Research Project 🌐 by ema

sichiyeh — 2024-05-13 00:55:28 UTC

Great Depression
New Deal
Democratic party

sichiyeh — 2024-05-13 01:03:37 UTC

Research Question

sichiyeh — 2024-05-18 10:43:21 UTC

To what extent did the New Deal contribute to the transformation and dominance of the Democratic Party in the United States, from the 19th to 20th century?

sichiyeh — 2024-05-18 10:45:49 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-05-18 10:46:09 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-05-18 10:46:20 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-05-18 10:46:34 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-05-18 10:46:42 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-05-30 01:07:35 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-05-30 01:08:58 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:25:53 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:27:09 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:27:56 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:28:22 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:28:39 UTC

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:28:51 UTC

Point 1: Argue For

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:30:44 UTC

To a large extent, the New Deal contributed to the transformation of the Democratic Party in the United States, by building a broad coalition transforming its image.

Point 2: Argue For

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:30:55 UTC

To a large extent, the New Deal contributed to the dominance of the Democratic Party in the United States, by implementing impactful reforms that established its dominance in American politics.

Point 3: Argue against (counter arguement)

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:31:18 UTC

The Democratic party’s dominance did not last long, as the coalition began to fragment in the 1960s due to evolving social and political dynamics.

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:32:59 UTC

To a large extent, the New Deal contributed to the transformation and dominance of the Democratic Party in the United States, by building a broad coalition and implementing impactful reforms that transformed its image and established its dominance in American politics, although this dominance did not last long, as the coalition began to fragment in the 1960s due to evolving social and political dynamics.

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:35:49 UTC

According to ICPSR’s instructional resources, the New Deal realignment reshaped the party system, moving the Democrats from minority to majority status at the national level

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:36:18 UTC

The New Deal Democratic coalition that put Franklin D. Roosevelt in the White House and the Democratic Party in control of Congress combined support from the working class and various ethnic and minority groups with already existing strength in the South. The basis of Democratic appeal to blue-collar workers, low-income individuals, and recent immigrant groups (largely Catholics and Jews from southern and eastern Europe) was the party's liberalism in economic matters. Roosevelt and the Democrats favored federal government activity to combat the Depression and proposed programs to benefit disadvantaged groups. The Republicans, who appealed more to the middle-class, business groups, and northern white Protestants, were critical of this expansion of government interference in the economy and creation of a variety of social welfare programs. By the late 1930s, the lines between the two parties were clearly drawn, both in ideological and socioeconomic terms (Ladd and Hadley 1978, 31-87).

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:37:14 UTC

The new administration’s first objective was to alleviate the suffering of the nation’s huge number of unemployed workers. Such agencies as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were established to dispense emergency and short-term governmental aid and to provide temporary jobs, employment on construction projects, and youth work in the national forests. The WPA gave some 8.5 million people jobs. Its construction projects produced more than 650,000 miles of roads, 125,000 public buildings, 75,000 bridges, and 8,000 parks. Also under its aegis were the Federal Art Project, Federal Writers’ Project, and Federal Theatre Project.

sichiyeh — 2024-06-12 19:38:03 UTC

During the New Deal era, each of the two main parties had its reasonably secure bases among certain social groups. The Republicans were the party of the Northeast, of business, of the middle classes, and of white Protestants, while the Democrats enjoyed a clear majority among the working classes, organized labor, Catholics, and the South. And these sources of respective party strength could be counted upon at all levels of the election process--in voting for president, Congress, lesser offices, and in underlying party identification. After 1960, however, this condition of relatively secure party bailiwicks defined by ethnicity, class, and region began breaking down rapidly. The Democrats emerged almost everywhere outside the presidential arena as the "everyone" party. The depiction is not intended literally, of course. Rather, it is meant to describe a novel situation in which one party had more, at least nominal, adherents than its opposition among virtually all relevant groups. Since 1960 few social collectivities have given the Republicans regular pluralities either in party identification or in the sweep of subpresidential voting.