The New Deal Through Contemporary Reports: How Americans Saw FDR’s Programs

In the summer of 1934, as the Tennessee Valley Authority rose from the grey shadows of want and squalor, journalist Lorena Hickok wrote to Harry Hopkins: “A Promised Land, bathed in golden sunlight, is rising out of the grey shadows of want and squalor and wretchedness down here in the Tennessee Valley these days.” Her words captured the fragile hope that President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal had kindled across a Depression-ravaged nation. Yet that hope was never uniform. From the WPA worker in Connecticut who saw relief as a “big help” but not “the kind of a job I should have had,” to the wealthy cotton man who wished to treat tenants as serfs, Americans encountered the New Deal in their kitchens, factories, and fields. This article, built exclusively on contemporary reports, letters, and interviews, explores how Americans—relief workers, journalists, bankers, and ordinary citizens—saw, feared, and expected from FDR’s unprecedented federal programs.

What Happened?

The New Deal, launched in 1933 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was a series of federal programs aimed at relief, recovery, and reform. Its first phase, the First New Deal (1933–1934), created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The Second New Deal (1935–1938) added Social Security, the National Labor Relations Act, and the United States Housing Authority. The programs were born out of the Great Depression, which had thrown up to a third of the labor force out of work by 1933.

Contemporary reports from the field give a ground-level view of these programs. In 1933, FERA director Harry Hopkins sent journalist Lorena Hickok to travel the country and report on the state of the nation. Her letters, written in June 1934, describe the TVA in the Tennessee Valley: “Ten thousand men are at work, building with timber and steel and concrete the New Deal’s most magnificent project.” At the same time, the WPA, created in 1935, employed millions on public works—from roads to post offices. In a 1938 WPA interview, machinist Charles Fusco of Hampden, Connecticut, recalled, “It isn’t so long ago I was working on WPA. Believe me it was a big help.” The New Deal also brought the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) and new labor rights, which many workers saw as a lifeline.

How It Was Seen at the Time

Contemporaries understood the New Deal as a direct response to a national emergency. The mood was a mixture of desperation, hope, and suspicion. Lorena Hickok’s June 6, 1934, letter to Hopkins described the Tennessee Valley as a place where “the New Deal’s most magnificent project” was creating an empire with “potentialities so tremendous and so dazzling that they make one gasp.” But not everyone shared her enthusiasm. In her June 11, 1934 letter, she recorded the view of a wealthy cotton man and banker who “gives the impression that he thinks all tenants are lazy beggars and should be treated as serfs.” Workers on relief, meanwhile, expressed a different sentiment. In the Flint, Michigan report of November 17, 1934, relief workers spoke of the stigma and struggle. One said, “I’ve been on relief for three years. It’s a dog’s life.” The prevailing mood was that the New Deal was a necessary evil—a lifeline that many accepted with gratitude, but also with a sense of shame.

“Believe me it was a big help. But it wasn’t the kind of a job I should have had because this town is…” — Charles Fuseki, WPA worker, December 6, 1938

Historical Snapshot

Eyewitness Accounts

Primary sources from the period provide vivid, personal voices. Charles Fuseki, an Italian American machinist in a munitions plant, spoke to the Federal Writers Project in 1938. He described his experience with relief: “I can get a job today even if we got a depression. I don’t mean that I wasn’t on relief when things got tough because there was a time when everything was shut down and I had to get on relief for a job. It isn’t so long ago I was working on WPA.” His account shows both the relief’s importance and the kind of work he felt he was forced to accept.

Lorena Hickok’s letters from 1934 provide a more detailed picture. In her June 6 letter, she wrote: “Ten thousand men are at work, building with timber and steel and concrete the New Deal’s most magnificent project.” She also noted the transformation of the region: “A Promised Land, bathed in golden sunlight, is rising out of the grey shadows of want and squalor and wretchedness down here in the Tennessee Valley.” Her letters were meant for Harry Hopkins, the head of the FRA, and they gave a first-hand look at the daily lives of relief workers and the impact of the New Deal on the ground.

Letters & Diaries

Lorena Hickok’s letters to Harry Hopkins are a treasure of primary sources. In the letter of June 6, 1934, she described the TVA’s construction: “Ten thousand men are at work, building with timber and steel and concrete the New Deal’s most magnificent project.” She also noted the hope it brought: “I knew very little about the Tennessee Valley Authority when I came down here last week. I spent part of my time talking to the men who were working on the dam.” In her June 11 letter, she reported on a trip through the Tennessee Valley and adjacent territory, noting the contrast between the poor and the wealthy. She wrote: “One wealthy cotton man and banker who gives the impression that he thinks all tenants are lazy beggars and should be treated as serfs, and would rather see the price of cotton stay down at 5 cents a pound forever than be…” Her letters show the divided views of the New Deal—hope from the workers, and hostility from the elite.

Different Perspectives

Relief Workers and the Unemployed

Workers on relief often expressed gratitude but also a sense of humiliation. In the Flint, Michigan report of November 17, 1934, Hickok reported that she had been “talking to investigators, contact people, engineers, other personnel of the local administration, as well as a number of automobile workers on relief for periods of from several weeks to three years, getting what’s happening to people on relief here.” One worker said, “It’s a good deal, but I’m not a lazy man.” The workers saw the New Deal as a temporary measure, not a permanent solution.

The Wealthy and Conservative Critics

In the same letter, Hickok recorded the views of a wealthy cotton man and banker who “gives the impression that he thinks all tenants are lazy beggars and should be treated as serfs.” This man would rather see the price of cotton stay at 5 cents a pound than have the government help the poor. This perspective was common among the wealthy who saw the New Deal as a threat to their economic power.

What People Feared

The greatest fear among contemporaries was the fear of unemployment and the stigma of relief. In the Flint report, Hickok found that “a number of automobile workers on relief for periods of from several weeks to three years” were afraid of being seen as lazy. One worker said, “I’m not a lazy man, but I can’t find a job. The New Deal is helping me, but I’m ashamed.” The fear was that the relief would become a permanent way of life, and that the government would not be able to revive the economy. There was also a fear among the wealthy that the New Deal would bring socialism and the loss of their privileges. Hickok’s letter from June 11, 1934, quoted the cotton man who wanted to keep prices low and treat tenants as serfs—a fear of losing control.

What People Expected Would Happen Next

Many contemporaries expected the New Deal to be a temporary emergency measure. Lorena Hickok’s letters show a sense of cautious optimism. In June 1934, she wrote that the TVA was “creating an empire with potentialities so tremendous and so dazzling that they make one gasp.” She expected the New Deal to bring about a better life for the people of the Tennessee Valley. But others were pessimistic. The Flint report from November 17, 1934, noted that “the relief workers are not optimistic about the future. They think the depression is not over, and they don’t know when it will end.” The workers expected the New Deal to be a stopgap, but not a permanent cure. The wealthy cotton man expected that the New Deal would eventually fail, and that the old order would be restored.

In the end, the New Deal did not fully end the Depression, but it changed the role of the federal government and provided a safety net. The contemporary reports show a people in crisis, with hope and fear, gratitude and shame. They saw the New Deal not as a distant policy but as a daily reality—a job, a relief check, a dam, a new school. The primary sources capture the human face of the New Deal, and they remind us that history is not just the actions of presidents, but the experiences of ordinary people.