The New Deal at the Grass Roots: Programs for the People in Otter Tail County, Minnesota. By D. Jerome Tweton. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1988. Pp. x, 205. $19.95, cloth; $10.95, paper.

1989 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 784-785
Author(s):  
Patrick D. Reagan
1990 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 224
Author(s):  
David Peterson ◽  
D. Jerome Tweton
Keyword(s):  
New Deal ◽  

Author(s):  
David Östlund

For decades “Swedology” was a rich and polemically charged genre. “Swedophiles” and “Swedoclasts” were quite as eager to deploy images of Sweden as weapons in foreign contexts as they were interested in the country as such. A telling example is the genre’s early classic, Marquis W. Childs’s Sweden: The Middle Way from 1936. With the backdrop of Dwight Eisenhower’s attempt to get back at Childs by branding Sweden as an extreme society in 1960, this essay aims to see Childs’s book as an argument in its original context during the New Deal. Rather than initiating the 1930s’ American wave of Swedophilia, Childs phrased his argument as an implicit polemic against its apparent exaggerations. Sweden was not a Utopia; the point in studying its example was on the contrary the pragmatism shown in the Swedes’ attempts to solve everyday problems in a reasonable and genuinely democratic way, negotiating and compromising. As a text implicitly supporting the Roosevelt agenda, Childs’s book was far from encouraging federal dirigisme, expert rule and central planning (“social engineering”): on the contrary the message to other New Dealers was to shun such things in favor of grass-roots activities and initiatives. The predominant theme – the consumers’ cooperation movement’s central role in counteracting monopolies, thus creating economic efficiency and turning Sweden into the world’s only truly working laissez-faire economy – harmonized with Childs’s commitment to projects like the federal rural electrification program, which in a “Swedish” manner was founded on co-ops and a vision of popular self-determination.


Author(s):  
Morton Keller ◽  
Phyllis Keller

Conant liked to recall that he became president of Harvard in the same year that Franklin D. Roosevelt became president of the United States and Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. The University would feel the impact of what those others wrought. More than ever before in its long history, Harvard during the 1930s and 1940s found itself enmeshed in the affairs of the world outside. Harvard had a presence in the early New Deal: but aside from alumnus FDR and Felix Frankfurter, not a very conspicuous one. The Alumni Bulletin took note of the absence of Harvard faculty in FDR’s early Brains Trust, and in 1936 Conant estimated that only five or six out of a staff of eighteen hundred had been granted leaves of absence since 1930 to work for the federal government. A member of the Economics department, asked about Harvard’s lack of visibility in Washington, replied: “We are standing by for the next New Deal!” Nor was the New Deal popular with a preponderantly Republican faculty and student body. In a Crimson poll in the fall of 1934, undergraduates opposed Roosevelt’s policies by 1,149–704, the faculty by 141–50. Though Conant voted for FDR, he was careful to preserve the outward forms of political neutrality. But conservative alums soon had a Harvard New Dealer they loved to hate: Law Professor Felix Frankfurter, ace recruiter for the New Deal, eminence grise to FDR, Vienna-born Jew. A fund-raiser reported trouble with donors over Frankfurter in the spring of 1934, and Mrs. Charles Francis Adams, the wife of Harvard’s former treasurer, “quizzed” Conant “heavily on whether or not Felix Frankfurter was a dangerous communist.” Conant had ample opportunity to polish up what became his standard response to radicalism-at-Harvard complaints: indignant denial that students were taught sedition and appeals to “the glorious tradition of freedom which is our heritage.” When an alumnus wanted to know what the University was doing about indoctrination by New Dealish professors, Conant quickly changed the subject to academic freedom: “democracy is made safe only to the extent that a reasonably tolerant point of view is engendered in the people at large.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document