The New Deal - Critical Analysis - Essay Example

Roosevelt’s address was then followed by that of Hoover’s in 1936 that was more or less an overt display of animosity between the republicans and democrats but it also contained significant details regarding the New Deal. As promised by Roosevelt, the New Deal was meant to steer the American economy out of recession but naturally, the entire conservative faction opposed it, as it infringed upon the inalienable constitutional right of the people that there right to liberty. Despite the pressing issue of recession at hand, the speeches seemed more or less like a duel between the Democratic and Republican ideology, perhaps in this regard Hoover generated a much more aggressive response.

Hoover compared the government under Roosevelt and the ‘New Deal’ as the European movement at that time; an oppressive regime that shackled the American citizens and was also deemed worse than the bondage of Egyptian. (p. 182) Such extreme analogies clearly gives an unbiased reader or listener the idea that it was meant to undermine the support Roosevelt had garnered over the years and would definitely overshadow the positive sides of the New Deal, if there were any. Reading Roosevelt’s speech, getting the government involved in the regulation of economy not only has its advantage but as Hoover saw it, this created a greater barrier because corruption and lack of checking on government can cause them to use the wealth for their own benefits.

However, in this regard Hoover’s reign was marred by such unethical practices as pointed out by Roosevelt. However, this only affirmed the aforementioned point that both speeches were like onslaught on both parties rather than actually suggestions for reforms to help the nation out of the recession spiral. An interesting aspect of Hoover’s speech that was ostensible even with a quick perusal was that his ideology and propositions largely rested upon abstract views, which held its appeal vastly amongst the population that was driven by its idealistic sensibilities.

As further highlighted by Huey Long in his 1935 address, Hoover’s abstract thoughts and even more abstract plans to help the American society was exactly why Roosevelt won support and eventually assumed the responsibility of the state. Long stated, “It is not out of place for me to say that the support which I brought to Mr. Roosevelt to secure his nomination and election as president - and without which it was hardly probable that he would ever have been nominated – was on the assurances which I had that he would take the proper stand for the redistribution of wealth in the campaign.” (p. 175) On the other hand, Herbert Hoover just made vague allusions to an ideal American society unlike, Roosevelt’s firm assurances and promises to adopt the right steps in order to redistribute wealth.

Long’s speech actually provides the views of an individual who at first backed Roosevelt’s election but later on opposed some of the shortcomings of his New Deal that hardly had any impact on the current problems that deepened the crisis stemming from the unfair distribution of wealth, therefore it provides an interesting perspective not only on Roosevelt’s policy but sheds great light on the standard of living of the American citizens. Therefore, Long’