In case my prior post was a little too cryptic, apologies: I was referring to the argument that Roosevelt saved capitalism from a violent communist revolution with the New Deal, and that therefore free market types should bow down in gratitude to Dear Leader. This argument is, as far as I can tell, advanced entirely by people who also believe that its programs are a moral imperative.
There are two problems. The first is that a program that must give people money so that they will not kill/imprison/etc the donors may be practical, but it is also immoral. This means, it seems to me, that you can either claim that the New Deal is a sort of broad spectrum Dangeld, or that it is a moral necessity, but not both.
The second is that this is not necessarily a good argument for New Deal programs. If the concerns are merely practical, then perhaps the New Deal was the more cost effective way to buy peace; but perhaps not. This could just as well be an argument for rich people buying bigger and better guns than poor people. Even rich people are, presumably, entitled to shoot back.
I think most of the people who make this argument are, in fact, being sophistic; they aren't particularly interested in saving American capitalism, but they think that the people to whom they speak might be persuaded by this remarkably stupid and amoral argument. I have, obviously, a mixed opinion of the New Deal. But I find this particular "logic" an unbelievably offensive slur against my country.