REvisioning the New Deal @revisionnewdeal - Tumblr Blog

Jackie Hayes Assignment 11: New Deal 2 Mini Research

Jackie Hayes 391AH 11/10/17 Assignment 11: New Deal 2 Mini Research

*Sources of conflict within the new deal included white middle class emerging but African Americans still not fully getting their goals recognized *Forces of change included labor unions becoming more powerful and widespread in their organizing *Emergence of many federally funded programs, bettering the “common good”, examples include social security *Some key issues and problems during this time were the increasingly liberal government and politics and the increasingly conservative Republicans throughout the country as well

The age of The New Deal era was one which saw the height of the power of the Labor Unions. The beginnings of the New Deal had massive support for labor unions, furthered by the National Industrial Recovery Act passed in 1933 and the National Labor Relations Act of 1933 both helped Union workers with forms of beneficial bargaining between them and employers. The most important event of all however for the union was when the Congress of Industrial Organization split ties with the American Federation of Labor. This move greatly helped unskilled workers in being represented as well as finding work. Beforehand, only truly skilled workers would be protected but this act made for all Union workers receiving adequate representation. Fast forward to the present day and Union membership is close to a historic new low. A main reason for the extremely low numbers of Union membership today is due to the rise of the private sector. Modern day America simply doesn’t have the number of union jobs it used to most specifically tailor to - manufacturing, trades work, etc. Many of those jobs today have been shipped overseas to foreign countries who can make the products much cheaper. The private sector has only exacerbated this issue by making private sector jobs have much higher wages, making union jobs less appealing. Conservative politicians in Washington have added to this sharp decline, passing policy and legislation which makes Union organization and workers rights harder to accomplish. Democrats as of now are working on a proposal to be passed which increases the power of Union members, a part of the Better Deal plan. This proposal makes it harder for employers to hire others during a labor strike, making these peaceful protests far more important and impactful on their employer. In addition they would make it so that workers themselves nationwide would all have to be within a Union and supporting it if they are represented by it, let’s say especially in Court. Some questions I have for the class would be how do you think these proposals will work with such a Republican based government, as well as do you personally believe Unions are beneficial or non beneficial?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amU5RX1uN1M

The GI Bill and Veteran Students

Coming back into civilian life for most veterans who fought in WWI was definitely an arduous task. In order to help these people, Congress passed the 1924 Bonus Act to give them some financial support. The tricky part about this was that the money would not be distributed until 1945. For most, the funds were not allocated fast enough to provide relief.

As a direct result, thousands of frustrated veterans marched in Washington D.C claiming their bonus in the year of 1932. These people became known as the Bonus Marchers and their fight for veteran rights inspired many of the pro-veteran movements that followed. Veteran rights were important for president Franklin D. Roosevelt and the administration of his time.

Together with the help of the House of Representatives and the Senate, he was able to sign the GI Bill or Servicemen’s Readjustment Act in 1944. Their decision to establish this governmental support system for veterans was unanimous; something which demonstrates the great impulse that veterans’ rights movements had. The GI Bill gave soldiers unemployment compensation, guaranteed farm, home and business loans, it established hospitals, and also gave them money to pay for tuition within higher education; along with a monthly living stipend.

More than two million WWII veterans went to college as a result of the GI Bill. From this increase in college attendance and a highly educated workforce came the economic boom of the 1950’s and 60’s and the ascendency of the white middle class.

The idea of being grateful to veterans and helping them readjust went hand in hand with the feelings of patriotism and strength that the United States experienced during these decades of war.

Higher education became the route toward achieving the American dream for many of these veterans. Many universities, such as Purdue, opened extension centers to serve veterans and help them gain access to a college education.

It is not surprising that by 1950, three times as many college degrees were given out in the United States.

The CCC and its Lasting Effect on Environmental Awareness

During the New Deal era, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was forced to start a series of work programs in an attempt to try and revitalize the American economy. The first of these programs was established with the passing of the Emergency Work Act in March of 1933. This program was created to recruit thousands of young men to work in forests, parks, lands and bodies of water in order to further develop the conservation and use of natural resources. The program later became known as the “Civilian Conservation Corps” and was an important step in not only reviving a failure of the economy, but also a failure of an environmental awareness. The goal of the CCC was to conserve the natural beauty of the United States landscape, and to make sure that beauty would continue for years to come. By July 1st, 1933, there were 1433 established camps all around the country housing over 300,000 working young men, usually unmarried. Because most of this conservation work was being done in the western United States, the military was heavily involved in moving large amounts of workers who lived in eastern cities. This movement became the most rapid peacetime mobilization of U.S. forces in American history, and provided a large portion of unskilled and unemployed male workers between 18 to 25 with a source of steady income. Many of these men came from families that were entrenched in poverty, and was often their only method of providing any monetary stability to their respective household.

In the first picture shown here (Image 1), a group of young men took a break from work in Cook County to take a photograph. This is a very diverse group of people, and shows how the CCC stretched its influence all over the country in an effort to recruit a work force of young men. These men abandoned their homes in search of work, and they all don’t look too thrilled about doing so. But, at this time, they will take what they can get. The workers of the CCC had a variety of different objectives that made up the bulk of their job. These consisted of, but were not limited to the following: planting trees, clearing and maintaining access roads, fighting forest fires, re-seeding grazing lands and implementing soil-erosion controls, building wildlife refuges, fish-rearing facilities, water storage units, and animal shelters. They also built bridges and campground facilities in an effort to increase the interest in tourism around America and entice people to go out and enjoy America’s natural beauty. Each of these workers received $30 per month for their service, in addition to the room and board received at the conservation camp. They were required to send $22-$25 back home to their families to ensure that not only that these families would get the resources required to support them, but also that the money earned out West would be spent back East where it could be recycled back into the economy and help support struggling businesses.

The second picture (Image 2) shows men in forest fire training in Washington. This picture clearly shows the state that the people who joined the CCC were in, with raggedy clothes and not much else. However, these people were making a larger environmental impact than they ever could have thought. This picture also does a good job of illustrating the term that referred to the workers of the CCC, known as FDR’s “Tree Army”. It shows the type of camp and the large amount of men that were staying in these camps, which could be confused for an army camp if not for the wooden axes. The implementation and expansion of the CCC marked one of the first times in American history where environmental awareness became a priority of the federal government. This was in response to one of the underlying causes of the Great Depression: The Dust Bowl. The Dust Bowl was a series of dust storms in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s that were caused by extreme soil erosion from over-farming, droughts, and wind erosion. These storms darkened cities, buried homes and farms, killed livestock, and posed a serious health-risk to people who lived in the mid-western states at this time. Usually, people refer to the stock market crash of 1929 as the main cause of the Great Depression, but the Dust Bowl played just as much of an integral role in causing the destruction of the U.S. economy as the crash did. Millions of acres of land were rendered useless, 500,000 people lost their homes, and hundreds of thousands of more people were forced off the lands they cultivated to make a living. Between 1932 and 1940, it is estimated that nearly 2.5 million people needed to abandon the plains and farmlands that they called home in order to look for work elsewhere. Not only did this destruction and migration have a severe effect on the portion of the economy that was supported by these agrarian states, but also limited the food supply and natural resources that these states provided. Due to a lack of foresight, and the inability of these farmers to recycle the nutrients in their soil, a large portion of United States land was environmentally destroyed.

The next picture (Image 3) shown here is a form of propaganda, trying to convince people to join the CCC. The picture shows a shirtless man, in good shape, holding an ax with the words Civilian Conservation Corps behind him. This was most likely put out by the American government as a poster or advertisement, trying to show the importance and abundance of the work that was being done by these men. The CCC required one of the largest work forces of any non-military government program in American history, so it was necessary to try and devise tactics to get people to join. President FDR, having experience as the governor of New York and as an amateur farmer, recognized the root problem of environmental degradation as a lack of soil conservation and sought to eliminate these causes to prevent future disasters. This is why one of the most prominent objectives of the CCC was to plant as many trees as possible with as many workers as possible. Because the natural landscape of these mid-western states is flat plains, giant dust storms were easily able to gain traction from wind and travel for miles across these plains, wreaking havoc. Not only did planting trees in this area revitalize the soil, but also created a wind barrier for the farming lands that stretched for miles. By the time the CCC program was ended at the start of WWII, more than 3.5 billion trees had been planted on land that had been made barren by natural erosion, forest fires, or deforestation. These efforts by the CCC account for about half of the reforestation done in this country’s history, including both publicly and privately funded programs.

The next picture (Image 4) shows Camp No. 1, aka Camp Roosevelt, which was the first CCC camp to come to fruition. The men in this picture were probably one of the first couple thousand to join the program. In the background, one can see dead trees and low-quality soil, exemplifying the work that needed to be done to revive the United States landscape and preserve it for the future. The establishment of the CCC brought a new concept to the minds of Americans: how should we provide the efforts to conserve and expand the abundant natural resources of this country for future generations to enjoy? Before this, many American citizens never considered the long-lasting environmental effects of their actions. Although many of these people were not concerning themselves about the environment during the worst period of poverty in American history, it set a precedent for future generations to follow. And even thought it lost its funding due to WWII, the legacy of the CCC still lived on beyond that. Without the actions of the CCC, who knows the negative environmental effects we would be experiencing today. With rapid environmental deficiencies already obviously visible throughout America, it may be time to look back on the values that were established by FDR and the creation of the CCC, and think about how the environment will be for future generations of Americans.

In order to truly understand the Great Depression and the people involved, one must analyze primary sources from that time period. The pictures represent different aspects of the CCC, but help tell the true story of what it actually was. The last picture (Image 5) is another advertisement, one used on our class blog on word press. This was an advertisement once again targeting young men, showing a man with an ax with the CCC behind him. Just another example of the US government using tactics in order to get as many people to join as possible. Without this, who knows what state our environment would be in today.

Hyperlinks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpv-KYioIFc

https://www.nps.gov/media/video/view.htm?id=2C1D38FE-155D-451F-676BFDA5021C9830&utm_source=video&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=experience_more

http://www.history.com/topics/civilian-conservation-corps

http://www.ccclegacy.org/Camp_Roosevelt_68B9.php

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dcr/get-involved/civilian-conservation-corps-ccc/

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/fdr-and-new-deal-response-environmental-catastrophe/

Kyle Hill

Eleanor and the NAACP

By Jackie H

Eleanor Roosevelt became truly invested in racial issues when she became first lady. Up until then, most of Eleanor’s efforts went to poorhouses and other charities, not so much towards civil rights. After the Great Depression, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration very disproportionately gave their funds over to in need white families, not towards black Americans. She met with NAACP leaders at the White House in 1934 and was given an accurate, non whitewashed version of the current race relations and inequality they experienced.

Eleanor did not push for desegregation, as the mid 1930s this idea would have been absolutely demolished by most politicians of the time. She wanted equal oppurtunity and education for black youth most especially. She even supported an anti-lynching bill which back then was an incredibly bold move on her part given FDR being President. Much of Eleanor’s actions were limited because FDR was still President, making his death in 1945 a huge turning point for just how involved she could get. She joined the NAACP board of directors in 1945. She worked with the likes of Thurgood Marshall amongst other key African American leaders as well as the Justice Department for violent, local situations involving black Americans.

In 1948, former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt joined the leaders of the NAACP on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, endorsing their annual event. She also made her monthly newspaper column increasingly about race relations. In the 1960s she worked with leaders such as Rosa Parks and MLK to raise money for boycotts and try to safeguard and protect. Roosevelt often discussed the irony of how white Americans had such issues with McCarthyism and communism, and in past years Hitler, yet in their own country stayed mute or antagonist on issues of race.

5 hyperlinks:

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/eleanor-roosevelt-born

https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/lesson-plans/notes-er-and-civil-rights.cfm

http://www.blackhistoryreview.com/biography/ERoosevelt.php

http://credo.library.umass.edu/view/full/mums312-b115-i348

https://fdr.blogs.archives.gov/2016/02/12/eleanor-roosevelts-battle-to-end-lynching/

The grassroots political movements were instrumental in bringing about the New Deal in the 1930’s no longer exist in the modern American political landscape. In the New Deal era, groups from the left worked to drive FDR’s policies to the left by galvanizing an increasingly marginalized class of laborers upon which the wealth of America’s manufacturing industries were built. Local movements affiliated with larger organizations garnered popular support and gained influence on a national scale. They became so powerful that members of FDR’s administration secretly worked with far-left radicals to form policy. Modern American politics was redefined in the early 2000’s by “grassroots” political movements. However, in this era, the movements that most directly influenced the flow of power came from conservative groups. These movements- although described as grassroots in nature- are largely reliant on large donations from upper-middle class individuals. Unlike the popular leftist movements of the New Deal Era, movements like the Tea Party are driven by a smaller group. For instance, while Americans for Prosperity claims to have 1.2 million “activists” across the country, studies show that it has about 8,000 (New Yorker). Although both the New Deal and Tea Party movements were driven by grassroots organizations, the movements from the left and right were vastly different in their makeup. How have modern politics affected the nature and viability of grassroots political movements in America?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjIwMOdz5zTAhUI74MKHZ7CCg4QjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hightowerlowdown.org%2Fnode%2F3543&psig=AFQjCNGAIlUHLvuobaSi_MJqUy65tFP_sQ&ust=1492007506758974

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY97r7VYF1Y

Reflections on Journalism: From The New Deal to The Post-Truth

Upon examining journalistic integrity during the New Deal, I thought it was relevant to discuss the shift from muckraking, or investigative journalism, to where we are now: fake news and alternative truths. In 2016, Oxford dictionary coined “post-truth” as the word of the year; if this isn’t telling of contemporary power dynamics and structures, I don’t know what is. Not only is Trump and his administration perpetuating this vicious cycle of lies, so is the vast, algorithmic, and profit-driven digital space where certain voices are amplified while others are not.

Throughout this semester, we’ve studied various journalism-driven initiatives that were meant to better inform citizens during FDR’s presidency. As defined on Wikipedia, muckrakers were “reform-minded” American journalists ready to uncover [un]intentional voids in information released to the public and to dismantle corrupt political leaders. Alongside the social programs, these contentious writers marked a shift in truth and objectivity.

During this era, there was a push for creating a cultural spectacle of honesty and ideally, justice. Of course, the push for justice can only go so far in a capitalistic system, and there was still commercialized sensationalism in the journalism world. However, with the rapid pace of technology within modern society, the desire for honest news won’t be satisfied anytime soon. Pablo Boczkowski, a Communication professor at Northwestern University, writes about the lowered barriers in the digi-world, and how that can lead way for certain voices to hold reign over others; especially if there’s profit to be consumed by conglomerate catalysts for media outlets, like Facebook and Google. The combination of explosive information and analytic-based mechanisms creates inaccessibility to attain accurate information about the nation and world at large.

With these shifts, comes reflection of our leaders: FDR as compared to Trump. During the Great Depression, FDR’s intentions were to revitalize the American culture and provide a sense of hope. His intentions were focused on clarity and truth, or just common decency for his country. Trump, in many ways, is a walking Depression. His evocative, pervasive, and dangerous character only brings fear and impending doom; he has led many [White] Americans astray and now the entirety of our nation will continue to suffer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J4HLHqCNKQ

Race and Labor from the New Deal to the 2016 Election

The 2016 election was one of the most racially divisive in living memory, not only in terms of rhetoric, but also in the patterns of voters - Trump won white voters by 21 percentage points, but lost latino voters by 38 points and black voters by a staggering 80 points. What accounts for this massive gap? Moreover, why did a significant number of blue-collar Democratic strongholds suddenly switch from voting in the first black president to supporting someone who peddled crackpot racist conspiracy theories about the same man? No single factor - even one as all-encompassing as race - can explain this political U-turn. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign manager and current chief strategist, is as good a place as any to start searching. Formerly the CEO of Breitbart News, which he proudly declared as “the platform for the alt-right”, Bannon played a key role in infusing Trump’s campaign with the alt-right’s ultra-racist socioeconomic vision, or what he calls “economic nationalism.” Citing the New Deal as inspiration, Bannon broke with establishment conservatives and pushed Trump to promise massive infrastructure spending, working-class rejuvenation, and protectionist trade policy; in the words of one journalist, “The racism Trump both conjured and campaigned on goes beyond very real bigotries - its promise has a material lure: jobs, loans, and property values.”

To understand why a former Goldman Sachs VP and a New York real estate mogul would want to push for a working-class rejuvenation along racial lines, the best place to look is none other than Ferguson, Missouri. In the wake of the controversial 2014 Micheal Brown Shooting, police trial, and subsequent race riots, the Economic Policy Institute produced a comprehensive and damning report that showed how a cartel of business and economic interests used ostensibly positive public policy - much of it written during the New Deal - to deepen the racial divide in Ferguson. Openly racist zoning laws and housing covenants, “urban redevelopment” programs, and segregated public housing projects were used to separate previously integrated communities and force African Americans into isolated communities. Federal subsidies and municipal services were siphoned away to white neighborhoods, creating a stark contrast between prosperous white areas and black slums. This, in turn, put white workers in direct competition with impoverished black citizens; this drove down wages, prevented unions from forming multiracial coalitions, and ensured that there would always be a pool of people desperate enough to work as strikebreakers. In essence, the violence in Ferguson resulted from a system that used racism to turn public money into private profit.

Ferguson was not an outlier or an unhappy accident. Using race to divide labor is hardly a new concept - in the post-reconstruction South, for instance, the plantation elite filled newspapers with lurid accusations of black brutes raping white women, inflaming racial violence as a means to prevent a collective uprising against the sharecropping system. However, the New Deal changed the formula forever; if federal money could be used to separate whites from the rest of the working class, then the biggest barrier to corporate profit, organized labor, would be utterly neutered. Over the decades, new innovations helped keep the system in place. In the 1950s, it was said that, since blacks were not capable of organizing for themselves, the budding civil rights movement was the work of foreign communist agitators. In the 1960s and 70s, the anti-busing movement inflamed white working-class communities across the nation. In the 1980s, the stereotype of the “welfare queen” helped spread the idea that black americans were leeching off the hard work of white communities, while the “war on drugs” and round-the-clock media coverage of gang violence cemented the idea of black criminality. In this context, the rise of Trump and the alt-right can be seen as a sort of vow renewal - a promise of economic rejuvenation and an affirmation of status for white workers - to stem the post-2008 backlash against the American economic elite.

- Tristan Tenerowicz

The State of the Unions

The formation of unions was significant to the New Deal and is still relevant today. Bringing workers together and providing them with benefits has become a necessity for certain professions and it affects many people.With the formation of the AFL and CIO during the time of the New Deal, unions have influenced politics ever since. During the 2016 primaries, Clinton was endorsed by most of the big name unions, such as the United Food and Commercial Worker which consists of 1.3 million people (Miller, Meyerson). On the other hand, Sanders did not have this amount of support. Unions have grown significantly since 1937 when the steel and auto workers unions had 750,000 members, which was large back then. The unions during FDR’s administration fought for basic workers rights, such as a “forty hour work week, decent wages, paid vacations,” and other necessities (Buhle, 96). Now, union workers stand behind the fight for $15, which is a movement where people are fighting to increase the minimum wage. As some labor unions lose membership due to the loss of jobs, the media has begun to organize themselves. Huffington Post employees just ratified their first union contract this past January, which has made them the largest digital news company to do so.

Many labor unions this past election did not endorse either candidate and many of hte members were undecided about who they would vote for. The United Mine Workers of America did not endorse Trump or Clinton. According to the VOA News video, one in four workers used to be members of unions during the 1960s, but now only one in ten are. Some are concerned about where the state of labor unions lie if Alexander Acosta, Trump’s nominee to run the Labor Department, is sworn in. People believe that he will follow Trump’s “anti-worker labor agenda” In Trump’s budget plan, he has cut twenty-one percent of the Labor Department’s budget, which is concerning. It is unclear where the future of labor workers and unions lie in the United States.Where do you think the future of unions are headed? Will the media continue to unionize? Will labor unions continue to lose membership? Do you think it is right that they have such an influence on elections?

Video: http://www.voanews.com/a/ohio-laborers--not-union-their-unions/3539678.html

“The Huffington Post Ratifies Union Contract” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/huffington-post-union-contract_us_588f7523e4b0c90efefed41a

“The Labor Prospect: Unions in 2016”:

http://prospect.org/article/labor-prospect-unions-2016

“Trump’s Labor Nominee, Alexander Acosta, Is More Dangerous than You Think”: https://www.thenation.com/article/trumps-labor-nominee-alexander-acosta-is-more-dangerous-than-you-think/

-Mary McDonough

Race and Labor - From the New Deal to the 2016 Election

This video explains race-based labor suppression in the context of Detroit in the 1960s, with the same sort of housing discrimination, stereotypes of criminality and sexual predation, and white supremacist populism that have crippled organized labor for the past century.

- Tristan Tenerowicz

Racism During the Great Depression

Throughout the Great Depression, as well the period both before and after the Great Depression, racism was rampant throughout the United States, and especially throughout the South. There were many photographs that came out of this time period that all tell a portion of the story of the struggles that African Americans had to go through this time. I have chosen to focus on three of them. There is a story to be told by the photograph shown in figure 1. This image shows two signs that were commonly placed outside of restaurants and other various places of business. The first shows a sign banning dogs, Mexicans, and African Americans from the premises. From the image, it starts off seeming like a reasonable sign, banning dogs from the business. However, it quickly turns for the worse by proceeding to ban groups of people from the building. Not only is the sign disrespecting these groups by banning them from entering, but it is implying that they are no better than dogs, comparing them to animals, and lumping them in the same category. The second part of this image shows a sign on a restroom, denoting that black people had to go to one restroom, and white people had to go to the other. They could not occupy the same restaurant as whites considered themselves superior to blacks and they did not want to mix the two races. Both of these images are shown from a first-person view of what an African-American might have encountered during the Great Depression as he was out in the city. From this image, we can assume that the black person encountering these situations does not like it, but he is likely used to it as these images were not uncommon during this time. This image works to shed some light on how common it was for blacks to be kept separate to whites during the Great Depression, as well as after.

The second image shown in figure 2 shows four people sitting on two benches. The two women on the left are white women, and the two people on the right are a black man and a black woman. However, the white women are turned even further to the left, as they do not even want to associate with the black people by looking at them. Like the first image, this image shows a white fear of mixing with black people. It is told from the point of view of a bystander, possibly watching from across the street. The people are sitting on different benches, as they cannot even sit together. What we don’t get to see from this image however, is where these people are heading. They seem to be waiting for a bus, but this is not clear. We also don’t see if there are people around the four shown in the image. If the people around are white, would they follow the white women and look away from the black people? Maybe they would force the black people to get up so that they themselves could sit down. While we cannot see what is going on around the bench, we can assume that the fear of mixing whites and blacks together is very widespread during this time, and it is even “normal.” Finally, despite the fact that the whites do not want to look at the blacks, the black people in the photo do not seem shocked by this. Unfortunately, this is not something new to them. It is likely that they experience similar encounters everywhere they go, and they have become desensitized towards it.

Finally, the image shown in figure 3 depicts a few cops standing to the right of the photo, with an obviously upset African American man yelling at them. However, despite being yelled at, they do not seem to care about why the man is angry. He seems to be pointing at something, possibly his apartment, and another person behind him is doing the same. The point of view of this photo is taken from someone watching this event unfold, but likely involved in some way due to his proximity to the police and African Americans. From what we can see in the image, it appears that this man is fed up with the police. He seems to be yelling at the cop as though he is trying to get the cop’s attention, but the cop appears as though he cannot be bothered. What we cannot see is what the man is pointing at. Maybe the man needs the cop’s help but the cop is pretending as though he sees nothing. We do not know the reason for this man’s anger, but it is safe to assume that it is related to the other images. This man probably deals with racism on a daily basis, and he probably encounters similar situations to those portrayed in figures 1 and 2, and figure 3 represents his rage exploding at a time when he really needs the help of the police. Racism during the Great Depression was a common thing, and it wasn’t out of the ordinary by any stretch of the imagination. It would be several decades before steps were taken to eliminate racism in the United States, and unfortunately it still exists to this day.

Bryan Ovelheiro

The Federal Theater Project(s)

The Federal Theater Project (FTP) was a short-lived New Deal program created through the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The WPA financially aided thousands of American playwrights, writers, and artists after the Great Depression. It was created more as a safety net for workers than to regain American cultural identity. However, national messages are inherently being sent, despite the intentional reason of balancing the economy.

I found this picture on Google images – it sparked my thought-process on “freeness” within an early capitalist society comprised of an all-democratic government. This specific ‘freeness,’ i.e. free public admission to a government-funded theater project is unheard of now.

The ‘Negro Units’ were a part of the Federal Theater Project, which were segregated theater projects within the black community. Although this program had ‘positive’ notions of regaining income for POC, I would like to learn more about the amount of money given to black theater, specifically salaries. I also want to explore these narratives – after doing some research, there were black directors and writers who were able to create their own stories, such as labor camp conditions of the South and migration periods.

by Katelyn Dube

Aesthetics of the CPUSA

In order to learn more about the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), we will take a look at some illustrations drawn from New Masses, a prominent left-wing publication under the party’s wing. These images come from the early 1930s, a period which was both expressive and unfocused for the writers and artists of the CPUSA; later in the decade, the party would focus its efforts on building a broad anti-fascist coalition, and thus toned down the language of class and proletariat struggle in order to appeal to middle-class intellectuals and moderate union workers. Two common myths must be dispelled before one can properly analyze CPUSA illustrations from this time period. First, we cannot view them as dictates from Moscow or the product of a Soviet model. Second, there exists no evidence of any sort of unified “platform” that CPUSA cultural productions were required to adhere to, beyond the barest conception of social consciousness. The latter misconception came from anti-Marxist writers in the 1950s and onward, who built up loose affiliations and affinities in CPUSA literature as evidence of a vast Stalinist disinformation campaign. Joseph McCarthy’s coalition, in particular, was eager to find “evidence” of Soviet espionage in all walks of American life, and thus created grandiose theories that saw everyone from Civil Rights volunteers to progressive newspaper columnists as Kremlin puppets.

Fig. 1

Unsurprisingly, history has shown that all schoolteachers who taught evolution were not, in fact, KGB infiltrators. The CPUSA, however, with its frequent Comintern conferences and occasionally shared platform, is remembered to this day as an organization in lockstep with the Soviets. While there is a grain of truth to this claim, the treatment of both the CPUSA and the Soviets as ideological monoliths is a poor indicator of the diversity and conflict in both camps. The claim that CPUSA art was an extension of “Soviet Realism” is an especially egregious one. One excerpt from the middle of the July 1932 issue of New Masses (fig. 1) lays out six policy prescriptions in six different art styles. In the bottom left, we see a lynching depicted in the style of the triumphant Federal Arts Project posters; above it, a distraught homeless man and his belongings with the style and jumbled perspective of a French satirical cartoonist; to the right of that, the charcoal-laden sketch style that would soon take over American editorial cartoons. This seemingly incongruous aesthetic reflected the variety of authors that contributed to it, many of whom looked more like old-school progressives than Leninist revolutionaries. Indeed, one cartoon from the June 1933 issue of New Masses (fig. 2) has more than a passing resemblance to the legendary Standard Oil “octopus” cartoon that had come to symbolize the struggles of the Progressive Era.

Fig. 2

Even in ostensibly leftist literature, the CPUSA is often painted as little more than an arm of the Stalinist regime, an inflexible entity whose refusal to abandon revolutionary rhetoric cost it the support of the populace. Upon closer inspection, this claim seems largely unfounded. Lawrence Schwartz’s Marxism and Culture: the CPUSA and Aesthetics in the 1930s provides counterpoints to many of the long-standing myths about the party, including the idea that the exodus of a certain writer-intellectual caste after 1935 was the product of a kind of “purge” or “radical shift”; rather, as Schwartz points out, they belonged to a group that entered and exited the CPUSA’s ideological orbit without coercion at either end. The CPUSA existed more as a revolving door for leftists and progressives than anything else; whatever “party line” may have been established by leadership bore only a passing resemblance to the bulk of art and literature produced by the party. Ernest Hemingway and John Dos Passos, both of whom were elected vice presidents at the party’s 1937 writer’s conference, would probably be rather amused that they qualified as Stalinist puppets according to McCarthy.

- Tristan Tenerowicz

The Temporary Emergency Relief Administration

The Temporary Emergency Relief Administration (TERA) was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in October of 1931 to combat poverty and the consequences of the Great Depression (1929). This administration was headed by Harry Hopkins and his administration made it their role to implement social welfare programs in order to provide relief. With an endowment of 20 million dollars the administration was able to tackle an array problems ranging from health to unemployment. One sort of program pictured below was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which took poor unemployed males from the cities and allocate them to work at parks and woodlands to conserve the environment.

For once the poor were not alone nor did they need to pull themselves on their own boot straps; after all, the idea of government helping their own citizens was considered radical since Roosevelt called their actions not charity but a “social duty”. TERA was so impactful at the state level that it became the predecessor of Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), Civil Work Association (CWA) and Works Progress Administration (WPA). The TERA was also incorporated into the FDR’s New Plan, where many different welfare organizations branched from as seen in the cartoon. With out the start of all these welfare programs the country would have revolted and collapsed.

Helpful URLs:

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsa.8a04960/

http://todayinsocialsciences.blogspot.com/2012/06/new-deal-alphabet-soup-of-agencies-and.html

Lydia Phung

The Portrayal of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Disability

It is now known that President Franklin D. Roosevelt suffered from polio, and as a result, had severe disabilities including paralyzation. However, during the time that Roosevelt was president, the American people did not know the extent of his disability. Franklin D. Roosevelt had a “gentleman’s agreement” with the press corps in order to keep the American people from knowing the extent of his disability. In many of the photos released to the public, Roosevelt appears to be standing with a cane, as seen in the photo below.

It is not apparent that Roosevelt has a disability in this picture; however, by analyzing the photo we can see that he has a cane in his hand and that he is leaning against a wall, which is providing stabilization. It is interesting to see how Roosevelt portrays himself in this way, conveying a message of more physical strength, and thus sending a message of having more strength as a leader.

What I find more interesting is the press’s agreement to not expose his disability further than he wanted it have it exposed. This media boundary is not something that we often see today, in an age where it is not uncommon for the media to become invasive and dive into public figures’ personal issues. In the following video, you can see minimal coverage of Roosevelt in a wheelchair.

This footage leaves out his face and disability for respect for the president, which is an interesting idea. This can be contrasted to more recent political scandals. While the press respected FDR’s privacy in terms of his affairs and personal life, they reported extensively on President Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs in the 1990s. There were differences between these two presidents, but it would be interesting to compare press motives during the presidency of FDR to more recent press motives. The press was very careful to help Roosevelt preserve his strong image to the United States. The differences may stem from differences in political climate during the times, as during FDR’s presidency, the country was less divided along political lines than it is now. Because of this, the press and others may have found it less important to go after a political figure for his personal life.

Silent Cal’s WPA Bridge

While civil engineers give a D+ to U.S. infrastructure for its fraying bridges, roads, rail, public buildings and parks, it’s useful to realize that a substantial part of that was created by the New Deal’s 1930s-1940s Works Progress Administration (WPA).

I’m fascinated to discover what parts of the the daily places we traverse were built by the WPA during that era. Here’s a post card of the Coolidge Bridge that spans the Connecticut River connecting Northampton with Hadley. It was built from 1937-1939, not long after a catastrophic flood wiped out bridges, homes, and dams all along the river’s path.

As seen in the ornamental granite pylons that anchor the bridge’s four corners, many WPA structures convey bold, industrial lines of an Art Deco aesthetic.

revisionnewdeal

The Fight for $15

As more and more information regarding economic inequality has been surfacing, one of the proposals for combating this issue has been the idea of raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00 per hour. Some of the arguments supporting or opposing this policy are listed below.

Arguments in Favor

The arguments in favor of an increase in the federal minimum wage are based off of historical trends, a sense of morality, and an argument of the inefficiency of the current minimum wage. Based on historical evidence, the minimum wage has eroded since 1968. Whereas it is currently $7.25/hr federally, the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation and increased productivity would actually be higher than $15.00/hr. This demonstrates the fact that compared to 1968, the current minimum wage isn’t nearly as livable because while the minimum wage has increased, it hasn’t increased nearly as much as the cost of living. This leads to the final issue with the current wage, being that we end up paying the price in the form of subsidies. Because the minimum wage isn’t enough to support a household, these workers end up being supplemented by programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and other welfare provisions. We benefit from lower prices of minimum-wage-produced goods, but we end up paying the price through tax increases.

Arguments Against

The arguments against raising the minimum wage are based off of the theories of firm behavior and supply and demand, the idea of competition, and an understanding of the labor force. The general idea is that with an increase in the price of labor, the production function of firms will be greater, leading to an increase in prices. With an increase in prices, we would see decreased demand, and with decreased demand, we would see a loss in jobs. Furthermore, without accounting for an increase in wages of those jobs that are currently near $15/hr, there would be increased competition for minimum wage jobs as job seekers with more credentials/experience would start applying for the same jobs as entry level workers. Because these entry level workers are typically those in marginalized communities with low skills/experience, they would have less access to these jobs and become further marginalized. The last argument expands off of this, saying that as opportunities to enter the work force decrease, it would take longer for people to enter the work force, making it generally less mature in the long run.

revisionnewdeal

Very intriquing post. Robert Reich certainly makes some extremely compelling arguments in his illustration of income inequality. I would tend to agree with him on a vast majority of his arguments; I think it makes a ton of sense to raise the minimum wage. As he highlights, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would be $15/hour now based on what it was in the 1960’s, and workers are twice as productive now as they were then. $7.25/hour just simply isn’t feasible to support oneself, nevermind attempting to provide for a family. It seems to make economic sense to raise the Federal minimum wage across the board, as the top 1% of America currently sees a vast majority of the economic benefit in this country. Something needs to be done to help solve this issue. The argument against raising the minimum wage to $15/hour makes some sense, but is not nearly as strong as the argument for it. Maybe the politicians can come to agreement to raise the minimum wage to the range of $12-$13 an hour as a compromise.

As recently as yesterday, California and New York have enacted an initiative to gradually bring up their respective minimum wages to $15/hour, so the U.S. is beginning to see improvement on this front. Currently, Massachusetts is one of the leaders in the United States with a minimum wage of $10/hour. During the New Deal, a similar initiative was passed called the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Historically, the judicial court adamantly opposed the initiative, but after a year-long struggle, the FDR administation was able to pass the act. The Federal Labor Standards Act helped pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Ultimately, the act applied to industries in which combined employment represented only about 20% of the labor force. In the industries that FLSA applied to, it prohibited harsh child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents. Additionally, the maximum workweek was capped at 44 hours. Today, nothing that radical is needed because working conditions are much improved, but the minimum wage would be a great place to start.

-Evan Andreatta

http://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938

revisionnewdeal

I thought this post was particularly interesting in relation to the post that I did on providing a basic universal income for every U.S. citizen. One of the things that I came across when I was doing my research was that often basic universal income and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour were proposed solutions to the same problem - poverty. Often times, people aren’t getting paid enough because they can’t really ask for more out of fear of getting nothing at all. Low-wage workers who would be most affected by these types of proposals have no individual bargaining power to raise their income. Even though raising the minimum wage and supporting a basic universal income seem to be two sides of the same coin, people feel as though they have to pick only one. When asked about his thoughts on basic universal income during an interview with Vox, Senator Bernie Sanders said, “I am absolutely sympathetic to that approach … Everybody in this country should in fact have a minimum and dignified standard of living.” This is particularly thought-provoking, as the tension between these two policies may shed light on why UBI proposals have not gained much headway in the U.S. Perhaps it is because our dog-eat-dog style of American individualism condemns government handouts as a sign of weakness? But better yet is the question - why not both a minimum wage and a basic universal income?

Because FDR discussed the need for a living wage and sustainable income in his speech concerning a second Bill of Rights, it would be interesting to see how both the minimum wage and a basic universal income could interact to jointly fight poverty. The basic universal income would be able to provide every citizen with a fixed amount of money, voiding the need for other social safety net programs, and modest minimum wage laws would allow workers to have greater power in wage negotiation. At the same time, it might not be necessary to have a minimum wage as high as $15 an hour if there exists a basic universal income that. With two such interrelated policy proposals, it is perplexing how the conversation has focused on which one is better rather than how the two could complement each other.

revisionnewdeal

Previous note posted by Matt Martin

revisionnewdeal

In response to the fight for $15, I agree with many of Robert Reich’s points about raising the wage. In my opinion, the minimum wage should keep up with increase in inflation because if it doesn’t and this trend continue, poverty rates will skyrocket. I don’t believe in a federal $15 minimum wage because I think in certain states where the cost of living is very high, this might be necessary, but in poorer states, this would bankrupt small business owners in my opinion. I think one of the biggest problems with the minimum wage increase is that increasing it can have disastrous effects on small businesses because they often can’t afford to pay a wage like $15 where a giant corporation like Walmart can increase costs slightly and be ok. On the other hand, like Robert Reich points out, an increase in minimum wage puts more money in the hands of lower and middle class Americans who are more likely to spend it than wealthy Americans, which can help stimulate and grow the economy. From what I’ve read about cities like Seattle that have raised the wage to $15, there have not been any significant negative effects on business so I think a lot of people often make generalizations about minimum wage increases without actually knowing its effects on an economy. If more cities and states continue to raise it without negative effects, I think we will see a serious shift in attitude on the issue. Finally, I think that this is also a moral and ethical issue because I think it is our duty to provide all citizens with a chance to earn a job that allows them to not live in poverty especially since the majority of minimum wage workers are older adults, not high school students working a summer job. If we can pull more people out of poverty, less money will be spent on welfare programs to supplement their subprime wages. I think this issue needs to be looked at on a local and state level because certain areas of our country have a lot more wealth than others and large increases in wages could significantly impact smaller business, an effect we need to avoid. Overall, I think we are heading in the right direction with the movement and I am inspired to see how far the Fight for $15 movement has come in the last few years.

-Alexander Bowler

revisionnewdeal

Women in The Workplace

Even with some progress, women are still underrepresented in every level of corporations in America. Gender equality is the worst in the workplace. It is estimated to take over 100 years for corporations to reach gender equality. No matter what company you are looking at, big cooperations are still not representing women the way that they should be comparable to men. Gender diversity is not the priority. For companies, the most important thing to them is make money. Women having the same opportunities is not what companies are going to look for or try for. People are just trying to have jobs that will allow them to survive at this point and they are not going to put their own careers at risk to create this equality. People are looking out for themselves and not for others.

Have women actually made changes within the last 60 years? Why is it that women are not having the same opportunities now even after 60 years after they made progress? Companies in the middle of world war 2 made these big contracts in order to produce for the fight. What companies forgot is that there were not many workers available at the time. Men were at war and all they had left were women. Women had been in the house when men were in the workforce before World War 2. Women were only going to be working in the workforce until the men came back. Most woman that stepped up work those that were part of minorities and lower-class workers. Women were motivated to work for money not patriotism. These women were taking care of the home and also working in the real world as well. The disappointing part of this entire situation is at the end of the day the image of women did not change. At the end of the day, women were still expected to be at home and taking care of the families even though without them they would not have been able to win the war. As the 1940′s came to an end women went back into their housewife role as the 1950′s came about. Women are still struggling to get out of their role that is expected from them. Men still are looking at women and seeing what they saw in the 1950′s. When is this going to change? Women are capable of doing anything that a man can do. There is nothing that proves this is wrong.

Danielle Littmann

revisionnewdeal

I loves this post, I found it very interesting, I agree that it is very important to have strong leaders who are dedicated to this issue because if gender equality is not something made into a worldwide priority, then it will go unresolved for years. I think it is important for this to be a foreign policy issue because there are so many countries around the world where women aren't allowed to drive, attend school, work, vote, and are often denied food and basic necessities solely based on their gender. In some countries, there is a push for more men and women often feel that their duty as a woman is not complete until they have a son. This leads to a very unequal gender ratio. So I think that until this issue is addressed on a global level, it will be hard to address it on a national level. I do believe that politicians need to take this seriously by not accepting money from or doing business with countries that mistreat women because this will help raise awareness of the issue. In the workplace, I think more people need to start recognizing the importance of having women in various jobs and teams because having a diverse group of people always brings new ideas and if women are treated more fairly, then they will feel more comfortable and included which I believe will encourage them to seek promotions and executive roles. If women are treated equally, men will hopefully realize their importance and consider them for these various promotions. I think that far too often, when it comes to a new leadership role or important role, women are not encouraged to apply so I don’t think this issue is something that can be resolved overnight but I think there needs to be a serious change in attitude toward the issue and grassroots movements working together to push for things like equal pay because history has shown that when large groups of people work together to fight for something they believe in, great things can happen. Significant progress has been made with things like the Equal Pay Act of 1963, but equal pay and equal representation are still major issues that need work. This needs to be an issue everyone is supporting.

-Alexander Bowler

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

REvisioning the New Deal