The Great Depression profoundly altered the lives and livelihood of virtually every American no matter their economic class. Some, like much of the upper classes, maintained their lifestyles to a great degree. The grown Middle Classes mostly maintained their status although many did experience privation. The vast population of working-class Americans, including native born whites, migrant blacks moving north, farmers and factory workers, immigrants, and women, however, bore the brunt of the most painful impacts of the Great Depression. The Great Depression forced Americans to consider, and reconsider, what they believed the relationship was and should be between citizens and the Government. The traditional view of this relationship was that of Herbert Hoover’s maintenance of laissez-faire policies of minimal government interference and activism. Franklin Roosevelt, running for the presidency in 1932 during the depth of the Depression however, campaigned on a platform of government action and direct intervention. These two views lay at the heart of how Americans view themselves and their government.
Review the presentation from Oct. 21, Week 6 Roaring into the 20 Century:
From Charlestons to Soup Kitchens
Read the documents in American Spirit, chapter 31, “Herbert Hoover
Clashes with Franklin Roosevelt,” and “Appraising Hoover,” pp. 601-607
(Required)
The Question I am asking you to consider: Using the readings and information you’ve read regarding the Great Depression, what is the relationship between citizens and their government?
As part of your introduction, briefly summarize what the Great Depression was; why it occurred, when it started. Since I’m asking you to ultimately take a position on a specific issue, please try to create an argumentative thesis to end your introduction that tells me what it is you are going to argue.
For the main body of this essay, summarize, compare, and contrast Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt’s views on the role, functions and obligations of the Government during a severe Depression in areas including Public versus Private utilities, government intervention in business activities, the question of “Balanced Budgets versus Humanity” and finally Roosevelt’s “Welfare Statism” versus Hoover’s “New Frontiers.”
In your conclusion, summarize you understanding and thoughts on the role and relationship between citizen and state. Consider: What do you expect from the State, that is, the government whether it is the local city, county, state, or federal government. What do you want the State to do? On the flip side, are you obligated to certain actions and activities towards the State?
Finally, given that we are currently emerging from a recession and the charged and partisan political state we are in, are we still debating the basic question of expectations and obligations?
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
The Great Depression: A Nation Divided, a Government Tested
The Great Depression, a period of unprecedented economic hardship that gripped the United States from 1929 to the late 1930s, irrevocably altered the nation’s social and political landscape. Its origins, rooted in a speculative bubble in the stock market, unleashed a cascade of bank failures, business closures, and widespread unemployment. This period exposed the inherent flaws of the existing economic model and forced Americans to grapple with the fundamental question: what is the proper role of government in the lives of its citizens?
This essay will argue that the Great Depression illuminated a stark contrast in ideology between President Herbert Hoover, who championed laissez-faire principles, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who advocated for government intervention. Their contrasting approaches to the crisis revealed differing perceptions of the relationship between citizens and the state, ultimately shifting the national conversation towards a more activist role for government in addressing economic hardship.
The Great Depression: A Nation Divided, a Government Tested
The Great Depression, a period of unprecedented economic hardship that gripped the United States from 1929 to the late 1930s, irrevocably altered the nation’s social and political landscape. Its origins, rooted in a speculative bubble in the stock market, unleashed a cascade of bank failures, business closures, and widespread unemployment. This period exposed the inherent flaws of the existing economic model and forced Americans to grapple with the fundamental question: what is the proper role of government in the lives of its citizens?
This essay will argue that the Great Depression illuminated a stark contrast in ideology between President Herbert Hoover, who championed laissez-faire principles, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who advocated for government intervention. Their contrasting approaches to the crisis revealed differing perceptions of the relationship between citizens and the state, ultimately shifting the national conversation towards a more activist role for government in addressing economic hardship.
Hoover, deeply rooted in the principles of individualism and limited government intervention, believed that private enterprise held the key to economic recovery. He saw public utilities as a threat to free markets and championed balanced budgets as a cornerstone of fiscal responsibility. His “New Frontiers” approach aimed to promote individual initiative and self-reliance, eschewing direct government aid. Conversely, Roosevelt, recognizing the extent of the crisis, proposed a “New Deal” that embraced government intervention as a means to alleviate suffering. He championed the expansion of public utilities, supported government intervention in the economy, and prioritized human welfare over balanced budgets. His “Welfare Statism” sought to create a safety net for struggling citizens through social programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance.
The stark difference between Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s approach, however, extends beyond economic policies. It reflects two contrasting views on the relationship between citizens and the state. Hoover viewed the government as a protector of individual liberties, facilitating a free market where individual initiative drives economic prosperity. Roosevelt, on the other hand, saw the government as an active participant in ensuring the well-being of its citizens, particularly during times of economic hardship.
This fundamental difference in perspective begs the question: what do we expect from the state? What role should the government play in ensuring the well-being of its citizens, especially during times of crisis? While individual liberty and personal responsibility remain core values, are we, as a society, obligated to provide a safety net for those who are struggling? The Great Depression forced Americans to grapple with these questions, and their answers continue to shape the relationship between citizens and the state today.
As we navigate the complexities of a post-recession world, the debate surrounding the role of government remains relevant. The partisan political climate often overshadows the fundamental question of the relationship between citizens and the state. Do we embrace a more activist approach, similar to Roosevelt, or do we prioritize individual liberty and minimal government intervention, echoing Hoover’s philosophy? This ongoing debate speaks to the enduring legacy of the Great Depression, a period that forever altered the American relationship with its government and continues to shape our understanding of responsibility and social welfare in the 21st century.
