Rebecca's Thoughts

The readings show that initiatives like the New Deal and the Bretton Woods Conference seemed to further the ideological divide. This can be seen in the implementation of the New Deal and various reactions to FDR and the policy. The New Deal was often seen as perpetuating Fascism, Communism, and eventually Conservatism. Some of these reactions to the Deal were presented during the implementation of the program, but many remarks about it were made years later at the height of the Cold War. The years after the 1930’s there was very large ideological conflict, World War II (WWII), which sparked large-scale conversations about ideas like fascism, imperialism, communism, and democracy, bringing into question things like ethics, practicality, and viability of various ideologies. The outcome of WWII also saw America becoming an international power, with the growth of its many ideologies being held and perpetuated by the American Government (i.e., democracy and capitalism).   

Initiatives like the New Deal and the Bretton Woods Conference were also the first time a lot of countries started to become concerned with economic policy, and the application and implications of such policies. Programs like the New Deal often required people to set aside their personal interests (or possible gains) for the betterment of the economy as a whole. Other ideas like Keynesian economics were viewed quite negatively by Wallstreet and other financial institutions. Some saw Keynes’ system of economics as being too interventionist and against the free market. This idea was only exasperated after Bretton Woods and the idea of using the USD as a reserve currency. Further problems would arise in the 1960-70s when America would see issues with a somewhat conflict of interest coming in the form of what is better for the world versus what is better for America.

The Cold War also saw a deep-seated battle between the Communists (and their sympathizers) and everyone else. This was in the form of McCarthyism in America, and other more region-specific versions seen in Canada and Britain. This pitted various ideologies against each other in the quest to eliminate Communists in the country. In terms of McCarthyism, most allegations were unfounded, and accusations carried little to no evidence, but this was arguably successful in its goal of perpetuating the Red Scare and making the ideology of Communism seem like the enemy. This anti-communist messaging was often carried out by what the Whitaker/Marcuse reading calls “ideological zealots[1]” and the literal demonizing of the USSR, Communism, and Soviet sympathizers. These notions were often perpetrated by religious groups and other born-again factions. As the reading says, these anti-communist religious groups often differed from other fringe groups in the nationalized (and international) legitimization of anti-communism work/policy. Anti-Communism was a pretty mainstream thing, and the idea that communists were everywhere was an idea shared by everyday people/government officials, and not just some fringe group.

The Whitaker/Marcuse reading also says that the Cold War only seemed to divide the left[2]. This was done through the installation of dissidents, disloyalty, and the delegitimizing of opponents. This competitive attitude essentially pitted parties against each other and somewhat forced them to expose their allegiances and ties to both communism but also other social democratic institutions. This was coupled with investigations conducted by the government, often in violation of state liberties, which were essentially a “witch hunt[3]” that sought to weed out communism in the country, often through peoples/parties’ association with groups that are or have ties to communism.

Although I don’t believe the critiques and opponents of programs like the New Deal or Bretton Woods caused further ideological cleavages or ideological “problems,” I do think events happening after the 1930s (WWII and the Cold War) further legitimized those sentiments. I also don’t think it’s fair to say that those programs fixed these cleavages or ideological “problems” either, if anything, made them worse as they allowed for an avenue to pit ideologies against each other. Not liking the New Deal in the 1930s because it was “interventionist” or “communist” allowed people in the 1940-90s to dislike government policy for the same reason, only this time it was seen as legitimate criticism as it was supported in legitimate institutions.

[1] Reg Whitaker and Gary Marcuse, “The Debate that Never Was: Selling the Cold War,”Chapter 12 in Cold War Canada: The Making of a National Insecurity State, 1945-1957 (University of Toronto Press, 1994 (pp. 275)

[2] Ibid, (pp. 268)

[3]Reg Whitaker and Gary Marcuse, “The Debate that Never Was: Selling the Cold War,”Chapter 12 in Cold War Canada: The Making of a National Insecurity State, 1945-1957 (University of Toronto Press, 1994 (pp. 268)