{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022743425728500355, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028429282160625444, 'mean_word_length': 4.746938775510204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The New Deal: A New Look

For most of its sixty years, the historiography of the New Deal has been dominated by two major perspectives: proand anti-. Much of this work has been normative as well as descriptive or analytical: to explain not only how and why the New Deal happened, but why it was a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The major conceptual framework of the literature is the distinction between a recovery-minded First New Deal rooted in the past, and a reform-minded Second New Deal that under the political, intellectual, and demographic pressures of change unfolded into something broader and more original. The progenitors of this Classic interpretation of the New Deal-Basil Rauch, William Leuchtenburg, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Frank Freidel, Richard Hofstadter-had in common a more or less strong political and ideological identification with their subject. They sought to strengthen the New Deal's historical bona fides by stressing not only its broad popular roots in the 1930s, but also its deep ties to a tradition of American reform. Hofstadter made it part (though in some respects a discordant part) of an Age of Reform stretching back to the end of the nineteenth century. Schlesinger reached even further back into the American past, finding affinities between the Age of Jackson and the Age of Roosevelt that reinforced the theme of a reform tradition almost as old as America itself.'