Historians disagree sharply in assessing the New Deal. We have taken the view, shared by many liberal historians, that the New Deal was not radical or socialistic but fell within the American political tradition of pragmatic reform. Historians of the New Left, a group of radical scholars writing in the 1960s, criticized the New Deal for being too conservative and thus failing to aid those most in need—sharecroppers, for example. Instead, they say, the New Deal preserved the worst of corporate and industrial capitalism.

Other scholars have defended the New Deal, noting the obstacles faced by reformers. Some stress the absence of "state capacity," a bureaucracy of necessary size and expertise to carry out the New Deal's massive programs. Still others point out that New Dealers themselves were often skeptical of growing deficits, expanding governments, and mounting welfare initiatives.

1			Most Americans generally perceive the New Deal as an economic plan, but it also intervened in a number of other areas of American life. Read this essay on New Deal Cultural Programs--did these programs constitute radical steps for the federal government or were they moderate and pragmatic responses to the crises of the Depression? Do these two options need to be mutually exclusive? http://www.wwcd.org/policy/US/newdeal.html Now read this article that perceives the New Deal as a failure. Why does he think so? Do you find his evidence and arguments persuasive? As with many of our previous documents, we need to consider the inherent ideological agenda of the author. Why might contemporary politicians and economists exhibit strong opinions in their evaluation of the New Deal? http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n4/powell.pdf