Chapter 07
Roosevelt’s Re-election: “I Won’t Run Unless Drafted”

II. The Darkest Hour of the New Deal

Arthur Meier Schlesinger Jr. (1917–2007), a renowned historian of the New Deal era, shortly before his death reminded people that “all historians are prisoners of their own experience and slaves to their own inherent prejudices.” Reflecting thoughtfully on his life’s works, especially his three-volume series The Age of Roosevelt, he wrote, “Everything is conditioned by the historical era in which I lived.” He noted that people’s past views and opinions are never fixed. In fact, these perspectives are constantly revised by urgent events of the times. When new crises arise in our era and lives, historians shift their focus. They turn to study the shadows of past events as remembered by people, allowing those shadows in memory to shine anew and stand out. Yet in the memories of earlier historians, these events had already faded away unconsciously. Therefore, when new voices emerge from history’s dark shadows, they attract special attention.

The enduring topic of Roosevelt’s New Deal continues to generate new insights with the arrival of the new century. Among these are critical perspectives, such as the work of American economic historian Burton W. Folsom, whose book titled The Myth of the New Deal clearly reflects his stance. Differing from existing studies, Columbia University professor Ira Katznelson’s 2014 publication, Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time, attempts to revisit the historical process of the New Deal, exploring the complexity and possibilities of America’s institutional evolution during that darkest hour.

In 1933, when Roosevelt took office, many European countries such as Germany, Italy, Portugal, Austria, Poland, and Hungary had already become totalitarian, dictatorial, or fascist regimes, with the exception of Britain, France, and some Nordic countries. British historian Mark Mazower, in his book Dark Continent: Europe in the Twentieth Century, argues that all of this was related to the chaotic process of democratization in Europe after World War I. After 1918, the average lifespan of European governments was less than one year. Multiparty systems generally lacked the stability of two-party legislatures and failed to gain the absolute support of the masses. Statistics show that among the twenty-eight European countries with representative governments after World War I, eight had become dictatorships by 1925. By 1933, five more had joined the ranks of dictatorship. Five years later, in 1938, only ten democratic countries remained in Europe.

The trend of democratic decline in the 1930s manifested in most European countries’ unwillingness to continue fighting for democracy as a principle. Simple and authoritarian political choices were considered better equipped to meet the challenges brought by modernization. European nations found that dictatorship was more efficient at unifying society, accelerating industrialization, and promoting technological progress. Mussolini roared in a speech: “Fascism has abandoned the conventional lie of political equality in democracy, abandoned the idea of individualism, and shattered the democratic myth of achieving happiness …… We cannot overstate the importance of liberalism in the last century and treat it as humanity’s current and future creed; in reality, democracy was just one of many creeds in the last century… Now liberalism is like a soon-to-be-abandoned desolate paradise… This century belongs to authority, to power, to fascism.”