The New Deal was a controversial set of policy, to put it lightly, with opponents on both the right and the left. The Right was generally opposed to the New Deal, seeing it as a route to Socialism and Communism, as said in the famous letter to Senator Robert Wagner on 07 March 1934.
"It seems very apparent to me that the Administration at Washington is accelerating it's [sic] pace towards socialism and communism. Nearly every public statement from Washington is against the stimulation of business which would in the end create employment. Everyone is sympathetic to the cause of creating more jobs and better wages for labor; but, a program continually promoting labor troubles, higher wages, shorter hours and less profits for business, would seem to be to be leading us fast to a condition where the Government must more and more expand it's relief activities and will lea in the end to disaster to all classes. "
Here we see a conservative speaker who adheres to the old ways of trickle-down theory; supply-side economics. He believes that the only way to help the people is by helping business. He also fears socialism and communism in the wake of the first Red Scare of the 1920s. Perhaps more interesting though, is not the reactionary fears of the Right that while not outlandish proved unfounded, but the opposition on the Left. Put simply, leftists thought the New Deal was not doing enough. They generally voted in favor of the New Deal, but their lack of total concurrence provides an interesting look at the changing perception among the American people, with leftists outnumbering conservatives overwhelmingly. The following is from a famous speech by prominent Senator Huey Long, who calls for a society with the motto "Every Man a King."
"Now, we have an organized society, and we call it share our wealth society, a society with the motto 'Every man a king.
Every man a king, so that there would be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipsi dixit of the financial martyrs for a living. What do we propose by this society? We propose to limit the wealth of big men in the country. There is an average of $15,000 in wealth to every family in America. That is right here today.
We do not propose to divide it up equally. We do not propose a division of wealth, but we propose to limit poverty that we will allow to be inflicted upon and man's family. We ill not say we are going to try to guarantee equality...Not but we do say that one third of the average is now enough for any one family to hold, that there should be a guaranty of family wealth of around $5,000; enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences, and the opportunity to educate their children; a fair share of the income of this land thereafter to that family so there will be no such thing as merely the select to have those things, and so there will be no such thing as a family living in poverty and distress.
We have to limit fortunes. Our present plan is that we allow no man to own more than $50 million. We think that with that limit we will be able to carry out the balance of the program."
Long proposes an old age pension, Government oversight of agriculture to prevent surplus, a limit to hours of work and overproduction. He closes his broadcast with the following condemnation of the ineffectual New Deal.
"Every man to eat when there is something to eat; all to wear something when there is something to wear. That makes us all
sovereign.
You cannot solve these things through these various and sundry alphabetical codes. You can have the N.R.A. and P.W.A. and
C.W.A. and the U.U.G. and G.I.N. and any other kind of "dad-gummed" lettered code. You can wait until doomsday and see 25 more alphabets, but that is not going to solve this proposition. Why hide? Why quibble? You know what the
trouble is. The man that says he does not know what the trouble is just hiding his face to keep from seeing the sunlight.
God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is.
We had these great incomes in this country; but the farmer, who plowed from sunup to sundown, who labored here from sunup to sundown for 6 days a week, wound up at the end of the with practically nothing.
And we ought to take care of the veterans of the wars in this program. That is a small matter. Suppose it does cost a billion dollars a year -- that means that the money will be scattered throughout this country. We ought to pay them a bonus. We can do it. We ought to take care of every single one of the sick and disabled veterans. I do not care whether a man got sick on the battlefield or did not; every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitled to be taken care of, and there is money enough to do it; and we need to spread the wealth of the country, which you did not do in what you call the N.R.A. If the N.R.A. has done any good, I can put it all in my eye without having it hurt. All I can see that N.R.A. has done is to put the little man out of business -- the little merchant in his store, the little Dago that is running a fruit stand, or the Greek shoe-shining stand, who has to take hold of a code of 275 pages and study with a spirit level and compass and looking-glass; he has to hire a Philadelphia lawyer to tell him what is in the code; and by the time he learns what the code is, he is in jail or out of business; and they have got a chain code system that has already put him out of business. The N.R.A. is not worth anything, and I said so when they put it through. Now, my friends, we have got to hit the root with the axe. Centralized power in the hands of a few, with centralized credit in the hands of a few, is the trouble."
Long is not a fringe politician, nor is he a socialist or communist. His view reflects the kind of aggressive support the American people, after years of poverty, had for government aid. They felt betrayed by business, and turned to the government for help. They demanded radical reform.
"It seems very apparent to me that the Administration at Washington is accelerating it's [sic] pace towards socialism and communism. Nearly every public statement from Washington is against the stimulation of business which would in the end create employment. Everyone is sympathetic to the cause of creating more jobs and better wages for labor; but, a program continually promoting labor troubles, higher wages, shorter hours and less profits for business, would seem to be to be leading us fast to a condition where the Government must more and more expand it's relief activities and will lea in the end to disaster to all classes. "
Here we see a conservative speaker who adheres to the old ways of trickle-down theory; supply-side economics. He believes that the only way to help the people is by helping business. He also fears socialism and communism in the wake of the first Red Scare of the 1920s. Perhaps more interesting though, is not the reactionary fears of the Right that while not outlandish proved unfounded, but the opposition on the Left. Put simply, leftists thought the New Deal was not doing enough. They generally voted in favor of the New Deal, but their lack of total concurrence provides an interesting look at the changing perception among the American people, with leftists outnumbering conservatives overwhelmingly. The following is from a famous speech by prominent Senator Huey Long, who calls for a society with the motto "Every Man a King."
"Now, we have an organized society, and we call it share our wealth society, a society with the motto 'Every man a king.
Every man a king, so that there would be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipsi dixit of the financial martyrs for a living. What do we propose by this society? We propose to limit the wealth of big men in the country. There is an average of $15,000 in wealth to every family in America. That is right here today.
We do not propose to divide it up equally. We do not propose a division of wealth, but we propose to limit poverty that we will allow to be inflicted upon and man's family. We ill not say we are going to try to guarantee equality...Not but we do say that one third of the average is now enough for any one family to hold, that there should be a guaranty of family wealth of around $5,000; enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences, and the opportunity to educate their children; a fair share of the income of this land thereafter to that family so there will be no such thing as merely the select to have those things, and so there will be no such thing as a family living in poverty and distress.
We have to limit fortunes. Our present plan is that we allow no man to own more than $50 million. We think that with that limit we will be able to carry out the balance of the program."
Long proposes an old age pension, Government oversight of agriculture to prevent surplus, a limit to hours of work and overproduction. He closes his broadcast with the following condemnation of the ineffectual New Deal.
"Every man to eat when there is something to eat; all to wear something when there is something to wear. That makes us all
sovereign.
You cannot solve these things through these various and sundry alphabetical codes. You can have the N.R.A. and P.W.A. and
C.W.A. and the U.U.G. and G.I.N. and any other kind of "dad-gummed" lettered code. You can wait until doomsday and see 25 more alphabets, but that is not going to solve this proposition. Why hide? Why quibble? You know what the
trouble is. The man that says he does not know what the trouble is just hiding his face to keep from seeing the sunlight.
God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is.
We had these great incomes in this country; but the farmer, who plowed from sunup to sundown, who labored here from sunup to sundown for 6 days a week, wound up at the end of the with practically nothing.
And we ought to take care of the veterans of the wars in this program. That is a small matter. Suppose it does cost a billion dollars a year -- that means that the money will be scattered throughout this country. We ought to pay them a bonus. We can do it. We ought to take care of every single one of the sick and disabled veterans. I do not care whether a man got sick on the battlefield or did not; every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitled to be taken care of, and there is money enough to do it; and we need to spread the wealth of the country, which you did not do in what you call the N.R.A. If the N.R.A. has done any good, I can put it all in my eye without having it hurt. All I can see that N.R.A. has done is to put the little man out of business -- the little merchant in his store, the little Dago that is running a fruit stand, or the Greek shoe-shining stand, who has to take hold of a code of 275 pages and study with a spirit level and compass and looking-glass; he has to hire a Philadelphia lawyer to tell him what is in the code; and by the time he learns what the code is, he is in jail or out of business; and they have got a chain code system that has already put him out of business. The N.R.A. is not worth anything, and I said so when they put it through. Now, my friends, we have got to hit the root with the axe. Centralized power in the hands of a few, with centralized credit in the hands of a few, is the trouble."
Long is not a fringe politician, nor is he a socialist or communist. His view reflects the kind of aggressive support the American people, after years of poverty, had for government aid. They felt betrayed by business, and turned to the government for help. They demanded radical reform.