Name of University
HIST2112 Take Home Exam
Name of Student
Course Title
Professor’s Name
Date of Submission
I.
The first pair of terms that will be analyzed are States’ rights and “School Choice”. Based
on a personal standpoint and in terms of American political discourse, States’ rights refer to the
political powers that are ascribed to the state government. It is reflective of the enumerated powers
of both Congress and the Fifth amendment. On the other hand, “School Choice” is associated with
the allocation of public funds to provide the students with the opportunity to attend a school that
is appropriate for their needs. Such choices can range from public schools to private schools,
homeschooling, and other related environments that are conducive for learning. Gersovitz and
Kriger discussed that the concept and value of states’ rights were highly emphasized during and
post-Civil War (163). A potent and primary issue with states’ rights during the period was that the
regions in the South wanted to assert their authority in order to completely eradicate the laws that
they do not identify with, such as slavery and territorial expansion (165). The end of the Civil War
did not automatically ensure equal rights and prevention of racial discrimination; albeit slavery
was abolished in the United States (Hewitt and Lawson 482). As States’ rights are often associated
with equal opportunities, the Fifteenth Amendment made it possible for black men to secure spots
in public offices through suffrage (488). The School Choice also had a similar appearance in pre, peri-, and post-Civil War. The rights of the black men were limited, particularly in securing equal
access to education. The Fifteenth Amendment made it possible to extend education opportunities
with the disenfranchised people, but racial discriminations are still admittedly evident (489).
The second pair of terms that I decided to explore is Tet Offensive and The Pentagon
Papers. The two concepts are interrelated, and both are controversially linked to the Vietnam War.
The former is popularly known as coordinated episodes of attacks of the North Vietnamese on
approximately 100 cities located in South Vietnam. This movement was aimed towards creating a
rebellion among those in South Vietnam to effectively decrease the involvement of the United
States in the Vietnam War (Dinh 33). The latter on the other hand was a controversial document
that contained secret information regarding the participation of the United States in the Vietnam
War, which was mostly concealed from the public. It was revealed that the U.S. had expanded its
scope of actions in the Vietnam War as evidenced by raiding the coasts of North Vietnam and the
attacks made by the Marine Corps (Dinh 35). It seems that the start of the Civil War in Vietnam is
associated with what was gained from the Civil War in the United States. It was cited that while
the reforms made for liberalism and civil rights were achieving progress, both the administrations
of Kennedy and Johson had difficulties in alleviating communism in other regions (Hewitt and
Lawson Chapter 26d). The aggressive operations that initiated the Civil War in Vietnam started
with Kennedy’s regime. The former president’s efforts, both financially and in armaments, seemed
futile and insufficient towards eradicating the Communists. The Communist group has earned the
trust of the peasants by promising them land reform. Despite wanting to provide more military
troops for the cause, Kennedy appeared to have mixed thoughts about the situation (Hewitt and
Lawson 900). The presidency of Lyndon Johnson marked the worsening case in Vietnam as he
made attempts to escalate the situation by sending in more troops. It is his belief that showing
weakness to the Communists will only exacerbate their pursuits of rebellion (Hewitt and Lawson
900). The Pentagon Papers concealed information that documented the outcomes of the frustration
of the American troops as evidenced by the burning of villages and the killing of civilians who are
non-combative. As cited by Hewitt and Lawson, this was the My Lai massacre, a manifestation of
the Tet Offensive (902).
II.
Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 signaled the end of the “long New Deal” and a shift into a
new era in American politics. What were the most important factors that fueled the conservative
response to “postwar liberalism” during the late 1960s through the 1980s?
In order to answer this question effectively and sufficiently, it is vital to do the following:
To provide a brief overview of the “long New Deal”, to discuss postwar liberalism, and to provide
a history of President Reagan’s presidency. The Long New Deal was a movement that was initiated
after the Cold War, in order to provide the people with equal opportunities to access basic needs
such as food, healthcare, and education. In essence, government funding, taxes, and social security
were aimed towards ending endemic poverty both in the urban and rural areas (Patel and Goodman
432). Now, we come to question, what does the “long New Deal” have to do with postwar
liberalism?
According to Voegeli, liberalism is the belief and creed of individuals who believe in a
good society and to provide human liberty (16). The post-war, American liberals are members of
this population and they greatly believe in freedom under law. Liberalism was described as
opposition from being a homogenous society; a fight against unemployment both spiritually and
economically (Patel and Goodman 431). The New Republic, which came after a series of racial
discrimination and poverty, brought in the long New deal as well as the tenets of liberalism. This
republic aimed to continue Kennedy’s contribution to social responsibility and civil rights.
Liberalism was prominent during the 1950s through the early sixties because it was highly
associated with political issues and provided a sense of assurance. It was known to provide a
framework and foundation for the consideration of the Cold War and civil rights. The promise of
ending the ideology strengthened the acceptance of liberalism (Voegeli 16). However, the sense
of liberalism started to crumble due to the Vietnam War and the Great Society. Throughout this
period in time, liberalism had to repeatedly make efforts to re-establish itself as a foundation of
the understanding of justice among Americans, liberty, and personal responsibility. The Great
Society was initially expected to strengthen the sense of liberalism in American society. However,
it did the opposite and started the hostility towards the movement (17). The first identifiable factor
that urged a conservative response towards liberalism is the Vietnam war. The working-class
Americans were known to show indifference towards the freedom movement due to its flaw in the
counterculture. Having it so that the Vietnam war started due to pursuits for freedom and liberation;
thus the Liberals felt a responsibility for being the reason behind this very unpopular war (Dinh
29). Moreover, the legislative component of the Great Society posed restrictions and challenges
for the liberals (17). In order to counteract these struggles, the movement developed new goals
sooner than expected. However, their movement coincided with that of the Great Society. The
latter’s success overshadowed the former’s. Civil rights and issues on poverty have posed conflict
on the Great Society which placed the liberals in a very perilous situation. The civil rights
advocated bore down on the current government to take charge in alleviating poverty. Thus, the
liberals chose to heed this call, albeit unprepared to save the ghetto community. In order to pose
their position on the battleground in attaining civil rights, the liberals initiated community action
programs, Model cities, job training, and food stamps. However, poverty was still rampant and
racial segregation was still actively present (18). With the continuation and worsening of poverty
and discrimination, the failure of the liberal movement started to surface, which further increased
the largely conservative views towards it (22).
The clarification of liberalism started to regress by the end of the 1970s and by the time
Ronald Reagan was winning the electoral votes. The ambiguity of James Carter and the confusion
among the liberals’ position further complicated the movement’s situation. The internal conflicts
that ensued within the movement brought great pressure and criticism on the value of liberalism,
with the society becoming increasingly unwelcoming and skeptical of their principles. Another
conservative’s criticism of liberalism is that the tenets were already outdated, and they refused to
consider new ideologies (30). Upon careful analysis, it can be identified that one of the most
prominent flaws of the liberalism movement that caused such a conservative response was their
response to racial discrimination and poverty. The liberals’ sensitivity towards the needs of the
poor and the minority race was not seen on a positive note but instead were met with harsh
criticism. One of the most negatively prominent views on liberals’ action was that The Citizens
Crusade Against Poverty was an elitist group and that the participation of the poor people was just
for show. At that time, the Wagner Act provided concrete political power on labor unions, while
the anti-poverty efforts of the liberals were based on their personal views. These contrasting
approaches further displaced the value of liberalism in society. The highlight and probably the
most important causative factor of conservative views on liberalism is that liberalism has greatly
compromised the American power structure, that it actually prevented social justice instead of
improving it (45).
For the last part of this analysis, Ronald Reagan’s presidency will be explored in order to provide
a connection between the end of the long New Deal, the fall of liberalism, and the resumption of
conservatism. Ronald Reagan has been known as an individual who was larger than life, a daunting
politician, and one of the most important presidents in American history. Just like all the other
presidents that came before him, his character was complex. His regime was known for achieving
great success but is also marred with flaws caused by inconsistencies. Heclo identified that the
triumph and failure of Reagan’s presidency are rooted in his personal style of political leadership
(31). One of the things that he was known to be optimistic about is his belief that most conflicts in
the government can be subjected to and relieved by simple and convenient solutions (Patterson
357). The Presidential Act of 1963 that was urged by former President Kennedy provided funding
to aid in future transition expenses from one administration to another. However, the transition
team of Reagan to a different route from the previous transitions (Pffifner 82). The transitions that
commenced between 1980-1981 were composed of an elaborate network of top Reagan allies and
seven deputy directors (83).
One of the factors that ushered in the “new era in American politics” is the revolution that
Ronald Reagan made in political appointments. This has greatly shaped the course of his
administration in terms of policymaking and enactment. Since Reagan had a conservative point of
view, his staff, particularly Pendleton James saw to it that all the political appointments being
made were loyal “Reaganauts” to ensure that all appointees were in-line with the president’s
ideology (Newland 4). Clearly, the advantage of this revolutionary personnel selection is that
loyalty to the Reagan administration is ensured. However, it also caused a marked limitation and
narrowing of ideas and causes long delays in getting work initiated due to the slow movement of
confirming appointees. The Initial Policy Agenda of the Reagan administration started off by
focusing solely on the most vital policy objectives in the first few months of his presidency. He
decided to focus his budgeting on cutting taxes, increasing the funding for the military, and
decreasing the funds set for domestic pursuits. His well-known “rifle strategy” which was a
symbolism of narrowly focusing on matters have achieved his major priorities in goals in his first
year of the presidency (Pffifner 84). According to Morgan, the tax cuts failed to bring the
envisioned economic growth and progress. It resulted in a deficit of more than $100 billion.
However, it was recognized by the administration that this was acceptable. The Tax Equity and
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 were then enacted. This move increased taxes in several years
to make up for the losses previously. TEFRA was known to be the largest peacetime tax in the
history of America (98).
President Reagan’s mixed legacies are the markers of the new era in American politics. His
public policy has been and will always be known as a staunch enemy of the government. His
aggressive governmental power and funding did not positively impact the national security
program. His conservative economic policy did not play out as planned (Cannon 558). The success
of Reagan’s initial policy proposals transformed the view of the presidency through the use of
presidential power in the realm of the constitution. Reagan used his interpersonal skills in order to
motivate the public, and his microlevel social skills to encourage Congress to support his policies.
Through his conservative strategy, he made it known that presidents have the ability to command
the policy process (Pffifner 98).
In conclusion, we can gather that the long New Deal, liberalism, and Reagan’s presidency
are components that constituted an interplay and led to a domino effect. Because of the prominence
of inequality, poverty, and racial discrimination during the Cold War, the long New Deal was
initiated to provide equal opportunities for everyone in America. However, as the societal issues
were still prominent and most of the American population were still encapsulated in tradition and
conservatism, liberalism commenced as a fight to secure civil rights. The promise of liberalism
was great, but they failed to sustain their principles as they were greatly unprepared for society’s
response. Then again, the conservative view of the majority started to regain strength and was
bolstered further by Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Having it so that he selected Cabinet members
who strictly supported his conservative ideologies, liberal views and movement started to fade
away.
Works Cited
Cannon, L. Reagan. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1982.
Dinh, T. “Impact of the 1968 Tet Offensive on re-shaping the U.S. war strategy: a view from
American war generals and researchers”. Hue Universal Journal of Social Science and
Humanities. vol.127, no.6, 2018, pp. 29-37.
Gersovitz, M., & Kriger, N. “What is a civil war? a critical review of its definition and econometric
consequences.” The World Bank Research Observer. vol. 28, no. 2, 2013, pp.159-190.
Heclo, H. The Mixed Legacies of Ronald Reagan. in The Enduring Reagan, ed. Charles W. Dunn.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2009, 17-39.
Hewitt, Nancy. and Lawson, Steven. Exploring American Histories. Third Edition, 2019.
MacMillan Learning.
Morgan, I. The Age of Deficits: Presidents and Unbalanced Budgets from Jimmy Carter to George
W. Bush. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009.
Newland, C. “The Reagan Presidency: Limited Government and Political Administration.” Public
Administration Review, January/February 1983.
Patterson, J. The Legacy of the Reagan Years. In The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism
and Its Legacies, eds. W. Elliot Brownlee and Hugh Davis Graham. Lawrence: University
Press of Kansas, 2003, pp. 355-76.
Pattel, R., and Goodman, J. “The long new deal”. Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 47, no. 3, 2020,
pp. 431-463.
Pffifner, James (2013). “The paradox of President Reagan’s Leadership”. Presidential Studies
Quarterly, 43 (1), 2013, pp. 81-99.
Voegeli, William. Postwar American Liberalism and the Welfare State. 1983. Loyola University
of Chicago. PhD dissertation. Dissertations, https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/2242.