This assignment asks you to demonstrate the course competency of Global Perspect

This assignment asks you to demonstrate the course competency of Global Perspective by constructing an evidence-based dialog between opposite sides’ views on an issue in Modern US History. The ability to understand different perspectives is not only a critical skill for historians, it is a skill that is essential to functioning as a well-informed citizen in society today.
Since its passing, the New Deal has remained a topic of substantial controversy and debate among historians and the general public alike. For this assignment, you will read two different perspectives on the New Deal by major U.S. historians David M. Kennedy and Burton Folsom. These different perspectives offer context to the more conventional arguments made by historians on the issue. These arguments can be summarized as follows:
1– Economic historians often debate the efficacy of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Many liberal historians (liberal as in “New Deal historians” sympathetic to Keynesian economics) have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies did help lift the American economy from the Great Depression. In short, the American economy was rescued by Roosevelt’s New Deal.
2– Other liberal historians (liberal as in “hard core New Deal historians” that celebrate Keynes), however, have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies did not do enough and that Roosevelt and the Democrats, in fact, should have provided a much more rigorous set of programs to help rescue American from the economic abyss. According to this second set of liberal historians, Americans could have emerged from the Great Depression much sooner, with a stronger and more dynamic economy, had Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats offered a stronger federal response. More intervention was needed.
3–Conservative economic historians (influenced by free market economists like Hayek) have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies slowed the recovery, in part because any attempt by the government to intervene in the economy is largely misdirected, led by incompetents, and in fact, worsens the problem. National economic systems are so complex, and public policymakers are incapable of understanding the unintended consequences of their programs, therefore, practically every attempt by the government at reform ends in disaster. Many conservative economic historians have argued that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies prolonged the economic malaise, likely contributed to a deeper economic collapse, and in the process, created an enlarged nation-state with a sprawling bureaucracy with powers that threatened American economic liberty. In other words, not only did the New Deal worsen the economic situation, but Americans also suffered a loss of personal liberty because the institutions that came from the New Deal greatly empowered the central state.
For this assignment, you will read Kennedy’s and Folsom’s articles, use your textbook, and consider the main arguments outlined above. Then, write a letter exchange or spoken dialog between opposite sides’ views on Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression. Creatively explain who the people in the dialogue are and how they are related. Perhaps they are relatives, two friends, or pen pals. Regardless of their relationship, they are on opposite sides–One is Keynesian, and another a free marketeer like Hayek. Write a dialog in which each person attempts to persuade the other to change their mind on the issue. Use the sources provided to inform your crafting of the clashing arguments of the dialogue/exchange. Write either at least 4 short letters (1 paragraph each) or 300 words of dialog.
Find below your source: