New Deal Critics: Too Much Government? — Reading Comprehension

The New Deal was a series of programs and reforms launched by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s to combat the Great Depression. While many Americans supported these efforts, others became outspoken critics. Their main concern was that the New Deal gave the federal government too much power over the economy and people’s lives. This debate over the proper role of government remains important in U.S. history.

Critics of the New Deal came from different backgrounds. Some were politicians who believed Roosevelt’s policies threatened American individualism and the traditional balance of power. For example, Senator Robert Taft warned, “The New Deal has come dangerously close to the edge of dictatorship.” This quote shows the fear that the government was becoming too powerful, possibly taking away freedoms that Americans valued. Others, like business leaders, argued that New Deal regulations made it harder for companies to operate, while some citizens felt that government relief programs created dependency on the state.

Supporters of the New Deal saw things differently. They argued that extraordinary times required bold action. With unemployment soaring and banks failing, they believed only the government could provide the necessary aid and reform. Roosevelt himself stated that the government’s “first duty is to protect the public interest.” In this view, the New Deal was not a threat to democracy, but a way to save it by restoring hope and stability.

The conflict between critics and supporters centered on the issue of government intervention. Critics favored a limited government, believing that free markets and private charity should lead economic recovery. They saw programs like Social Security and the Works Progress Administration as steps toward socialism, a system in which the government controls major parts of the economy. Supporters countered that such programs provided a safety net for those who could not help themselves and prevented even greater suffering.

This debate led to significant legal battles. The Supreme Court at first struck down several New Deal laws, arguing they gave the federal government powers not granted by the Constitution. Roosevelt responded by proposing to add more justices to the Court, a move his critics labeled as “court-packing.” Many Americans viewed this plan as a dangerous attempt to weaken the system of checks and balances.

Despite the opposition, many New Deal programs survived and changed American life. Social Security, for example, became a permanent part of the safety net for older Americans. However, the criticisms raised during the 1930s had lasting effects. They shaped future debates about government spending, welfare, and the limits of federal power. Historians now see this period as a turning point in the relationship between citizens and their government.

In summary, the New Deal era was marked by intense debate and disagreement. Critics feared the loss of traditional freedoms and the rise of government control, while supporters believed strong action was necessary to solve an economic crisis. The arguments and evidence from both sides help us understand the complexities and contradictions of this important moment in U.S. history.

Interesting Fact: In 1935, the Supreme Court declared parts of the National Recovery Administration unconstitutional, showing how the checks and balances system limited the New Deal.

Who launched the New Deal?

What was the main goal of the New Deal?

Which program became a permanent safety net?

Why did critics fear the New Deal?

What did supporters believe about the New Deal?

What did the Supreme Court do in 1935?

The New Deal ended all debates about government power.

What does "checks and balances" mean?