Question

historian barton bernstein, writing in the late 1960s, argued that the new deal was no revolution, and that the changes suggested by degler and others had been exaggerated. the new deal was a narrow program of limited reform that excluded millions of americans. bernstein saw the new deal as fundamentally a conservative program partly motivated by a fear of more radical ideas (like those proposed by huey long). specifically, bernstein saw the social security act as more symbol than substance. workers had to contribute to their old - age pensions and could not depend on government contributions; thus, it was a limited kind of aid. more than one out of every five workers was excluded from the pension plan, including those who worked on farms and as domestic help, and this workforce was disproportionately black or female. bernstein argued that while the new deal reduced suffering, it did not deserve the praise for revolutionizing america that others lavished upon it. barton bernstein, \the conservative achievements of liberal reform,\ in towards a new past, 1968. summarize bernsteins argument in your own words.

Explanation:

Barton Bernstein argued the New Deal was a limited - reform, conservative program. He saw the Social Security Act as more symbolic, with many workers excluded. He believed the New Deal didn't deserve praise for revolutionizing America despite reducing suffering.

Answer:

Bernstein contends that the New Deal was a narrow, conservative reform program. The Social Security Act was more symbol than substance, excluding many workers, and the New Deal, while reducing suffering, did not revolutionize America as some claimed.