A3, key topic 5 - The Opposition to the New Deal

Why Opposition Grew

In 1933 Roosevelt's first New Deal moved quickly. Banks were stabilised, emergency relief expanded, farmers were helped, industry was regulated through the NRA, and new agencies appeared in Washington. For many Americans this was exactly what a crisis required. For critics, it raised a worrying question: how much power should the federal government take in order to fight the Depression?

Opposition grew for three connected reasons.

First, the New Deal changed the role of government. Federal agencies became involved in banking, agriculture, industry, relief, public works, labour relations and welfare. Critics who valued limited government saw this as a dangerous shift away from local control, private enterprise and the older American suspicion of centralised power.

Second, the New Deal did not end the Depression quickly. Unemployment remained high in the mid-1930s. That gave critics room to say either that Roosevelt's policies were damaging recovery or that they were too cautious to solve the real problem.

Third, the New Deal created winners and losers. Relief recipients, workers, farmers and homeowners might benefit from different programmes. But some business owners faced new rules, some taxpayers feared higher costs, and some conservative politicians believed the presidency and federal bureaucracy were becoming too powerful.

The opposition was therefore not one movement:

Misconception check: opposition to the New Deal did not always mean wanting to return exactly to Herbert Hoover's policies. Some critics wanted less federal action; others wanted much more dramatic federal action.

Supreme Court Opposition

The Supreme Court was not an election opponent. Its power came from judicial review: the ability to decide whether laws fitted the Constitution. This made the Court a particularly serious obstacle because it could do more than complain about New Deal laws. It could strike them down.

The key issue was federal power. Roosevelt argued that the Depression was a national emergency and that national problems needed national solutions. Some justices accepted that the emergency was grave, but insisted that an emergency could not create new constitutional powers. If Congress or the president acted beyond their powers, the Court could rule against them.

Two decisions were especially important.

The effect was bigger than the two laws themselves. If the Court could reject the NRA and AAA, it might also threaten later measures such as the Wagner Act or Social Security. To Roosevelt, the Court looked like a conservative barrier to recovery and reform. To defenders of the Court, it was protecting the Constitution from executive and federal overreach.

This made Supreme Court opposition different from business or party criticism. Business leaders could lobby and Republicans could campaign, but the Court could directly remove legal foundations from major New Deal policies.

A strong Edexcel-style explanation might say:

The Supreme Court was a significant opponent of the New Deal because it could turn criticism into legal defeat. In the Schechter case, it struck down the NRA's industrial codes, which damaged one of the central parts of the early New Deal. This mattered because it suggested that Roosevelt's wider use of federal power might be unconstitutional, making future reforms vulnerable even if they had public support.

Republican Opposition

Republicans were the main party-political opposition to Roosevelt. They had been badly weakened by the Depression and by Hoover's defeat in 1932, so they could not simply block the New Deal in Congress during Roosevelt's first years. Even so, they gave voters a clear conservative critique.

Republican criticism focused on several themes:

The 1936 Republican platform attacked the New Deal as creating a centralised bureaucracy, harassing business, discouraging enterprise and making people dependent on government. It also defended the authority of the Supreme Court, which fitted the wider conservative argument that Roosevelt's administration needed constitutional limits.

The Republican presidential candidate in 1936 was Alf Landon, governor of Kansas. Landon was not a simple enemy of all reform. Like many Republican critics, he could accept that government had responsibilities during a crisis. His campaign was more about waste, inefficiency, excessive central power and the dangers of the New Deal's methods.

The limit of Republican opposition was popularity. Roosevelt won a landslide in 1936, carrying every state except Maine and Vermont. This showed that Republican criticism had not convinced most voters to abandon the New Deal. However, it still mattered because it kept alive a national argument about whether recovery should come mainly through federal intervention or through private enterprise and local responsibility.

Misconception check: Republican opposition did not mean all Republicans agreed on every detail. Some were more moderate than others. What united them was concern that the New Deal gave too much power to Washington and interfered too much with the economy.

Business And Liberty League

Business opposition was not identical everywhere. Some businesses worked with parts of the New Deal, especially when programmes promised stability, public contracts or higher demand. But many business leaders became hostile as the New Deal expanded regulation, strengthened labour rights, increased taxes on wealth and corporations, and made the federal government a more active economic manager.

Their criticisms were practical as well as ideological. A business owner might dislike a regulation because it raised costs. A banker might dislike monetary or banking reform because it reduced private freedom. A large employer might dislike the Wagner Act because it protected trade union organisation. A conservative business leader might object more broadly that Roosevelt was creating uncertainty, which made firms less likely to invest.

The American Liberty League gave this business and conservative opposition an organised voice. It was formed in 1934 by conservative Democrats, Republicans and business leaders. Supporters included wealthy figures such as members of the du Pont family, and prominent political figures such as Al Smith, the Democratic presidential candidate in 1928. Its president was Jouett Shouse, a former Democratic politician.