Talk:New Deal

Long

Maybe it's just me, but this article feels very long to read. It's a complicated and complex topic, but there is no need to tell the story in one giant article. --Buffaboy ^talk 05:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: Agreed. This is 200k and 14,000 words long. I would like to cut this down to 10,000. Maybe the historiography section can be spun off. Considering my options. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep the historiography--it's essential for students writing term papers. Better = spin off WW2, which is usually NOT included in major surveys of New Deal Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Unfortunately, while you wrote this, I was in the midst of spinning off the 'historiography and evaluation of New Deal policies' section. It now has a new article, here. Can always G7. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

For serious users the historiography section is the most useful -it tells what historians think about it. Casual readers will ignore it. Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So does it deserve an article of its own? It's some 5,200 words of this 14,000 page. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 17:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I am assuming that readers will read the sections that interest them. I can't imagine many people reading all the paragraphs. So no I do not think it is "too long." But I did cut out sections that had little to sday about the New Deal (eg court packing) and are better covered elsewhere. Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

May what we can split off is the economics section -- only people with advanced work in economics will be interested. Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Moved to my userspace if needed for further use. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The New Deal was mostly an economic programm. Moving only the economic part of the evaluation doesn´t feel right. If necessary the whole evaluation should be moved into an a new article. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Farm and rural programs", "Works of Art and Music" and "World War II and full employment" can be trimmed or preferably moved to a new article. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

JUST A QUICK QUESTION. HOW DID THIS NEW SET OF IDEOLOGIES HELP MINORITIES DURING THIS TIME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culmitch (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

In the article New Deal, the majority of the information in this article was relevant to the article topic and did not distract from the main point. For example, the article talks about the origins of the New Deal and how the New Deal was implemented. The article even evaluates all the New Deal policies Also, the article talked about the end goal of the New Deal and how that goal was going to be accomplished. Rather that being distracting the article draws the readers attention by talking about every aspect the New Deal had to offer.

Lokeo122 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Lokeo122

I believe this is an expertly crafted article that does not deviate from the main points at all. The sources are accurate and well documented and the information is presented in a thought out, factual manner. RML5989 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is incredibly well written and stays focused on the main points of the New Deal. Giving examples in each point, and expressing its meaning. This article has strong head sections, reliable sources, and is very well structured. RyanPresleyLong (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Did the New Deal have a left wing?

over in another article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States&oldid=831354747 states USER:Malik Shabazz on 20 March 2018 stated, "outside of John Birch Society members, I think it's hard to find anybody who would describe any part of the New Deal as "left-wing". I disagree. Lots of historians argue the New Deal had a left wing, typically locating its base in New York City, the Federal Writers Project, the CIO, urban blacks etc. Here is some evidence: 1) Steve Fraser, Gary Gerstle (1989): the closing off in the 1940s of a social democratic initiative that the left wing of the New Deal and progressive elements of the labor movement had nurtured since the mid--1930s. 2) Thomas Doherty - 2013 The gesture was classic FDR, showing sympathy for the [Spanish] Republican cause, shoring up his left wing, and not lifting a finger for tangible help. 3) David Stebenne, in US NEWS Feb 2016: Re Dem party candidate debate: To Bernie Sanders, “progressive” evokes the spirit of the left wing of the New Deal coalition. 4) Karen Ferguson, "Black Politics in New Deal Atlanta" (2003): teachers, economists, and lawyers, and most of them under forty-five years of age, this group of "social engineers," as some of them described themselves, became a crucial element in the New Deal's progressive left wing, which sought to overturn the South's extreme racial and class exploitation. ... Members of the Washington DC 'black cabinet' were the best known of this group. 5) Henry L. Feingold, "Zion in America: The Jewish Experience from Colonial Times to the present" (2013): It was the welfare-state aspect of the New Deal, rather than Roosevelt's foreign policy, which attracted the Jewish voter. The war and the holocaust tended to reinforce the left-wing political sentiments of many Jewish voters. 6) Julia L. Mickenberg (2006) in the words of Ellen Schrecker, as “the unofficial left wing of the New Deal,” with supporters of the party active in labor organizations, artist groups, reform movements, and the New Deal administration itself. 7) Jerrold Hirsch - 2004 on Federal Writers Project: New Dealers and other left-wing groups welcomed an alliance of all liberals and leftists. 8) Hirano, and Snyder "Journal of Politics" Feb 2007: the Democratic Party co-opted the left-wing policy position beginning with the passage of the New Deal agenda. 9) Robinson and Eisenstadt, "Prospects". Jan1997: In 1940 Ralph Bunche interviewed Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black about Southern race relations as part of research for the Carnegie Corporation. The two men were both on the left wing of the New Deal, were suspicious of capitalism, and skeptical of the legal system's ability to bring about social change. 10) "A Companion to Franklin D. Roosevelt" (2011): Hillman led in organizing the CIO Political Action Committee (CIO-PAC). With the participation of activists from left-wing unions, which had returned to a pro-FDR stance, the CIO-PAC played a critical role in In mobilizing the working-class vote for Roosevelt [in 1944]. Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It was progressive, but there are both right and left wing progressives. Note that one of your sources says "the left wing of the New Deal" indicating that there were other wings that were not "left." If you can find a source that contrasts those different wings that advocated for the New Deal that might be worth stating in the article. Hardyplants (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Austrian School interpretation:

This section is mostly about the causes before the New Deal began. Robbins for example explicitly stated it was too early to evaluate the New Deal. The rest is focused on hypothetical unemployment rates (what they would be IF the New Deal never happened and IF business did things it did not do) and is a fringe view that ignores the actual very high GDP growth rates 1933 to 1940. Rjensen (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

History

The successes of Roosevelt new deal 41.246.30.193 (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)