The Great Depression was a time of unprecedented economic failure that resulted in a redistribution of power when people started questioning their government and the power of its citizens. The New Deal program of President Franklin D. Roosevelt having federal programs and reforms could not fully rectify the crisis for all the affected people (Corbett et al., 2014). The major point is that different schemes from Huey Long to Dr. Francis Townshend and Upton Sinclair were promoted to address the nation’s economic woes, each having their specific tactics. These proposals were articulated in a way that appealed to those who wanted preemptive poverty and unemployment solutions; a shift in attitudes towards wanton reforms was indicative of the society’s thirst for a new change.
Huey Long proclaimed his Share the Wealth plan, which was meant to achieve a crash of extreme inequality levels by transferring wealth from the rich to the poor. For a long time, his policies included putting an upper limit on personal fortunes, ensuring every family had a home, a car, and other vital needs, and guaranteeing income for every citizen who was unemployed and received less than their basic means. This proposal resonated with Americans disillusioned with the slow progress of economic recovery under the New Deal and those who felt left behind by the capitalist system (Corbett et al., 2014). Long’s charisma and populist rhetoric made wealth redistribution highly appealing, presenting a clear, albeit simplistic, solution to the complexities of poverty and inequality.
Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth project hit the scene during the 1930s when the United States was experiencing the Great Depression, which could arguably be described as the apocalypse of that period. His utopian vision of a more equitable society found resonance among those Americans who felt that the current capitalist model had failed and millionaires were sitting high on their mounds of wealth. By proposing measures such as capping personal fortunes and guaranteeing a minimum income and necessities for all, Long tapped into a deep well of discontent with the status quo (Corbett et al., 2014). His catchphrase, go with the flow, but without compassion, and his less unbiased approach all contributed to an easy recourse of resolving poverty and inequality, which, in turn, led to citizens being in discontent. Far from getting the Share Our Wealth plan into government, its meaning echoed resoundingly in American politics, constantly reminding us to be more concerned about economic justice and the role the government plays in a more equitable society.
The older people who were in a worse situation than throughout the DepressionDepression were the focus of Dr. Francis Townsend’s idea. His Old Age Revolving Pension Plan called for monthly payments to those over 60, provided they retired and spent the entire amount each month to stimulate the economy. Townsend’s plan appealed to Americans because it addressed the plight of the elderly, promoting economic activity while offering a semblance of security in old age (Corbett et al., 2014). The simplicity and directness of Townsend’s plan, coupled with the promise of immediate economic stimulation, made it especially attractive to those seeking more aggressive action than the New Deal offered.
The Great Depression challenged Dr. Francis Townsend’s era with the Old Age Revolving Pension Plan plan, a unique approach to addressing the elderly section of society’s susceptibility. All the same, the plan launched aimed at supporting those over 60 who are required to resign from their posts to make room for millennials. The monthly pension funds were used to buy goods and services so as to fuel the economy. Townsend’s approach was aimed at eliminating the economic disabilities of older Americans by, at the same time, placing the economy on a growth trajectory as a result of more consumer spending. The plan’s simplicity, as it focused heavily on releasing direct financial aid and not allowing for that money to be stored, undoubtedly was the major reason why people paid more attention to this plan. Since they had more information, they made up their minds faster and knew what actions to take, in comparison to how long and gradual were the New Deal’s policies. It spoke audibly to the many Americans who were already chafing to have the Trump led relief and take a more aggressive approach in government to solve the economic problems the 1930s brought with it. That drew attention to the people over sixty-five years old as the high-risk category suggested, Townsend put forward a bipartisan scheme that guaranteed not only a life support to those who may need it but also an economic stimulus to all sectors of the economy.
Upton Sinclair, a socialist writer and activist in his EPIC (end poverty in California) campaign plan stated during the 1934 gubernatorial election. That the state would use the previously dead production, of goods in free lands, without adding for that the price, and distribute them directly to the people is what the EPIC model is about (Corbett et al., 2014). Sinclair’s plan plunged into the frustrations who were out of the job or on the base level and did the incision for the economy that was servicing the needs of the many instead of the profits of the few. People evacuated the EPIC plan due to its proactive and employment strategy which changed the state industry from one which was more experimental than direct.
The EPIC plan, that was brought in by Upton Sinclair’s mind, had the purpose to justify the economy to changing in favor of the citizens of California who are the ones having the most difficult time surviving in that state. Sinclair home in on the importance of municipality management of idle farmlands and factories through the vision of a communal society where the public interest is pursued, resources shared, and the public is supplied with work and basic needs, targeting in particular the unemployed and those with unstable job environments. This configured central to an attitude where the state postulated perspectives to relief people’s economic suffering in short terms but at the same time, has been committed to fundamental changes in the relationship between state, the economy, and the citizens (Corbett et al., 2014). Sinclair’s blueprint found an audience beyond the ceiling drinking habits, adventuring dangerous climates, and living under tough circumstances. The concept of state orientation in fact meant a whole range of critical factors concerning the work of the capitalist systems and had as its aim to show that it is possible to redistribute the wealth and resources in a manner that is fair. The EPIC had stirred an intense feeling of oneness and common purpose. The people at the perceived Sinclair as a champion of their cause and the possibilities of systematic change within the government system, pointing at the gap between the workers and their employers.
The 3 differing Long, Townsend, and Sinclair proposals were the ones that offered different solutions to face the context of economic problems of the Great Depression era, being reasonable as alternatives to the perceived unfitness of Roosevelt’s New Deal. The appeals, however, mostly attracted those who wanted government to pay more attention to the problem of poverty by way of giving substantial assistance to people most in need. More direct, immediate, and sometimes, drastic measures could be of the kind. It is significant to note, however, that these plans were not fully implemented and this points to the depth of American economic distress present then and the cultural shift towards solutions that would bring about change. The popularity of these plans shows the dynamism of American political and economic thinking of that period. During the country’s Depression, while concerned citizens and politicians searched for the best formula to preserve prosperity and security for everybody, the question of America’s political and economic beliefs was the subject of constant debate.
Reference
Scott Corbett, Ventura College, & Volker Janssen. (2014). U.S. History (California State University, Fullerton ed.). Dec 30, 2014. https://openstax.org/details/books/us-history
write