Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:15:14.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

War on Dependency: Liberal Individualism and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Gareth Davies
Gareth Davies
Affiliation:
Gareth Davies is Lecturer in American History in the American Studies department, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, England.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson, professing himself alarmed by the seemingly “endless growth of relief rolls,” declared “war” on poverty. Walter Heller, his chief economic adviser, had recently remarked that it would be quite possible to eliminate the symptoms of poverty by simply redistributing two percent of the national income. Johnson, however, preferred to attack the sources of deprivation, claiming that the range of rehabilitative services provided by his Economic Opportunity Act would allow the poor to engineer their own paths to affluence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , August 1992 , pp. 205 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Johnson's remarks were made at the signing ceremony for the Economic Opportunity Act on 20 Aug. 1964. See “Administrative History of the Office of Economic Opportunity,” 52Google Scholar, Lyndon B. Johnson Library, Austin, Texas.

2 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Hearings before the AdHoc Subcommittee on the War on Poverty of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 29.

3 Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A., Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York: Vintage, 1971), Ch. 9.Google Scholar The quotations are from p. 272.

4 Matusow, Allen J., The Unraveling of America: American Liberalism During the 1960s (New York: Harper and Row, 1984), 120.Google Scholar

5 Patterson, James T., America's Struggle Against Poverty, 1900–1985 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1986), 136.Google Scholar Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a contributor to Sargent Shriver's anti-poverty task force, goes further, claiming that “an immense opportunity to institute more or less permanent social changes – a fixed full employment programme, a measure of income maintenance – was lost while energies were expended in ways that very probably hastened the end of the brief period when such options were open.” Moynihan, , Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York: Free Press, 1969), 193.Google Scholar

6 Aaron, Henry J., Politics and the Professors: The Great Society in Perspective (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1978), 28.Google Scholar

7 Ira Katznelson takes a different view, believing that it was the failure of post-war liberalism to break with the individualist tradition that paved the way for the subsequent rise of the Right in America. He considers that Truman era liberals spurned an historic opportunity to build upon “the social democratic potential of the New Deal.” Rather than act to “organize markets and mitigate market outcomes,” government “changed the locus of political debate from questions of social organization and class relations to issues of technical economics and interest group politics.” The Great Society “embedded the trajectory of the 1940s,” its hostility to marketplace intervention facilitating “the election of President Reagan on an explicit pro-market, anti-state platform.” See Katznelson, , “Was the Great Society a Lost Opportunity?” in Eraser, Steve and Gerstle, Gary, eds., The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930–1980 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989), 186–7.Google Scholar To this author, it seems more plausible to argue that the disappointing results of opportunity-based Great Society programmes during a period of growing social instability did in fact cause the dominant strain of American liberalism to embrace, by 1970, fundamentally “unAmerican” notions of income entitlement. The growth of the Right owed more to the Democratic Party's new identification with unpopular social democratic notions of income redistribution than to the conservatism of President Johnson's War on Poverty.

8 For a useful introduction to the dynamics of welfare state formation in America see Weir, Margaret, Orloff, Ann Shola, and Skocpol, Theda, “Understanding American Social Politics,” in Orloff, Weir, and Skocpol, , eds., The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988), 3–27.Google Scholar

9 Sundquist, James L., “Origins of the War on Poverty,” in Sundquist, , ed., On Fighting Poverty: Perspectives from Experience (New York: Basic Books, 1969), 49.Google Scholar

10 Gaither, , Oral History No. III, 11, Johnson Library.Google Scholar

11 Lampman, , Oral History No. I, 13, Johnson Library.Google Scholar

12 Schultze, , Oral History No. II, 61–62, Johnson Library.Google Scholar

13 Roosevelt, , budget address, 4 01 1935Google Scholar, cited by Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Politics of Upheaval (London: Heinemann, 1960), 267–68.Google Scholar

14 Schlesinger, , 268.Google Scholar

15 Text of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (H.R. 10440), “Findings and Declaration of Purpose,” sec. 2. U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, 88th Congress, Second Session (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1964), I, 377.

16 Ibid., Title I, Part A, 586.

17 Johnson, Lyndon B., Public Papers of the President, 1964, I, 377.Google Scholar

18 Congressional Record, 23 07 1964, 16780.Google Scholar

19 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, sec. 201, and sec. 205(d), U.S. Code, 595, 598.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., sec. 121, 599.

21 Congressional Record, 23 07 1964, 16781, 16783.Google Scholar

22 Johnson, Lyndon B., “Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the sources of Poverty,” Public Papers of the President, 1964, I, 379–80.Google Scholar

23 Duhl, Leonard J., “Planning and Poverty,” in Duhl, , ed., The Urban Condition: People and Policy in the Metropolis (New York: Basic Books, 1963), 295.Google Scholar

24 1954 Economic Report of the President, cited by Anderson, James E. and Hazleton, Jared E., Managing Macroeconomic Policy: The Johnson Presidency (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986), 33.Google Scholar

25 Donald F. Kettl contends that the spirit of the New Economics may have been more significant than its substance. See Kettl, , “The Economic Education of Lyndon Johnson: Guns, Butter, and Taxes,” in Divine, Robert, ed. The Johnson Years (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1987), II, 56.Google Scholar

26 Heller, Walter, Oral History No. II, 17, Johnson Library.Google Scholar

27 Aaron, , Politics and the Professors, 16.Google Scholar

28 Economic Report of the President, 1964 (Washington, D.C.: Govt. Printing Office, 1964), 60.Google Scholar

29 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Report of the Select Committee on Poverty of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare (06 1964), 6.Google Scholar

30 Economic Report of the President, 1964, 6.Google Scholar

31 For the relationship between the War on Poverty and federal employment policy, see Margaret Weir, “The Federal Government and Unemployment: The Frustration of Policy Innovation from the New Deal to the Great Society,” in Weir, Orloff, and Skocpol, eds., Politics of Social Policy, 149–90.Google Scholar Weir demonstrates that, while concern about poverty was generated in part by the unemployment problem, the Economic Opportunity Act can not be regarded as part of “a comprehensive active labour market policy” (Weir, 150).

32 Myrdal, Gunnar, “War on Poverty,” The New Republic, 8 02 1964, 14.Google Scholar

33 Congressional Record, 5 08 1964, 18206.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., 22 July 1964, 16632.

35 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Hearings before the Ad Hoc Committee on the War on Poverty of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 88th Congress, ind Session, on HR. 10440, 67.

36 Matusow, , The Unraveling of America, 103–104.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., 103.

38 Humphrey, Hubert H., War on Poverty (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 132.Google Scholar

39 He acknowledged that the nation “may not be accustomed” to prioritising the quality of life issues that he had in mind, but contended that “no one can say they will be boring or trivial!” Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, “The Professionalisation of Reform,” Public Interest (Fall 1965), 16.Google Scholar

40 Sundquist, James L., “Origins of the War on Poverty,” in Sundquist, ed., On Fighting Poverty, 8.Google Scholar

41 Congressional Record, 6 08 1964, 18309.Google Scholar

42 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, House Hearings, 423.Google Scholar

43 Joint Economic Report, together with Minority Views, of the Joint Economic Committee, on the Economic Report of the President, 01 1964, 43.Google Scholar

44 Congressional Record, 6 08 1964, 18309.Google Scholar

45 Ibid., 23 July 1964, 16761.

46 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 1.Google Scholar

47 Congressional Record, 22 07 1964, 16622.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., 23 July 1964, 16742.

49 Ibid., 6 Aug. 1964, 18307.

50 President Johnson's remarks, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 signing ceremony, 20 Aug. 1964. Cited in “Administrative History of the Office of Economic Opportunity,” 52, Johnson Library.

51 Congressional Record, 6 08 1964, 18325.Google Scholar

52 Ibid.,5 Aug. 1964, 18208.

53 In 1964, average monthly AFDC payments totalled $140 per family, or less than 25% of average family earnings. Because the Social Security Act allows individual states to set benefits at whatever level they desire, payments varied from $212 per month in Illinois to as little as $39.47 in Mississippi. U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1965, 309.Google Scholar For average family earnings see ibid., 40.

54 Congressional Record, 22 07 1964, 16612.Google Scholar

55 Ibid., 5 Aug. 1964, 18298.

56 Ibid., 6 Aug. 1964, 18310.

57 Ibid., 25 July 1964, 16761.

58 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, House Hearings, 189.Google Scholar

59 Ibid., 190.

60 Ibid., 1.

61 Cited by Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Crisis of Confidence (New York: Bantam, 1969), vii.Google Scholar

62 The Nation, 20 01 1964, 61.Google Scholar

63 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, House Hearings, 833.Google Scholar

64 Congressional Record, 6 08 1964, 18309.Google Scholar

65 Ibid.,5 Aug. 1964, 18302.

66 Rep. Charles Weltner (D-Ga.), in ibid., 28 Jan. 1964, 1263.

67 Matusow, , Unraveling of America, 119.Google Scholar

68 See Revd. King, Martin Luther Jr., Why We Can't Wait (New York: Signet Books, 1964)Google Scholar, and Young, Whitney M. Jr., To Be Equal (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).Google Scholar

69 Memorandum, Wirtz to Bill Moyers, 29/2/64. “Legislative History of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,” Box 2, Johnson Library. Wirtz's analysis is supported by the content of contemporary popular articles about poverty. See, for example, Francois, William, “Where Poverty is Permanent,” The Reporter 27 04 1961, 38–39Google Scholar; Francois, , “West Virginia: The First Front,” Reporter, 13 02 1964, 21, 34–35Google Scholar; Pearce, John Ed, “The Superfluous People of Hazard, Kentucky,” Reporter, 3 01 1963, 33Google Scholar; Morgan, Thomas B., “Portrait of an Underdeveloped Country: Appalachia, U.S.A.,” Look, 4 12 1962, 25–33Google Scholar; “Poverty, U.S.A.,” Newsweek, 17 02 1964, 19–38Google Scholar; Harrington, Michael, “Close-up on Poverty,” Look, 25 08 1964, 66–72Google Scholar; Domins, John, “The Valley of Poverty,” Life, 9 10 1964, 54–65.Google Scholar

70 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Senate Hearings, 207.Google Scholar

71 Moynihan, , Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, 24.Google Scholar

72 Yarmolinsky, Adam, “The Beginnings of O.E.O.,” in Sundquist, ed., On Fighting Poverty, 49.Google Scholar

73 Myrdal, , “The War on Poverty,” in The New Republic, 8 02 1964, 15.Google Scholar The same hostility to racial preference is evident from the debate surrounding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which sought to outlaw discrimination in employment). Dismissing the “bugaboo” that the creation of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicated a commitment to racial quotas, Hubert Humphrey insisted that “Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications, not race or religion.” Robert Kennedy's Justice Department told Senator Joseph P. Clark (D-Pa.) that “any deliberate attempt to maintain a given balance would almost certainly run afoul of Title VII.” Congressional Record, 30 03 1964, 6549Google Scholar; and 8 Apr. 1964. 7207–10.

74 Congressional Record, 5 08 1964, 18198.Google Scholar

75 Reported to John W. Carley: Memorandum to Yarmolinsky, Adam and McCarthy, Wilson, 20 07 1964Google Scholar, Office files of Bill Moyers, Box 38, Johnson Library.

76 Memorandum, McMillan, to Johnson, , 10 08 1964Google Scholar, “Legislative History of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,” Box 2, Johnson Library.

77 Niebuhr, Reinhold, “Johnson and the Myths of Democracy,” in The New Leader, 25 05 1964, 18.Google Scholar

78 Ibid., 19–20.

79 Walinsky, Adam, “Keeping the Poor in their Place: Notes on the Importance of being One-Up,” in The New Republic, 4 07 1964, 15.Google Scholar

80 New York Times, 25 03 1964, 1.Google Scholar

81 Reagan, Michael D., “For a Guaranteed Income,” New York Times Magazine, 7 06 1964, 20.Google Scholar

82 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, House Hearings, 429.Google Scholar

83 Economic Opportunity Act, Senate Hearings, 327.Google Scholar

84 Ibid., 287.

85 Ibid., 287–88.

86 “Report No. 4, Resolutions Committee, U.A.W. Constitutional Convention, March 20–27, 1964,” reprinted in Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, House Hearings, 453–63.Google Scholar

87 Harrington, Michael, The Other America (New York: Penguin, 1963), 120.Google Scholar

88 Ibid., 175.

89 Myrdal, , Challenge to Affluence, 46.Google Scholar

90 Rep. Dave Martin (R-Neb.) asked Robert F. Wagner, the Democratic mayor of New York City, whether he would support the notion of a $3,000 guaranteed annual income, helpfully observing that “we have this kind of plan worked out in Communist nations.” Wagner demurred, remarking that all he wanted was “to give some people the opportunity to get some dignity.” Rep. James Roosevelt (D-Cal) characterized the Ad Hoc Committee as “a group of private people who got together to express a point of view.” To suggest that their views had any relevance to the Economic Opportunity Act did “not make any sense at all.” Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, House Hearings, 746–47, 770–71.

91 For good accounts see Matusow, , Unraveling of AmericaGoogle Scholar, and Marris, Peter and Rein, Martin, Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States (Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin, 1972.)Google Scholar

92 Matusow, , 126.Google Scholar

93 Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Senate Hearings, 67.Google Scholar

94 Ibid., 82.