved, it will make some men slaves by force, others voluntarily.
The problem with the New Deal is that it set up a precedent of government subverting the Constitution at will–with virtually no remorse after the fact. Lincoln knew he violated the Constitution during the Civil War and at least said on several occasions he regretted it. After the first World War, the Federal Government virtually disbanded its entire operations and shrunk back to a smaller size, the banks and Herbert Hoover’s mini-New Deal notwithstanding. When laws are violated without penalty they become useless. Our Constitution is useless to us now, for no one will enforce it on the Federal Government.
With much thanks to Franklin Roosevelt, we have begun a trek into the great welfare state system. Our elderly people are trapped in poverty–why save when the government will “save” for your retirement? Minimum wages only help to increase unemployment in the inner cities. Government spending on worthless arts, humanities, and “charitable” organizations is often directed into personal bank accounts or misappropriated (or subsidizes horrible art).
Money is wasted, farm products are destroyed because the government pays for the destruction of perfectly good foodstuffs, and an endless cycle of poverty has ensued.
The New Deal was the turning point in American history–a bad turning.
Filed under: Commentary, Congress, Democrats, Economics, History, Politics, Republicans
Lance, thanks for the link to one of my favorite liberal, progressive magazines, The Nation, honoring the “New Deal.” I can’t decide what I admire more, FDR’s “New Deal” or LBJ’s “Great Society.”
I’m still a supporter of the New Deal, too. Plus, how is government intervention in the economy completely unconstitutional? Doesn’t the commerce clause give Congress powers to regulate such things?
“The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”
That’s a pretty broad definition to work with.
Regulate between the states means an arbitrator of dispute, not an economy manager. All of the founding fathers (except the statist warmonger Alexander Hamilton) were quite capitalist in their views.
That’s your interpretation, but I still don’t agree. Regulate is definitely not a synonym for ‘abitrating disputes.’
In addition, the Constitution says “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ”
and
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; ”
Libertarians might think it would be nice if the government didn’t muck around so much with the economy, but a lot of powers are defined in these passages, including the ability to regulate the value of money. The Feds recent behavior might be irresponsible, but it’s not entirely unconstitutional.
Don’t get me wrong, I disapprove of Bush’s disregard for the constitution, as much as people will argue that warrantless wiretaps, etc. are perfectly legal.
Ryan,
you should read up on history.
When you say “That’s your interpretation, but I still don’t agree. Regulate is definitely not a synonym for ‘abitrating disputes.”, you are unintentionaly showing ignorance to history, because the founding father laid out quite clearly what, specificaly, their intentions were for this and just about every other item in the constitution within The Federalist Papers. Pick them up and read them sometime — #s 11, 12, and particularly 13 are relevant here. Your confusion will dissipate rapidly.
What I think is completely laughable is that the government doesn’t want you to barter because then you are hiding income they can tax you on.
In addition to the lawsuit against the liberty dollar.
[...] fault FDR for what he did in the New Deal because, as I said before, we were on unknown territory; others aren’t so kind. However, FDR did have some very radical ideas concerning the Constitution, the role of the [...]