How Did The Divergent Views On Individual Liberty And The Role Of Government Held By Classical Liberals Like Herbert Croly And Conservative Traditionalists Like Russell Kirk Inform Their Respective Critiques Of The New Deal's Economic Policies, And In What Ways Did These Criticisms Reflect Deeper Philosophical Tensions Within The American Liberal Tradition?

The critiques of the New Deal by Herbert Croly and Russell Kirk stem from their divergent views on individual liberty and government's role, reflecting deeper philosophical tensions within American liberalism.

Herbert Croly, a progressive classical liberal, supported the New Deal's government intervention as a means to address economic inequality and promote social welfare. He believed in an active federal role to regulate the economy and society, seeing the New Deal as a step toward necessary structural changes. However, he critiqued it for not going far enough in transforming the economic system, advocating for more comprehensive reforms to achieve greater equality and social justice.

Russell Kirk, a conservative traditionalist, opposed the New Deal's expansion of government, fearing it would erode individual liberties and traditional institutions. He viewed the increased bureaucracy and intervention as threats to personal freedom and the established social order, emphasizing the importance of limited government and decentralization.

These critiques highlight a fundamental tension within American liberalism: the balance between government intervention to ensure equality and the protection of individual liberties. Croly's progressive stance and Kirk's conservative perspective exemplify this enduring debate, illustrating the philosophical divide over the role of government in achieving social and economic goals while preserving individual freedoms.