Historians have portrayed various events or historical figures from ultimately different perspectives across the world. Franklin Delano Roosevelt for example, can be viewed in various ways, from being too ignorant, prideful, weak, or even inexperienced. Others may certainly view him as legendary, intelligent, and maybe even extremely courageous. The question, though, that poses significant discussion between historians is was Franklin Delano Roosevelt revolutionary? Did the ideological beliefs of governmental involvement in American lives change?
Historians such as Roy Jenkins, Douglas Brinkley, Jean Edward Smith, Nigel Hamilton, Alan Brinkley, and Frances Perkins show signs of significant disparity between their interpretations of Roosevelt.
…show more content…
For example, Frances Perkins in her book, “The Roosevelt I Knew” wrote about her understanding of a struggling FDR. Perkins gave insight on a relationship with Roosevelt that no other author on here could relate to. They were great friends, who in Perkins view changed her image of a president. As she stated once, “I have sat in those little parlors and on those porches myself during some of the speeches, and I have seen men and women gathered around the radio, with a pleasant happy feeling of association of friendship.” Perkins spoke of FDR’s courageousness, but also his willingness to try different things. In fact, Perkins viewed Roosevelt’s involvement in the ideology of laissez faire, revolutionary. FDR even prayed that his New Deal would work, as stated, “He said under his breath, “You’d better pray for me, Frances.” Overall, the theme of this book based its foundation on a relationship with Roosevelt that she admired wholeheartedly. Frances Perkins, though, raises some concern because of the mere fact that she was extremely close to Roosevelt. Our views, have a higher chance of being biased when it involves companions, not only that, but she was appointed to be Secretary of Labor under President Roosevelts administration. In fact, “Frances Perkins was the first female to serve in the U.S. presidential cabinet.” Her involvement in the New Deal policies and Social Security could explain her strong stance on viewing Roosevelt as revolutionary. Her association with the Democratic Party could create a differing interpretation from what a republican would have thought of FDR. Roy Jenkins in his book “Franklin Delano Roosevelt” takes a different path in explaining the evolvement of America. Jenkins is fascinated by Roosevelt’s profound involvement in everyday American lives. The ability Roosevelt had in taming the Medias immense power to use to his advantage was viewed by Jenkins as being monumental. Roosevelt through Jenkins eyes rallied a nation together in devastating times during the Great Depression and World War II, which created a different country. As he states, “The world we live in is still Franklin Roosevelt’s world, more fragmented yet with population doubled, weapons and communications revolutionized, dangerous in new ways, but essentially recognizable.” Overall, Jenkins praised Roosevelt, just as Perkins had in the revolutionary change when it came to government’s involvement in the economy. Basically, the policy of laissez-faire, which was changed by Roosevelt, was viewed by both historians as life-changing. In fact, Jenkins even praises Perkins, stating, “However, Perkins proved one of the most successful of Roosevelt’s choices, earning almost universal respect, remaining right to the end.” Roy Jenkins, though, shows differences that should be accounted for. He studied at the University of Oxford, but also a Britain native, which changes the perspective dramatically. He was also a part of the British Parliament, who tended to have various liberal views on issues. Just like Perkins, he was a Liberal Democrat. One quote that actually sums up Jenkins is as it states, “Jenkins’ vision was of a centrist party that would appeal to all sections of society and bring the country together.” In ways, Jenkins and Perkins have various similarities with one another because of the mere fact that they were both alive during the Great Depression and World War II. While Perkins lives in the U.S., Jenkins lived in Britain. It is apparent that both these authors’ interpretations of FDR view him as a president who revolutionized the system of government. While both lived during Roosevelt’s presidency, one huge difference is the dates they were written in. Frances Perkins completed her book in 1946, which may account for such a detailed description of Roosevelt, but Jenkins never in reality finished his book. Due to poor health, Jenkins died before ever completing his book and it was not finished until 2003 with the assistance of an old colleague named Richard E. Neustadt. Overall, the declining health of Roy Jenkins at the age of 83 could be a significant factor in determining its reliability. Alan Brinkley in his book “Franklin Delano Roosevelt” portrays Roosevelt as an artist who changed the face of America.
In his book, he covers the whole spectrum of Roosevelt’s life and how he came to be President of the United States. Brinkley understood the impact Roosevelt had not just on domestic policy, but as well as global. Brinkley went into more detail than previous authors by adding the fact that Roosevelt as well changed the American party system. Brinkley, though, did have one certain difference than the previous authors, and that was that he believed it may change the way citizens view the government. In better terms, people would come to depend more on the government than previously before. Brinkley, though, was critical on the fact that the New Deal was not as special as it was believed to be. He parted in a different direction than previous authors and stated, “It did not end Great Depression and the massive unemployment that accompanied it.” Brinkley’s argument, though, was that FDR did change the scope of government, but with it came consequences and benefits for the American …show more content…
people. The overall difference, though, is that Alan Brinkley was a child in the 1950s so he never really got the chance to live through his presidency, but he did live during the Cold War. Brinkley is an American History Professor who graduated from “Harvard University in 1979.” Overall, Professor Brinkley is very skilled in the ideology of liberalism and has won numerous awards on his specialization of the Great Depression and World War II. Alan Brinkley automatically distinguishes himself from Perkins and Jenkins, by being more analytical. The style of reasoning gives different positions on the positive effects and negative effects FDR created. FDR’s flaws were exploited in a way to understand the logic behind many of his decisions. Brinkley did view FDR as legendary, but wrote this book in a manner where the reader would determine on his own whether he was an extraordinary president. Douglas Brinkley, though, takes a different approach on explaining the reasons FDR was so revolutionary in his approach to major problems. Douglas uses Roosevelt’s experiences as a young boy receiving high expectations, to contracting polio, but also enduring the distant relationship between him and Eleanor Roosevelt, his wife. He views Roosevelt’s as a kind man whose ideas were shaped by the traumatic experiences he faced during his life. It was understood that when he contracted polio, Roosevelt felt the pain of some Americans, by feeling helpless in the face of a lack of social programs. Douglas indeed viewed Roosevelt as being different than previous presidents, but criticized his lack of regulation. The reason for this criticism was that while he created various programs, many of them were left unchecked causing more harm for future generations. As it states, “Although Roosevelt was an ecologically minded president, his conservatism legacy is marred by a few major blind spots.” One reason for this statement was because of the increased use of pesticides when it came to the environment that were extremely harmful not just to plants but to the soldiers that used this to repel insects. Douglas Brinkley is also a Professor who was born in 1960 in Atlanta Georgia. He received his PHD from Georgetown University who has written various books and taken part in magazines. He is also a part of CNN, but his various work on several topics in American History points to similarities with Alan Brinkley. Both these authors analyze the period in a different perspective from than Perkins and Jenkins had. The differences that are becoming more apparent are the different perspectives taken by authors who actually lived during Roosevelt’s Presidency and those that did not. Jean Edward Smith and Nigel Hamilton had similar perspectives from previous authors, for they centered on how Roosevelt did what was necessary, rather than being revolutionary.
Nigel Hamilton’s book “The Mantle of Command” focuses strongly on how FDR coped with the military struggles in World War II. Hamilton explains the decisions made by FDR, and why at time he was reluctant in making consequential decisions. Jean Edward Smith’s book “FDR” as well focuses on why Roosevelt did what he did. Smith explains throughout the book the pure necessity of some of these decisions, rather than the revolutionary change FDR was supposed to want to
create. Smith actually is Professor of Political Science and it could explain the reason for having a different approach in the book. Actually, Smith also lived throughout the period of the Great Depression and World War II, since he was born in 1932. Hamilton on the other hand was born in 1944, in Europe, while having a father who participated in the war during World War II. Certainly it is possible the influence of his father gave the book a detailed explanation of what occurred during the war. Overall, Nigel understood that the president never did what he wished he would have done, but was forced to face reality. As he states, “Nothing the President could say would stop Churchill from coming however.” Roosevelt as accounted by Hamilton during war did not do what was right, but was necessary to win the war even in the face of total destruction. In conclusion, many of these authors have had differentiating views on whether Roosevelt was revolutionary, but ultimately what must be understood is that today, the government is more involved in everyday American lives. Much of what occurs today during diplomacy in domestic of foreign affairs is attributed to FDR. It is because of the decisions Roosevelt made that propelled American to becoming the super power of the world. Whether he made the right or wrong decisions, in the end the Allies won the war, the Great Depression ended and America became once again the land of opportunity. As Jean Edward Smith once said, “He lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees.”
In his book, A New Deal for the American People, Roger Biles analyzes the programs of the New Deal in regards to their impact on the American society as a whole. He discusses the successes and failures of the New Deal policy, and highlights the role it played in the forming of American history. He claims that the New Deal reform preserved the foundation of American federalism and represented the second American Revolution. Biles argues that despite its little reforms and un-revolutionary programs, the New Deal formed a very limited system with the creation of four stabilizers that helped to prevent another depression and balance the economy.
Although Patrick J. Maney brings up some interesting arguments, his attempt to objectively assess FDR and knock him off his pedestal' fall short. He greatly intends to reduce the glorification the majority of the country shows towards FDR. However, with the implementation of too many of his own viewpoints and perspectives, the objectivity, and therefore his ability to sway my beliefs, was lost.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt takes office four years later with an understanding that he has to somehow reestablish the morale of the nation as a whole. The actions FDR takes to bring back economic prosperity all starts with “…an experiment in state building without precedent” (Gerstle 128). FDR knows that he needs to continue in the footsteps of what TR did and Gerstle even gives some notice to the amount he is actually able to authorize. The most prevalent is the government’s huge contribution to jumpstarting the American economy, since up to this point in time, the government tried to stay out of the regulation the economy; however, this forever will change that. Gerstle argues that FDR was successful and he supports his claim by giving a hypothetical speculation on if he was viewed as successful in the eyes of Theodore Roosevelt. Gerstle also relates FDR’s New Deal back to his thesis by saying how it “… shaped the civic nationalism of those years” (Gerstle 130). FDR, as well as TR, share a very important view point that Gerstle makes clear: they both have the same standpoint on racial hybridity. One of the most important parts of is how much influence TR’s New Nationalism had on FDR’s New Deal. This is a turning point in American history because it brings back the war mobilization of TR, since “FDR
In conclusion, Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were very different people who held different beliefs on America, but nonetheless, these two men gave their all in making America a better place. Without these two leaders, America could have been a very different place today. Who knows, I might have been writing this paper in German had it not been for them.
"I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.” I, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, created many government programs in an attempt to end the Great Depression. I was born January 30th, 1882 in Hyde Park, NY. In my childhood I grew up on a farm near the Hudson River. My fifth cousin was Teddy Roosevelt. My journey to politics began when I became the New York state senator in 1911. I also became the governor of New York in 1929 before running for president. That same year the stock market would crash and the Great Depression would begin.
Their stance on the trusts, for example, started out similar but soon deviated from each other. At first Roosevelt believed that the trusts needed to topple. Through out his presidency, though, he came to the conclusion that trust were inevitable.
The New Deal sought to create a more progressive country through government growth, but resulted in a huge divide between liberals and conservatives. Prior to the New Deal, conservatives had already begun losing power within the government, allowing the Democratic Party to gain control and favoring by the American people (Postwar 284). With the Great Depression, came social tensions, economic instability, and many other issues that had to be solved for America’s wellbeing. The New Deal created a strong central government, providing the American people aid, interfering with businesses and the economy, allowing the federal government to handle issues they were never entrusted with before.
Assuming the Presidency at the depth of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped the American people regain faith in themselves. He brought hope as he promised prompt, vigorous action, and asserted in his Inaugural Address, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Despite an attack of poliomyelitis, which paralyzed his legs in 1921, he was a charismatic optimist whose confidence helped sustain the American people during the strains of economic crisis and world war.
The Great Depression was one of the greatest challenges that the United States faced during the twentieth century. It sidelined not only the economy of America, but also that of the entire world. The Depression was unlike anything that had been seen before. It was more prolonged and influential than any economic downturn in the history of the United States. The Depression struck fear in the government and the American people because it was so different. Calvin Coolidge even said, "In other periods of depression, it has always been possible to see some things which were solid and upon which you could base hope, but as I look about, I now see nothing to give ground to hope—nothing of man." People were scared and did not know what to do to address the looming economic crash. As a result of the Depression’s seriousness and severity, it took unconventional methods to fix the economy and get it going again. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration had to think outside the box to fix the economy. The administration changed the role of the government in the lives of the people, the economy, and the world. As a result of the abnormal nature of the Depression, the FDR administration had to experiment with different programs and approaches to the issue, as stated by William Lloyd Garrison when he describes the new deal as both assisting and slowing the recovery. Some of the programs, such as the FDIC and works programs, were successful; however, others like the NIRA did little to address the economic issue. Additionally, the FDR administration also created a role for the federal government in the everyday lives of the American people by providing jobs through the works program and establishing the precedent of Social Security...
The Progressive Movement that occurred during the early 20th century was a time of major reform in the United States of America. During this time, there was a group of activists that referred to themselves as the Progressives, and they sought to change society for the people. The way that they intended to do this was change through their ideals of democracy, efficiency, regulation, and social justice. With this movement came the election that changed the course of America’s history “…demonstrating a victory for progressive reforms as both Progressive candidates accounted for 75 percent of all the votes” (Bowles). The candidates in this election were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. While both of these men considered themselves to be part of the progressives and shared some similar opinions, they also differed from each other greatly and were apparent in their views during this time.
Franklin Roosevelt influenced American society in so many drastic ways. The impact Franklin Roosevelt left on the United States showed the power to overcome adversity. Franklin Delano Roosevelt served as the President from March 1933 to April 1945, the longest tenure in American history. This essay is going to focus on ethnicity concerns that arose before and during the F.D.R. presidency. There were many successes and failures in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime diplomacy.
This article speaks to the long term impacts of the Progressive Movement and what it has become to today’s society. Roosevelt was a symbol for the Progressive Movement and although Howell does not specifically list Roosevelt’s successes, he does detail some of the major breakthroughs of the Progressive Movement.
President Theodore Roosevelt became the twenty sixth president of the United States of America in September 1901. During his time in office many changes took place, reflecting his own social and political beliefs. These social and political beliefs, as well as the domestic policies of his administration reflect how progressive he was as president. In this essay I will firstly discuss what being progressive entails. I will then discuss Roosevelt’s social and political beliefs as well as the domestic policies of his administration, which will reflect how closely Roosevelt can be associated with the progressive movement.
It is worth examining how the New Deal period represented a significant departure from US government and politics up to then. From the start of Roosevelt's period in office in 1932, there was a widespread sense that things were going to change. In Washington there was excitement in the air, as the first Hundred Days brought a torrent of new initiatives from the White House. The contrast with Herbert Hoover's term could not have been more striking. By 1934, E.K. Lindley had already written about The Roosevelt Revolution: First Phase. Hoover, meanwhile, denounced what he saw as an attempt to "undermine and destroy the American system" and "crack the timbers of the constitution." In retrospect, it was only a "half-way revolution", as W. Leuchtenburg has written. Radicals have been left with a sense of disappointment at the "might have beens", in P. Conkin's words.
A change in strategy leads to new perspective over certain matters. During FDR’s tenure many new reforms were adopted as part of the New Deal. Some o...