This study will present the argument that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was a revolution, will counter that with the argument that the New Deal was an evolution, and will conclude with a summary of the two arguments.
In the Rozwenc-edited The New Deal: Revolution or Evolution?, we read that one of the major features of Roosevelt's New Deal was the extensive expansion of Presidential power, which led to significant restructuring of the government itself. Despite the fact that the editor himself tries to remain above the fray and present an objective introduction to the revolution v. evolution debate, it is in his own words that we can see the conclusion written, and that conclusion clearly comes down on the side of revolution.
As Rozwenc writes: "Although Franklin D. Roosevelt never conceived of any fundamental reconstruction of American society, the boldness of his leadership, the experimental temper of his administration, and the sheer quantity of his legislative and administrative expedients created a new web of relationships which is still an essential part of the fabric of American society today. The responsibility of the State for health, welfare and employment, the rapid growth of federal centralization, the tremendous expansion of presidential power, and the burgeoning polity of organized pressure groups are still the dominant points of reference in any contemporary description of American politics" (Rozwenc, 1959, p. vi).
The New Deal was a revolution not only in terms of the changes it wrought in the social, economic and political structure, it was also a revolution in the sense that its impact has lasted for more than half a century.
Louis Hacker, in "The Third American Revolution," in Rozwenc's collection of essays, supports the argument that the New Deal was indeed a revolution. It was a revolution, says Hacker, not only because of its many radical innovations, not only because of its lasting impact, but...