- [Voiceover] We're talking about the long essay section
on the AP US History exam.
In the first video on this essay,
we talked about general strategy
for how to approach the essay.
You've got 35 minutes to write it.
So, I recommend you spend
5-10 minutes planning,
and 25-30 minutes writing.
The question we've decided to answer is
"Some historians have argued"
"that the New Deal was ultimately"
"conservative in nature."
"Support, modify, or refute this interpretation,"
"providing specific evidence"
"to justify your answer."
So, we've come to the conclusion that
there are three different ways we could go
with answering this question.
We could say,
yes we think that the New Deal
was ultimately conservative.
We could say,
no, actually the New Deal was quite radical.
Or, we could say it was both or neither.
Somewhere in between.
So, we then took the opportunity to just
brainstorm things that we might bring up
in an essay like that.
What kind of facts are related to the New Deal?
We recall that the New Deal was this series of programs
implemented by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
and his administration,
to try to combat the Great Depression.
It contained a real alphabet soup of agencies
which aimed at trying to
get work to Americans.
To help Americans who were struggling.
And, also to try to make sure
that something like this never happened again.
But, we noted that
the New Deal ultimately didn't really work.
Partly because the Supreme Court
rolled back some of its agencies
as being unconstitutional.
And partly because,
it was actually World War II
that got the United States
out of the Great Depression.
Let's take a minute an just pin-point
some of the themes that have come up
as we've brainstormed these possible
pieces of evidence.
It seems like we definitely want to talk about
the system of government, in general.
And, definitely the economy.
The economy is really the heart of the Great Depression.
What else can we think about?
Well, as historians,
we're always interested
in questions of race and class,
and gender.
We're always wondering
how did things affect people who were White
differently than people who were Black?
How did it affect rich people
differently than poor people?
Or, women differently than men?
It's just a really useful way of thinking about
how benefits in American society
might not necessarily accrue to everyone.
Okay, so these are some possible themes
we can cover.
Now, let's ask ourselves,
whether in each of these themes,
the New Deal was something that was
radical or something that was conservative?
Okay, government.
Was government, in general, radical?
Or, was it conservative in this time period?
Well, I think there's a good argument to be made
that government was conservative
in this time period.
Because the United States didn't give up
the democratic system.
Many nations in the world did
in this time period.
Think about Germany, which became Fascist
in this time period.
So, there's still a commitment
in the New Deal to keeping
the governmental system of democracy alive.
Even though the economy has tanked,
no one has said,
"Well, this is a clear example that democracy doesn't work."
"So, let's try being Fascist."
You could also say that there is a radical change
in government in this time period.
Because, the government is now taking on roles
it has never taken on before.
There is just a completely new level
of intervention in the economy
by the government that you could say
is completely radical.
All right. How about the economy?
Well, I think there's a good argument to be made that
the New Deal was conservative in the economy.
Because, the United States didn't give up capitalism.
Just like the United States decided that they
weren't going to give up democracy,
they weren't going to give up
the system of capitalism itself.
The New Deal instead, with things like,
the NRA, or maybe social security,
was instead designed to sure up capitalism.
To solve the problems of capitalism.
Instead of maybe going towards a completely
government-run economy.
Or, a completely people-led economy
like in Communism.
But, you could also say that the economy
in this time period is really radical.
Because again, there's this massive
government intervention.
There's a complete re-write
of how the United States thinks about
what the role of government in the economy is.
Okay, how about race?
I think it's pretty easy to argue that
the New Deal was conservative
in terms of race.
Because very few people
think of the 1930s as this major turning-point
for civil rights for African-Americans,
or any other group.
In most cases,
the economic pressure of the Great Depression
meant that many people who are minorities,
many women actually lost their jobs
because of a racist idea that White men
were more deserving of those jobs.
So, you might say that,
the Civil Rights Movement doesn't happen until later.
You could also talk about the job loss.
On the flip side, you might talk about
the opportunity that the Great Depression gave
to talk about real economic disparities
between Whites and other races.
You might even say
Eleanor Roosevelt in this time period
was an essential
advocate for civil rights.
Especially, making sure that the benefits of
the New Deal trickled down
in whatever way they could to minorities.
And that the New Deal itself
was not intended to separate African-Americans and Whites
in jobs, in its benefits.
It was mostly administrators at the local level
who might have prevented African-Americans
from reaping those benefits.
Okay, what about class?
I think this is a really important one
because the New Deal is all about the relationship
between the rich and the poor.
I think one thing that the New Deal does
that is very revolutionary,
I know I'm flipping the order here,
is it really makes people question the idea that
wealth is earned
completely without relationship to one's status in life.
Right. In the period of the Gilded Age,
many people said things like,
"Oh well, the wealthy people, the White people,"
"They are in a better position in life"
"because they're more deserving."
"They've worked harder."
"They've may even be racially superior."
According to the logic of the time.
And then, the Great Depression
which affects so many people
really makes people re-think this idea that
wealth and status are connected to one's personal worth.
So you can say it really up-ends this idea of
social Darwinism that
the fittest, the best in society
are the ones who are prospering.
But you can also say that
in terms of class,
once again, the New Deal was nothing like
the revolution in Russia.
There was no massive redistribution of land.
There wasn't this great sense of class consciousness
and workers uprising.
Instead, it pretty much
continued the patterns of social classes
that existed before.
In therms of women's lives in the New Deal,
you might say that
things for women might even have been worse
in this time period than in the 1920s.
Because again, as jobs contracted,
those jobs were often reserved for White men.
In fact, some of these programs
like the Civilian Conservation Corps
were only for men.
Only for people who were considered bread-winners.
On the radical side,
you could say that
the New Deal opened up many new positions
for women in the federal government.
For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
appointed Francis Perkins,
the first ever cabinet secretary who was a woman.
You might also even talk about
Eleanor Roosevelt and her own prominence.
She really transformed the position of First Lady.
Which is something that is going to be important
throughout the rest of the 20th century.
You may be noticing here that
there are good arguements
for going either way.
And the fact is,
either way you argue this
or even if you choose to go this route of modifying
or saying either or both, radical and conservative.
They're both right.
So, at this point, you just have to decide
which way you want to write about,
and then marshal your evidence for your essay.
And, we'll get to that in the next video.