New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America

(Note: I own and have READ all of this book) (...)Interesting book.This is a very well written and well researched book. A keeper.It is not one I read cover to cover over two days. It's more a case of reading a chapter, digesting it, cross referencing it, and then moving on. The prose, to my taste, is a little on the heavy, slightly cumbersome side. It's not a novel. It's not a racy read, like perhaps Fleming writes. It's more of an economics history text book. What IS attractive is that the style is balanced, very fair, presenting BOTH SIDES of the arguments. That makes it a good research book. It avoids shrill indignation, or fatuous adulation. It is timely, with, on the one side, many advisers of Mr Obama, publicly touting some similar 'big government spending' policies and attitudes, whilst presenting them as excitingly new and original. That is historically simply not correct. Just read the book and see how intensely Roosevelt tried to wield the clout of Big Government. I believe this book gives a better insight into the arguments for and against the New Deal. I feel there was a well meaning idealism at work (former social workers Hopkins and Perkins et all meant well), Roosevelt indubitably (The First Hundred days, etc) was not a Coolidge, and put his back into it. But against that, this book raises again the shadow side of FDR and his policies, which today, only the true devotees choose to wholly ignore. The machinations, the sledge hammer political approach, the war on the "economic Royalists", the "court packing" fiasco, the cynical use of the IRS to persecute his detractors, the 'taxpayer dollar bombardment' of swing states, etc, etc. Many reasoned studies today attack FDR pretty furiously. Defenders of FDR mostly seem to just ignore such misguided babbling, and I'm always on the hunt for good, reasoned, New Deal apologies. However, let me say no matter which side you prefer, the extreme laissez faire minimalist Coolidge approach, or the heavy 'beneficient hand' of Big Government, you will find in this book many good summaries of the principle arguments, for and against.Mr Obama himself, I suspect, knows more than some give him credit for, and is astute enough to know government stimulatory ('anti-cyclical')spending is a double edged sword, which needs very careful handling lest it cut the wrong way. The deficit economic theories of Keynes (who met with Roosevelt, and didn't get along too well) have been widely challenged. Many argue against them, saying "Tried, tested...and failed". However,others hold a polar opposite view, and argue that FDR should have spent more, not less, and that the same massive government spending today,in 2009, is the only way forward. Still others allege a common misconception exists today of what Keynes was actually saying!However, read the book and draw your own conclusions. And enjoy, as I did, checking thoughtfully on the historic 1930's backdrop to today's intense economic debate. The stakes... are high.I have a lot of areas highlighted. Some examples:"Federal Aid encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character".(p.77)"This historic shift to using federal dollars for local relief profoundly changed the American work ethic" (p.81)"Such a system tended to make liars out of everyone involved. Governors and mayors would shed abundant tears telling Hopkins and Roosevelt of their financial hardships; Hopkins and Roosevelt then listened and pretended to dispense FERA money solely on the basis of need, not on political considerations." (p.82)(p.132) "Forbes magazine protested that "a fundamental motive of the New Deal is to wage war against bigness in business."(p.132) Roosevelt encouraged this fight and tore into business in his State of the Union message in January 1936. He condemned the "selfish power" and the old 'resplendent economic autocracy' that was fighting his 'new instruments of public power.' Roosevelt added, "In the hands of a people's Government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people."Hm. You can imagine the raucous cheers. These are fighting words, unquestionably encouraging a class hatred. Was that good for America? If you love FDR, and many people do, I fully respect that, then you are however faced with the requirement to face the often heard complaint that the entrepreneurial class (ranging from small to big) was discouraged from launching new business ventures and investments, and creating employment. Uncertainty undermined confidence.Next question might be: "Did that matter?" If you feel it didn't matter, then I would like to hear your reasoning, and your notion of what America stands for.I hate to say it, but if you like FDR and his policies, then you will probably growl your way through this book. Folsom does not pull any punches.(p.133) "Roosevelt's next step was to impose yet another tax on business - this one a tax on all undistributed corporate profits."(P.133) "Businessmen may have been nearly unanimous in criticizing this new tax on profits, but Roosevelt believed it was a vote-getter in November, and throughout the election year he hammered away at "economic royalists" and "malefactors of great wealth".I don't doubt it WAS a vote-getter. Good for Roosevelt. The question one might ask: Was it good for the country?And one I really chuckled about, "With so much help from most reporters in so many areas, Roosevelt sometimes became careless in telling the truth." (p.228)"So much help from most reporters in so many area" is a criticism, no, a devastating condemnation of the impartiality/objectivity of the media at that time. Many of course make the same somber assessment of today's trendy so-called 'liberal' media. Who, oddly enough, don't seem to be alarmed at the steady non-liberal (in the old, classic sense) erosion of freedom, and the ever growing boot print of bigger and bigger central government. This book illuminates some of the cynical,manipulative origins of this insidious, ongoing process. The unethical undermining of American democracy's (beautifully eloquent) founding idealism, and its replacement with a 'no holds barred', and 'the end justifies the means' approach to fooling and bamboozling the voting masses. (Many of whom were tragically desperate, and aching for the coming of a true savior.) How an elite, puffed up with hubris, arrogant and inflexible, dragged down the Old Jeffersonian America. If it ever existed?But against that, I think it also shows the tragedy of good intentions, real problems, real hurt, real despair. I refuse to believe there was not a great deal of good in the motivations of many of the key New Deal players.Some led extraordinarily dedicated lives. Good did come out of it. As usual, nothing is black and white.If you are considering this book, check out the "contents" page. It is laid out well, very clear, and it makes it very easy to leaf back and forwards afterward and look something up.This is an excellent read. Now I need to go read another book which is more sympathetic to FDR, and once again contrast the arguments. I'm wide open to reading suggestions. I have several more FDR books on my wish list, and I shall review them all over time. Trying very hard not to be biased, and willing to sincerely weigh all counter arguments...Peace. Enjoy the read.PS: Please "comment" constructively if you feel I am missing the point, or if you can recommend further reading to illustrate positive New Deal accomplishments not properly brought out in this book.

Although this work is scholarly, it is written in prose more suitable for the general reader who is not heavily into New Deal and economic history. There is much more that could have been added to reinforce the author's points, but undoubtedly the necessity to keep the book under 300 pages and hold down the cost and length for the general reader came into play to render the book a little less than totally satisfying. The problem which lowers my rating from five to four start comes from that aspect -- namely when there were (for example) five points to be made on a subject, three supporting the author's viewpoint and two that didn't, the author cut one of the points opposing his viewpoint. Allow me to hastened to add, however, that one should not accept these ratios as given in every case -- merely as an illustration. In another book review I took the author to task on a subject with very contradictory evidence where the author had included two items supporting his viewpoint and none for the opposition. This work is much, much better -- but still suffers a little from incompleteness and a lack of fully developing both sides. An example is the figures on unemployment -- during the thirties the unemployment figures were always less than accurate -- sometimes due to not being able to collect proper data, and sometimes during the New Deal when there was an attempt to lower the numbers for political purposes. For example even today when a worker has been out of work for 18 months his status is changed from "unemployed" to "discouraged" and unemployment goes down. Neat huh? What a way to cook the books. At any rate, the author's discussion of the glorification of the New Deal by Commanger, Morris, Schlesinger and Leuchtenburg is dead on, and this is how the New Deal has been taught to schoolchildren since World War II. If you want to see examples of the impact of challenging what has been accepted uncritically in school (& in universities), read the two and one star reviews. Above all, they should convince the reader to read this book. The other factor is that the current administration likewise believes in the leftist take on the New Deal, and we are seeing many of Roosevelt's mistakes and unsuccessful policies being resurrected. Like what, you ask? Like spending by the Federal Government will lift the US out of a depression. It didn't work under Roosevelt, it didn't for the Japanese in the 90s, and it won't work this time. Morgenthal made many mistakes, most notably the scheme to confiscate bullion gold from all American citizens, but most of his economic views in the 30s have stood the test of time. The author's presentation of the opposing viewpoints of Roosevelt and Morgenthal are illuminating, with Roosevelt ALWAYS being incorrect (the plan to turn Germany into a pastoral state notwithstanding -- one could not give Germany's best agricultural land to Poland and Russia and then attempt to rebuild their economy on agriculture.) The NRA was, of course, a disaster and ultimately unconstitutional, and the WPA was used essentially for political purposes. The AAA hardly helped agriculture, and the idea of a minimum wage, so loved by labor unions, can be seen to be hinder employment even today. It has all but eliminated employment of America's youth and has replaced those jobs with ones given to illegal immigrants under the table. One can simply not legislate wages or prices in spite of the vested interests that moe to raise the minimum wage every few years. So what did Roosevelt do that was right? The repeal of the Smoot-Hawley Act was a terrific boon, as was the bank holiday. The formation of the SEC was positive although we have found that it has become a dumping ground for incompetent bureaucrats that don't do their job, and so was the elimination of the gold standard. Pretty much everything else was negative, and within the next twenty years we will be faced with the collapse of the most horrible Ponzi scheme ever concocted by man -- Social Security. Roosevelt promised that Social Security taxes would never rise above one percent of income. Tell that to a self-employed person who pays a self-employment tax (both sides of Social Security and Medicare) today of 15.3%. The government doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's just a tax whose revenue is spent every year by Congress. There is no lock box, no social security trust fund, no nothing -- it's all spent (and more) every year. With respect to income taxes, read carefully Roosevelt's attempt to tax individuals making over certain amounts ar rates of 100% and 90% for all of their income over those amounts. Sounds rather like Congress today taking the AIG bonuses at 90%. The problem is that what we think we know from the New Deal is wrong. In short, read this book for an idea -- and an incomplete one at that -- of what you think you know that is dead wrong. And then give the whole subject some thought -- don't simply scream that these points are not what you know from school of even things you know from what your parents told you. Roosevelt didn't take office and eliminate unemployment the next day, week, month or year. That was Hitler, and his ideas on how to take a country out of a depression were even worse than Roosevelt's. I recommend this book to all -- I only wish the author had been more thorough and served up more information on the issues so that the far-left today couldn't dismiss the book as simply "lies." And remember, Roosevelt's administration was thoroughly penetrated by Soviet agents like Hiss and White who did the best they could to move the US into the socialist/communist camp. Other good books include "The Road To Serfdom", "The Forgotten Man", "FDR's Folly" and "Pride, Prejudice and Politics: Roosevelt Versus Recovery."

If you ever had misgivings of the accolades showered by almost all historians on F.D.R. this book will open your eyes. Possibly I am more naïve about today politics than I wish to think. However, in the history of the country there has never been a president who used his power of the presidency in a more selfish way. His use and misuse of the government to aid him in his personal goals as outlined in this book is shameful near criminal. While charismatic he appears to be vindictive, selfish and without a moral compass. Sadly many of the standards that he improved on or invented to get his way are still being practiced. Additionally, some of the programs that he initiated have come to create burdens that the United States may never recover from. When the entire country was suffering, he was taxing at some of the highest levels ever then using that money for patronage to get his programs passed and get re-elected. By patronage he controlled congress, loaded the executive with lap dogs and henchmen like Hopkins and Ickes. If he had been able to pack the court would have had all three branches of government in his pocket. Those who believe he was a great president will have to think again after reading this book...talk about crooked. FDRs true personality is clearly revealed by Professor Folsom...Thanks for the peak behind the FDR curtain that most are afraid to pull back.... Real history will vindicate the information in this book.

We live in an age when intervention by the State is seen as necessary, indeed benign. How much more was that the case during the Great Depression. It all seemed so clear that something must be done and that meant turning to government. All very well intentioned but this book fundamentally challenges whether well-intentioned intervention actually worked. We face exactly the same question today. A stimulating book.

One of the modern myths is the story of FDR and the successes of the New DealStudnets of American affairs should read this

What a penetrating analysis and review of the FDR years and a real myth buster! The author does a fabulous job describing all of the specific initiatives of FDR to supposedly combat the great depression. Then, the author one by one shows how each of these initiatives did not help alleviate suffering but in many cases made economic conditions worse.As a somewhat new reader to this area, I appreciated the detail that the author gave, and it was so engaging to read about his life in a story format. Moreover, I really felt that the “legend” of FDR was thoroughly demolished.However, the greatest contribution of the book was probably how it shows with detailed references how FDR used the New Deal programs first and foremost as a way to extend his personal power, buy votes, and demolish his political enemies. The author also spends a good deal of time telling the story of FDR’s personal life. In this way, the author then links FDR’s many personal failings and lack of character in his early life with the ultimately misguided and not well thought out new deal policies. The reader is finally left very unsurprised that the many failed programs ultimately degenerate into nothing more than a means for FDR to maintain his power base.Lastly, my one critique of the book is that it felt like the author missed the mark somewhat on unmasking the myth of FDR in the area of money and banking. Specifically, the author seems to almost agree with FDR as doing a good thing by taking the US off the gold standard. Several authors have pointed out that the federal reserve at the time had plenty of gold and there was no real threat to redeemability. See eg Lawrence Reed (with lectures on Youtube)Also, the author identifies the federal reserve contraction as a possible major cause of the depression and then ignores FDR’s policy towards fed policy for the next ten years. The analysis feels incomplete in this regard. By contrast, many authors have suggested ways in which the US could have reshaped the banking system to eliminate it’s many shortcomings, thereby allowing for the fed to be ultimately abolished and allowing for a much faster economic recovery. See eg George Selgin and Lawrence White (with lectures on Youtube).

great book i read along side my History A2 level. goes into great depths about american economy linking right back til the end of WW1, great read and very helpful!

En contrepoint de toutes ces hagiographies convenues du héros Roosevelt, voici enfin une remise en cause bien argumentée et bien documentée de son règne finalement si dévastateur pour les Etats-Unis qui en payent aujourd'hui encore la sinistre facture.Un niveau d'anglais moyen est suffisant pour comprendre cet exposé.