Changes in American Government of the 20th Century - Literature review Example

In his book, Native Americans in the 20th Century, James Stuart Olson casts an incredibly revealing light on the reforms that took place following the 1933 inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt at the White House. During this time John Collier served as a senate investigator, a position that furnished him the fine opportunity to explore and observe the deplorable conditions that presently prevailed. When Roosevelt appointed Harold L. Ickes, a political liberal, as his United States Secretary of the Interior, Ickes specified to both Roosevelt and the US Senate that one of his personal requirements was the appointment of Collier to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. As a result of his determination, Collier soon gained the respect and admiration of Roosevelt and Ickes. While making changes in their government policies, (Olson 1986, 108) both men were open to the incorporation and implementation of new and unconventional ideas of possible reform. Because of their steadfast faith in him, Collier was given permission to change or modify government policies during the Depression. Collier initiated the Indian New Deal, which was a revolutionary approach to the reformation of Native American Indians. As a staunch believer in cultural pluralism, he understood the importance of ethnic values and community solidarity. Such principles led Collier to adopt an acculturated approach in assimilating the Native Americans into the mainstream of society. Olson clearly describes the manner in which Collier attacked the Indian problem and his success in assimilating the Native Americans into a dominant society. In this enlightening book, he reveals how, even though greeted with a multitude of opposition from American critics, Collier firmly believed in his goals and sought to fulfill them at any cost. As the prior allotment program was a major social and economic disaster, he then set out to reconstitute the tribes and enhance their traditional land base. Not satisfied to deal solely with reform work, Collier went a step further and convinced President Roosevelt to abolish the Board of Indian Commissioners on the basis that it was a huge obstacle in the wake of reform. (Olson 2006, 109) Collier, wanting the Native Americans to play a more active role in their decision making, provided them with specialized training for the management of their land and natural resources. He also insisted that the United States Federal Government should not, in the name of assimilation, suppress the culture and tradition of the Native Americans but should foster the preservation of their distinctive nativity. Olson’s book also conveys that, with the full support of President Roosevelt, Collier was in a position to bring about extra reforms involving relief measures for the Native Americans. The Congress passed the Pueblo Relief Act on May, 31, 1933, granting additional payment to the Native Americans, who had been inadequately paid by the Pueblo Lands Board. (Olson 1986, 110) He also implemented the New Deal legislation, giving relief to the destitute Native Americans who suffered greatly during the Great Depression. (Olson 1986, 110) Olson‘s book is a real eye opener, which assists in understanding the post 1933, political climate and the reforms that developed following the Great Depression. In their article, “How Government Prolonged the Depression,” Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian shed light on the reforms introduced by the Federal government in lieu of putting an end to the crisis of the Great Depression. In addressing this crisis, the New Deal was introduced and raised hopes that the economic downturn would change its course and work out in their favor. According to this article, the primary aim of the New Deal initiative was to encourage Americans to get back to work. However, according to Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, this did not happen for the mere fact that employment was not restored. On the average, there was much less work available than years before. This situation had a great impact on the per capita consumption which remained about 25% below the trend level throughout the New Deal initiative. In the opinion of Harold L. Cole and Lee E Ohanian, the Great Depression continued to have a residual impact long after FDR came into office. Their article offers many examples to prove the validity of their statement. From their view of the New Deal, they believed that the economic situation was actually quite favorable and productive in many respects. For example, after 1933, productivity increased to a great extent and prices of commodities became stable while liquidity was aplenty. In the face of such growth in productivity, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping concluded that the economy should have been stabilized and normalized by 1935. However, for many reasons, this did not occur. Although many New Deal policies, such as Social Security, financial stability, and unemployment benefits, promoted the existing economy, the basic economic principles continued to be violated by those who brought about market policies such as suppressing healthy competition and raising prices above the normal level. The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA),one of the most damaging policies because it put aside the antitrust acts of the nation and granted permission to industries to increase their prices, provided they share their monopoly rents with the workers by increasing their wages much higher than their productivity growth. With an aim to snuff out excessive competition, the NIRA stretched its tentacles to over 500 industries ranging from steel, hosiery, autos and poultry production. The article by Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian furthermore describes how codes of conduct brought about a distortion in the economy by the increased prices and wages, which restricted output and eventually reduced the capacity of production. Despite the fact that the increased wages did benefit a fortunate few, such as those who had jobs in NIRA companies, it shrunk employment and productive initiatives in the long run. In the big picture, the costs in of high wages exceeded the growth in productivity. The importance of this article is the recognition of the negative consequences that certain reforms or policies can have a on a country’s economy. In his article, American Regionalism and the United Nations, Carlos Gibson discusses the Monroe Doctrine as an originally intended, unilateral policy of the United States, initiated to safeguard America from European encroachment such as Great Britain and France. The Monroe Doctrine was created to uphold the values of freedom, democracy and peace reflected in the progress of humankind. However, as times changed, the Monroe Doctrine began to hold conflicting meanings for different people. As a result of this misinterpretation, both Great Britain and France went on a campaign to gain economic control over the poorer nations by lending money with the knowledge that they would not have the resources to pay it back. According to Gibson, after the Pan American Union was formed by the American Congress at the end of the 19th century, American regionalism had become institutionalized. Ever since this shift occurred, the very concept of American regionalism became distorted, paving the way for a unilateral enforcement policy by America, which at that time was under the leadership of President Wilson. President F.D. Roosevelt, however, did not find this policy favorable and introduced a policy called the Good Neighbor Policy, by which the United States would build a good and healthy relationship with other neighboring countries and states. This policy, guided by Sumner Welles’ efforts to initiate and establish regionalism in America based on equal partnership, was well accepted. One of the positive outcomes of this policy resulted in the United States and Latin America joining together in a partnership within the Charter of the United Nations. This joint venture had the goal of maintaining and following the principles of regionalism, in spite of the opposition received from various quarters. In global terms, regionalism is not only a vital importance but also an indispensable tool for uniting a world with an increasing population and progressive flowering of science and technology in the world. The Good Neighbor Policy, initiated by the President Franklin D. Roosevelt, contained the chief, underlying principle that America would conduct itself as a good neighbor and engage in reciprocal exchanges with Latin American countries. (Rabe 2006) In lieu of this policy, America adopted attitudes of noninterference and nonintervention in Latin America’s domestic affairs. The implementation of this foreign policy resulted in the U.S Marines withdrawing from Nicaragua and Haiti in 1934, the nationalization of Mexico’s foreign assets involving the oil industry, and the Platt Amendment annulment in 1938. Roosevelt assumed that the Good Neighbor Policy would create and usher in a lot of economic opportunities through two way trade agreements, thereby reasserting America’s influence in Latin America. Bibliography Cole, L. Harold, and Lee E. Ohanian. “How the Government Prolonged the Depression.” The Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2009. http://www.online.wsj.com. /article/ SB12 3353276749137485.html. Gibson, Carlos. “American Regionalism and the United Nations.” The Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science. (1965). Olson, James Stuart, and Wilson Raymond, 1986 Native Americans in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1986. Rabe, Stephen G. “(2006), The Johnson Doctrine.” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, no. 1(2006): 48-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2006.00286.x. (accessed February 21, 2009). Read More