Populism, Progressivism, the New Deal and the War on Poverty - Research Paper Example

Some of the major policy achievements of the 20th century undertaken by the Federal government include the Social Security Act (including Medicaid entitlements), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Nineteenth Amendment. Although this is only a short list, encompassing few of many possibilities, it is meant to show two things: first, that despite the present era in which the federal government struggles to produce meaningful, long-lasting legislation, there is a history of such long-reaching and long-term law; and second, that progressivism has had an enormous impact on the American government during the 20th century. Each of those accomplishments mentioned above incorporate, in some form or another, progressivist beliefs. However, there are also elements of populism in each, which seems to suggest that progressivism and populism, particularly in relation to War on Poverty policies and New Deal policies, are connected in some fundamental way. As one looks more deeply into the intellectual climate in which these policies were past, it becomes clearer that these two philosophies are intertwined. First, one must define what exactly constitutes populism. Populism is a form of discourse (or rhetoric in some cases) that is attractive in some way to the public, typically those who are not in the extreme upper or lower classes. According to one scholar, it is “a folksy appeal to the average guy or some allegedly general will” (Smith 41). However, to call something simply a form of discourse, with no underlying theory, philosophy, or ideology, is a shallow look into what is actually going on. Leaving aside the assumption that populism is only used for political gain and mass appeal, it seems that at the heart of this idea of the general will is that the general will has ultimate legitimacy in political matters. If populist speeches portray the common people’s needs and wishes as important, it is fair to say that populism itself things that the common people’s needs and wishes are important. Why exactly a particular form of populism believes this is true depends on the philosophical assumptions of the theory. Likewise, in order to better understand progressivism, one must define it. 20th century progressivism is a swathe of attitudes that generally favored changes and reforms in the government. Noticeably, this definition does not say ‘why’ these changes and reforms were made; it only says that progressives believed they were necessary. Progressivism came about in response to modernization: fears about monopolistic corporations, environmental degradation, and alleged corruption in the government. In response, progressives became known for pushing reforms and transformations to the way governments operated. As a belief system, progressivism is based on a philosophy of pragmatism, which holds that what is true is what works. Applied to public policy, this is the idea behind social progressivism: that as society changes and evolves, what is true about how a government should be run likewise changes (Kloppenberg 279-284). In the 20th century United States, the progressivists indicated that the government was out of step with the society that it was governing. The Progressive Era in the United States was an approximately 30 year-long period in which progressivist beliefs and reforms gained enormous popularity. Disillusioned by the superficial prosperity of the Gilded Age, progressive intellectuals and politicians endeavored to achieve the truth of what works. In practice, this meant compromise as a matter of principle. Part of the Progressive Era was President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s Bull Moose platform for social justice exemplified this kind of emphasis on the need for a social progressivism—that what is now true is that the government should play a role in easing economic and social disadvantages for specific Americans. The Bull Moose platform was precedent for Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal policies in the 1930s in response to the economic devastation of the Great Depression (Kloppenberg 182). Progressive ideas did not begin with the policies of the 1930s and 1960s, but instead existed in American politics as a paradigm many years before. The New Deal was progressivism in action. Today, the “New Deal” refers to economic programs implemented by the Roosevelt administration between 1933 and 1936 to offer recovery, relief, and reform in the midst of the Great Depression. Much of the relief aspect was focused on the poor and unemployed, making sure that they received benefits for their unemployment and the potential to be put to work. The recovery aspect merely meant that the government would take steps to improve the economy to once again return to normal levels. The reform aspect reflected the progressive belief that the government required reform in order to prevent another economic collapse like that experienced in 1929. This signified that the government would have a role in balancing (or regulating) levels of labor, farming, and commerce in the United States to a more significant degree. Only by implementing these greater controls, they reasoned, would the economy recover and remain stable. A strengthening of the federal government in terms of economic controls is consistent with progressivist beliefs because progressivism, as a political philosophy, is not founded upon principles, only an evolving perception of what a society requires from its government. Franklin Roosevelt, who championed the New Deal, is a definite representative of progressivism in action. He declared in his nomination address, “But while they prate of economic laws, men and women are starving. We must lay hold of the fact that economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings” (Roosevelt, Roosevelts Nomination Address). Based on that statement, one can definitely see how Roosevelt perceived economic laws and regulations as flexible, not based on principle but on practice. Roosevelt endeavored (and succeeded) through the New Deal to change economic laws in order to reflect the society in which Americans found themselves in the 1930s. In the case of the New Deal, the progressive laws ultimately benefited the masses, who found themselves benefiting from a larger, more regulatory federal government. Like the New Deal, the War on Poverty was a series of legislation by the federal government and not merely the act of one President or one Congress. However, it found a champion in Lyndon Baines Johnson, who declared the “War” in his State of the Union Address in 1964. The measures he signed into law were meant to address a 19% poverty rate in the United States, as well as the mainstream portrayal of poor Americans in the media. The War on Poverty was part of a broader measure of acts known as the “Great Society”, which Johnson promised would help alleviate poverty and eliminate racial injustice. In many ways, the Great Society was a continuation of New Deal progressivism. It was aimed at continuing the new picture of what a society needs in its government, which took its origins all the way back to the Progressive Era and Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose platform. In addition, like the New Deal, Johnson worked to relieve, recover, and reform the relationship between the government and the economy. From the philosophical perspective of pragmatism, it remained a true doctrine that the government has a responsibility to ease economic hardship for its citizens as a matter of right. Although Johnson falls outside the commonly recognized time span of the Progressive Era, he was very much a part of that tradition and a recipient of its influence. Johnson said, “I am concerned about the whole man. I am concerned about what the people, using their government as an instrument and a tool, can do toward building the whole man, which will mean a better society and a better world” (Edwards). In this passage, Johnson is saying that a government is useful as an instrument toward some greater good, which is a thoroughly progressive belief in that our conception of what a government can do to make a better person is constantly changing and, as that view of a better person changes, so does the function of a government. Reforms follow logically from what progressives believe is right for a human being. Johnson fit into this mold during his Presidency by offering the Great Society: a picture of a better people and world. Regardless of their philosophical foundations, there were significant differences between the War on Poverty and the New Deal. Franklin Roosevelt recognized the central role that education plays in the collective success of a country, which led to significant educational reforms during the New Deal era. For instance, the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administrations received grants to employ teachers, offer courses, and to construct schools. Roosevelt himself once said, “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education” (Roosevelt, Education Week Message). Accordingly, the New Deal instituted widespread educational reforms that model political progressivism in the classroom in what is known as educational progressivism, which is based on the view that what is true is what works. By reforming the government to take into account education on a mass scale, progressivism upholds the value of the public and its thoughts and feelings. All of these considerations have centered on the intellectual and political climate in which progressive policies have been instituted by the federal government. However, whether they worked or not in achieving their intended purposes is a different story. In terms of relief and recovery in the short-term, unemployment decreased from 25.2% in 1933 to 13.9% in 1940; exports increased from $1.67 billion in 1933 to $4.02 billion in 1940; and industrial production nearly doubled during that time span (Mitchell 446). In purely statistical terms, it seems the New Deal economic policies worked to relieve the hardships facing Americans during the 1930s. However, it is entirely possible that the Great Depression actual persisted longer than it would have without New Deal economics. Unemployment, for instance, might have been lower than 13.9% in 1940 if social security, unemployment benefits, and work relief were not mandated during this period. In terms of long-term success, the New Deal policies are more symbolic than quantifiable. Today, when someone calls for a “new deal”, it is typically in reference to the need for widespread change to some aspect of public policy. During the era of the Johnson Administration Great Society, this concept of a new deal carried forth in terms of the need for a large-scale progressive reworking of the way government works, based on the perceived level of poverty and unemployment. Johnson’s Great Society, like Roosevelt’s New Deal, had a tremendous amount of short-term success. From 1964 to 1973, poverty rates in the United States dropped from 17.3% to 11.1% (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Lee). For such a minor period, this seems to be an astounding success. However, the poverty level had already begun to drop from 22.4% to 17.3% from 1959 to 1964, which meant the War on Poverty was simply a label put onto a phenomenon that was occurring even before the Great Society intervention. The War on Poverty was inspired by progressivist thinking, but the drop in poverty during that era cannot be ascribed to the success of progressivism in practice. Although neither the New Deal nor the War on Poverty were tremendous successes in the long-term (or conclusively in the short-term), they have still made tremendous economic effects on the American economy. For progressives, these policies have led to tremendous reforms in how the federal government operates and the emphasis it places on helping individuals in economic need (Kloppenberg). Johnson’s philosophy of addressing the whole man and using government as a tool, as well as Roosevelt’s belief in the value of an education provided presumably by the government, are all part of the same underlying philosophy that in turn inspired and pushed forward the policy initiatives they led. In terms of propagating and institutionalizing progressivist beliefs, both the New Deal and the War on Poverty have been tremendously successful. It is no coincidence that these progressive policies have resulted in the kinds of populist philosophy (and corresponding discourse). Indeed, the Populist Party in America emerged in the 1890s, at the beginning of the Progressive Era. Progressive reforms tend to focus on the disadvantaged or those who are being victimized in some way by society. That was, after all, the original intent of the Progressive Era: to cast aside the superficialities of the Gilded Age in favor of genuine progress. However, progressivism never specified what this progress was toward in the end, because it was simply an expression of the desire to implement “what works”. Populism came to be the expression of what all this progress was toward. Populism, the belief that the masses or the voting public is important, became not only the recipients of the benefits derived by government reforms like Social Security and Medicaid, but also the driving force behind those benefits. 64.3 million Americans receive entitlement payments from the federal government, which is a long-term effect of progressive and populist philosophies applied through the Great Society and the New Deal (Beach and Tyrrell). Progressivism is inextricably linked to populism because the latter is the inevitable result of the former. In a democracy, the popular vote determines what a government is actually used for. In the case of Lyndon Johnson, the public declared that they wanted the government to focus on the whole man; in the case of Franklin Roosevelt, the public declared that they wanted economic relief from the government. Progressivism is inevitably at the hands of the popular vote because it is the political form of pragmatism, which holds that whatever works best is the truth. When the public benefits from progressive reforms that are championed by populist politicians, there can be no separation of the two philosophies. However, whether these benefits are short- or long-term or whether economic policies actually work, depends on the economic realities that Franklin Roosevelt dismissed when he dismissed natural economic laws. Works Cited Beach, William and Patrick Tyrrell. The 2010 Index of Dependence on Government. 14 October 2010. 27 August 2011 . DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor and Cheryl Hill Lee. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005. Washington D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. Edwards, Jonathan Hayes. From Truman to the 21st Century: Observations of a Baby Boomer. New York: iUniverse, 2011. Kloppenberg, James T. Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870-1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Mitchell, Broadus. Depression Decade: From New Era through New Deal. New York: M.E. Sharp, 1947. Nugent, Walter. Progressivism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. "Education Week Message." 27 September 1938. Roosevelts Nomination Address. Perf. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Democratic National Convention of 1932, Chicago, IL. 2 July 1932. Smith, Daniel A. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York: Routledge, 1998. Read More