Impact and Reactions to the New Deal

What would count as success?

The New Deal changed both people’s lives and their expectations of government. From 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt used federal action to tackle the Great Depression. His programmes pursued three connected aims: relief, meaning immediate help for people in hardship; recovery, meaning a return to economic activity and employment; and reform, meaning lasting changes intended to protect people and reduce future insecurity.

These aims provide different tests of success. A public works job could feed a family and create a useful road without bringing the whole economy back to prosperity. Equally, a pension system could be an important long-term reform even while unemployment remained high. This helps explain why the New Deal attracted both strong support and determined opposition.

Why conservatives and business interests opposed it

Many Republicans and wealthy businesspeople believed Roosevelt had taken government intervention too far. They favoured laissez-faire and rugged individualism: businesses should operate with limited government interference, and individuals should support themselves rather than rely on the state.

The New Deal challenged these beliefs. The National Recovery Administration (NRA) introduced rules affecting business practices, while the Wagner Act strengthened workers’ rights to organise in trade unions. Employers who wanted control over wages and working conditions could see these measures as restrictions on their freedom and profits.

Opponents also criticised the cost of relief and employment programmes. They feared higher taxes and government debt, and dismissed some public works jobs as wasteful work created merely to keep people employed. Some accused Roosevelt of moving towards socialism or becoming a dictator. These were political accusations, reflecting hostility to the expansion of federal power.

The American Liberty League, formed in 1934 and backed by wealthy opponents, defended property rights and individual freedom against the New Deal. Some state governments also objected because they believed Washington was taking over responsibilities that belonged to the states. Opposition therefore concerned not just spending, but who should exercise power in the United States.

Why other critics wanted more radical action

Not all opponents wanted a smaller government. Some believed the New Deal did too little to redistribute wealth or protect vulnerable Americans.

Huey Long, a senator from Louisiana, promoted his Share Our Wealth campaign. He proposed limiting very large personal fortunes and redistributing wealth to poorer families. His challenge was that relief programmes did not sufficiently address the enormous gap between rich and poor. Long was assassinated in 1935, ending his personal challenge to Roosevelt.

Father Charles Coughlin, a Catholic priest near Detroit, reached a large audience through radio broadcasts. Initially a Roosevelt supporter, he became critical of the New Deal’s help for the poor. His National Union for Social Justice demanded fair wages and the nationalisation of banks: banks would be brought under government ownership. His later antisemitism and sympathy for fascist regimes show why these economic demands should not simply be treated as support for equality.

Dr Francis Townsend focused on poverty among older people. His pension plan proposed giving everyone over 60 $200 a month, which they would have to spend within that month. He argued that this would stimulate demand for goods, while retirement would release jobs for younger workers. His movement increased pressure for old-age support, although the Social Security Act of 1935 provided a less generous scheme than he demanded.

These critics illustrate an important distinction: conservatives feared too much government intervention, whereas Long and Townsend wanted the government to do more.

The Supreme Court and the limits of presidential power

The Supreme Court could rule that laws were unconstitutional. Its opposition therefore had a different effect from speeches or campaigns: it could stop New Deal measures operating.

In 1935, the Court struck down the legislation underpinning the NRA following the poultry-business case commonly called the ‘Sick Chickens’ case. In 1936, it also struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act. These decisions challenged the extent of the federal government’s constitutional powers and obstructed Roosevelt’s programme.

In 1937, Roosevelt proposed a judicial reform that would allow an additional justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70½. Critics called this court-packing, arguing that he wanted a Court more likely to approve his policies. Republicans and many Democrats opposed it because they feared presidential interference with an independent judiciary.

The proposal did not become law. Meanwhile, the Court upheld important measures, including the Wagner Act and Social Security Act. Roosevelt’s experience showed that winning elections did not give a president unlimited power: constitutional institutions could still constrain him.

Relief, jobs and lasting protection

For millions of Americans, the New Deal offered practical help rather than simply promises. Relief payments, employment programmes and assistance with mortgages helped families survive and retain homes, farms and savings. Public works agencies built roads, schools, airports and dams, leaving useful infrastructure as well as providing employment.

Workers gained stronger protection through the Wagner Act, while Social Security established a lasting federal role in supporting older people and unemployed workers. These reforms mattered beyond the immediate Depression because they made economic security a responsibility of government rather than solely of individuals or charities.

Roosevelt also retained substantial public support. His victory in the 1936 presidential election, despite fierce opposition, demonstrated that critics did not speak for all Americans. Many voters valued the assistance and sense of action his administration provided. The New Deal helped maintain confidence in democratic government during a period when dictatorship had gained ground elsewhere.

Why the benefits were unequal

African Americans received employment and relief, but discrimination limited the benefits. The WPA eventually employed about 350,000 African Americans annually, and Roosevelt received advice from the informal ‘Black Cabinet’, which included educator Mary McLeod Bethune. These were opportunities for employment and influence, not an end to racial inequality.

CCC camps were segregated, and discrimination affected hiring and pay in New Deal programmes. Social Security initially excluded agricultural and domestic workers, occupations employing many African Americans. The AAA’s reduction of agricultural production could also leave tenant farmers and sharecroppers without work or support.

Roosevelt did not overturn southern segregation laws or secure federal anti-lynching legislation. He depended on southern Democrats to support his wider programme and was unwilling to risk losing that support through a major confrontation over civil rights. Economic assistance therefore coexisted with continuing racial injustice.

Women also experienced mixed results. WPA employment offered opportunities, including sewing and arts projects, but relief policies often prioritised men as family breadwinners, and women faced wage discrimination. Frances Perkins, the first female Cabinet member, helped shape labour and welfare reforms; her influence did not mean that ordinary women achieved equal treatment.

Native Americans benefited from the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which promoted tribal self-government, communal landholding and the preservation of Native cultures. This marked a change from earlier policies aimed at forcing assimilation, although implementing these changes remained difficult.

Overall impact: substantial change, incomplete recovery

The New Deal reduced hardship and helped economic activity recover, but it did not end the Depression. Unemployment fell to about 7.7 million in 1937, then rose to about 10.4 million in 1938 as recovery faltered following reductions in government spending. This revealed how fragile recovery remained. Wartime production later brought the decisive expansion of employment.

A balanced judgement therefore separates its achievements. The New Deal was more successful in relief and lasting reform than in achieving complete economic recovery. Its benefits were real but uneven, and its opponents restricted what Roosevelt could accomplish.

Its most enduring impact was on the relationship between the people and the state. Americans increasingly expected the federal government to take responsibility for economic stability, workers’ protection and basic welfare. The New Deal did not remove poverty or discrimination, but it established a much larger and more permanent role for government in everyday life.