Paul K. Conklin - The New Deal: 3rd (third) Edition - Book Report/Review Example

Paul K. Conkins. The New Deal (3rd ed). Wheeling, ILL: Harlan Davidson, Inc. 1992 Bibliographical Information Paul K. Conkin. The New Deal (3rd ed). Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc. 1992. Author’s Thesis Paul Conkin majorly seeks to poke holes in Roosevelt administrations New Deal policies. He delves into Roosevelt’s perceived weaknesses in both his private life and political life, and thinks most of the policies that were contained in the New Deal were not economically just, and blames it all on Roosevelt. The resounding message is that Roosevelt was incompetent on economic matters and knew nothing other than politics. Author’s argument The New deal may sound like any other phrase, but to an American and history enthusiasts from other parts of the world, it encompasses several domestic programs that were enacted in the US in the wake of the Great Depression. The programs included pieces of legislation passed by the congress at the time, and the then President Frank D. Roosevelt’s executive orders that were aimed at restoring the American economy that had been heavily devastated by the Great Depression1. Paul Keith Conkin’s The New Deal, other similar titles authored by Richard Hofstadter and William Leuchtenburg all give critical accounts on some of the important decisions that were made to resurrect the American economy. The book starts by telling the origin of the New Deal. A today’s American history reader will definitely want to know who exactly was behind the New deal. The New deal was purely a President Franklin Delano Roosevelt personal enterprise. A whole chapter gives a vivid description of who exactly Roosevelt was. It is useful for a person reading about the Great Depression because they have the opportunity to know a few things about Roosevelt that may have either led to the Great Depression, and how his administration strived to turn things around. Roosevelt is depicted as a reckless person2. This is manifested by some of the weird things he ever did at different points of his life before he was elected the president of the US, such as marrying his first cousin Eleanor. On the flipside, the book describes Roosevelt as a person who instilled courage, was fearless, free of doubt and intellectually exuded confidence. Additionally, he was firm with his decisions. Knowing all that about Roosevelt, one easily understands that it was much of a gamble to entrust him with the country’s leadership with the hope that he would rescue it from the economic turmoil. Paul Conkin chooses to look at the New Deal policies from a much more professional angle. Almost throughout the book, the author argues that none of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies could be backed by any known economic theory. He recognizes the fact that the Great Depression may have struck during Herbert Hoover’s presidency, but insists that much more damage to the economy happened after Roosevelt took over. He describes Roosevelt as a person whose only profession was politics, and who depended almost entirely on his circle of advisers3. Roosevelt relied heavily on his ability to persuade the masses, and that always covered up for his serious policy blunders and kept them away from the attention of many. Most of the decisions in the New Deal were not economically justifiable; the decade-long road to recovery saliently sacrificed a lot of other economic growth factors. The book is generally critical of Roosevelt and his policies. The author does not seem to give any credit to Roosevelt for America’s recovery from the Great Depression. He only pokes holes in the New Deal policies. The research sources that the author cites The author relies mostly on books that tell the history of Roosevelt such as Roosevelt: The lion and the fox (1965), and Roosevelt: The soldier of Freedom (1970), both by James Burns and published by the New York-based Harcourt Publishers. These were the primary sources. There are numerous secondary sources such as Frank Friedel’s three volume biography of Roosevelt that was published between 1952 and 1956. Reviewer’s evaluation of the thesis, argument, evidence and importance of the book In my opinion, wish to disagree sharply with Conkin because I find his arguments rather based upon his dislike for Roosevelt than on objective criticism. A keen reader will notice that from the start to the end of the story, there are a lot of virulent attacks on the person of Roosevelt, starting from when he was a young boy going to school, his marriage to Eleanor, polio, political life and more. If the author wanted to look objective, he would have looked at the New Deal without having to drag Roosevelt’s personal life into it. Paul Conkin sounds like a person who had never really admired the person of Roosevelt, and a Roosevelt’s sworn hater who just refuses to associate Roosevelt with success. One wonders, how real was it that an incompetent leader (as Conkin wants to make us believe Roosevelt was) could help America out of the debilitating effects of the Great Depression? Even if Roosevelt was indeed an incompetent leader who knew nothing other than politics, he must have been surrounded great thinkers who made him the president in whose administration America was to recover from the Great Depression. Some sections of the book suggest that Roosevelt had made people believe that economic recovery would happen immediately. On that basis, the author makes it look like full recovery should have happened in a period shorter than the nearly five years that it took Roosevelt’s administration. The author’s intention is to create the impression that five years was too long a period, but fails to define ‘immediate’ as was implied in Roosevelt’s ‘immediate recovery’ pledge. In my opinion, full recovery from Great Depression would have taken a different president a longer time span than the five years it took Roosevelt. The author’s opinion is watered down by the manifest subjectivity all through the text. In conclusion, I would want to look at Conkin’s account vis-à-vis those of Hofstadter and Leuchtenburg. Whereas Conkin fails to give specifics on how Roosevelt didn’t get a lot of the things right insofar as American economic recovery in the wake of Great Depression is concerned, Hofstadter and Leuchtenburg both try to highlight the reforms. Hofstadter and Conkin both agree on a few things about Roosevelt though; Conkin says Roosevelt knew nothing other than politics, and Hofstadter says Roosevelt was a professional politician. Conkin talks about Roosevelt’s incompetency in economic matters, and Hofstadter says that Roosevelt’s budgeting style did not agree with Keynesian economics4. The biggest difference between the three authors is that whereas Leuchtenburg give clean accounts on the New Deal devoid of virulent attacks on the personality of Roosevelt, Conkin dwells so much on Roosevelt’s past life and uses them to judge his ability to help America out of the economic turmoil. Objectivity therefore lacks in his account of The New Deal. He talks a lot about Roosevelt’s private life and his life as a politician in a manner that doesn’t portray any civility, and that is where his account disagrees with those of Hofstadter and Leuchtenburg. Hofstadter recognizes that Roosevelt’s measures were necessary experiments because the existing policies at the time could not help America move out of the extraordinary situation that The Great Depression had put plunged it into. This is the opposite of what Conkin says; that The New Deal entailed a lot of economic sacrifices that had a decade-worth American economic gains5. Accounts of Hofstadter and Leuchtenburg share so much in common. Conkin’s account borrows not so much from those of the ther two authors. His is a newer perspective in so many ways, especially in the approach he gives it. He is largely subjective and virulent, whereas Hofstadter and Leuchtenburg are subjective and civil. Read More