Transcripts For CSPAN3 Lectures 20240703

Range of programs at reducing risk or enhancing quality of life. As you know, our focus has on the specific issue of poor relief because relief of poverty seems to present the american system with its most intractable, intractable problem. And im going to depart from our usual format here a little bit. Im going to do a fair amount of reading this afternoon because im concerned about covering all the material that we have to cover over the course of our exploration of the construction of the american welfare. Weve encountered several different persistent themes. A among these are the idea that in the united states, social provision is divided, public and private institutions. Public provide government provides welfare programs. The public like shapes welfare their programing through the tax system on the private end, as discussed, private entities provide Charity Philanthropy and importantly american employers provide the bulk of social welfare benefits. Another theme is the experimentation with institutional forms. Weve worked our way through outdoor relief. The idea that impoverished families supported by payments in cash or kind and remain in their own homes. Indoor relief of dickensian poor houses and the like, the the american system has tended to accommodate both forms simultaneous, constantly arguing back and about which one is preferable or at least least harmful. A third consideration is for the american system. Is the importance the pivotal role of relief as mechanisms for managing workforce. I think normally we think of poor relief as necessarily being aimed at relieving poverty, but in fact at the level of policymaking, relief is often about making sure that employers have access to a stable workforce and that concern is a shaping factor throughout the policies that we have looked at. A fourth theme has the tension in all of these between american commitment to compassion. The american idea that we are responsible for one another and that communities will take care of Vulnerable People within them that that is constantly at war with a commitment to instilling discipline, a commitment to work, to creating citizens are capable of being selfsufficient and establishing independence. Those those two pieces, compassion on the one hand, and commitment to, workforce discipline seem constantly to be at war with one another. A corollary of that, because we we operate these programs with warring underlying them. Its also true that we cannot completely make up our minds about what our goal for any of these programs. Is or are we attempting to facilitate a stable workforce in a complicated capitalist society . If so certain policy moves are presumably in order . Or are we trying to rid ourselves of policy of to express compassion . Which what what are we trying attempt here. Today . Less last week we left off with examination of the Social Security Social Security act of 1935, the new deal legislation that laid the foundation for American Social provision and created the framework in which social provision operates to this day in todays session, were going to take up the Great Society phase of the development of american poor and poverty policy. The Great Society is a moniker for the ambitious Domestic Program launched the Johnson Administration in 1964. Lyndon johnsons for remaking American Life were expansive, not to say bottomless. We are interested here in what was for him a core element of his program of this Great Program that is the war on poverty, that war on multiple fronts fronts during his tenure, Congress Passed important landmark legislation providing for federal support of public education, for expanded job training, for access, for renewed access to health care. This includes the creation of the medicare and medicaid programs, a recommitment to public subsidized housing. This included the creation of the department of housing and development and a commitment also to new approaches to urban development, including the Community Action programs that were part of the the on poverty legislation. Each of these elements was front in the war on poverty, but within the scope were hints of attack on poverty. Were going to be scrutinizing here today what you are reading about in the Gareth Davies material is Economic Opportunity act of 1964. This is the act that created the war on poverty and just for it will go through a little bit of its operation. But just to lay out here its structure so you know the act was comprised of five titles each of them attacking poverty on a different front. So we have job training in the job corps and Work Experience titles one in five. We have different sorts of business and economic assistance in titles three and four including assistance, impoverished Rural Communities who loom larger. We tend to forget poverty is not strictly an urban phenomenon in the united states. As as we learned in looking at what new deal researchers uncover when they went to the dakotas in the 1930s, the the key piece, the most dynamic element of the Economic Opportunity act turns out to have been the Community Action program created title two. And we will discuss that further. Community Community Action in brief took the view poverty only be addressed effective through comprehensive. That included the elements that are touched on in these other titles. A strategy to attack attack poverty had to think about job training, education, housing as well as where people were getting income from the Community Title also took the position that the only way that kind planning could get done effectively is if the people who were going to be subject to the plan, were involved in the planning. So the Community Action program set up a system whereby the federal government would make direct funding to grassroots groups around the country to plan and then to monitor the implementation of Community Wide anti poverty plans. This proved to be dinner, productive and highly controversial as well see. Note that the Economic Opportunity act did not address poor relief directly. It did not change. It did not provide for income assistance. On thursday. We will be talking using the quadrennial readings about the afdc aid to families with dependent children and how the Johnson Administration dealt with that program during during johnsons the in brief of afdc payments were significantly raised under johnson and other programs were instituted for example in 1964 formalization of the food program. But we know today is work so thats the layout were working through this the arc were digging through the the archeology the the of the american system starting in the cellar, working way up. Weve the ground Floor Foundation with the new deal were now working on the Great Society material. And within the Great Society were dealing today with the Economic Opportunity act on thursday, well be dealing with afdc in greater depth. So why in general or for our project does this matter. What were trying to do here is to identify the contributions that Great Society policy making made to the development, the american system of social provision and the significance of the Great Society effort is as a window into the dynamics of the american with poverty and how should be addressed as with all phases of the development of American Social welfare policy, the Great Society built on the institutional architecture erected, bypassed Great Society builds on new deal, new built, new deal built on mothers pensions. Mothers pensions built on war, pensions and on and on. Equally, the Great Society grappled with americans endemic ambivalence concerning social provision. We hope to build a compassionate society, but we also pride ourselves our independence and selfsufficiency and seek to support those qualities, our ethics of work and personal responsibility. So the question again, how is policy to be designed to meet that first objective compassion while respecting the second discipline and independ ence in addressing these challenges. The Great Societys war on poverty was in several ways, and you here innovations with regard to goals, with regard to approaches with regard to relation to social movements. So what am i speaking about here with regard to goals, the war on poverty expressed significantly larger concerning poverty and enhancement of american quality of life than any previous reform. It also a substantially expanded role government in achieving those goals. Johnson asked americans imagine a nation where poverty been ended by and through the efforts of the people working through their government. These were new ideas. How about policy approaches . Again, im here in particular to the Community Action, the war on poverty thus recognized the systemic nature of poverty, something that weve been waiting for policymakers to do throughout our readings. Right . So here were finally seeing americans saying, yes, poverty is maybe not simply about failings, maybe theres something bigger going on, recognizing systemic nature of poverty. The war on poverty sought to address it. Thus, the Community Action program created by the Economic Opportunity act drew together multiple anti initiatives addressing education, workforce development, urban planning, which previously operated in their separate silos. Its strategy was to attack in the specific communities where it predominated, it folded antipoverty initiatives into one comprehensive attack the conditions of poverty and engage residents of impoverished communities in planning and implementing it. So so one aspect that you want to pick up here is that for the war on poverty program, poverty was linked to poverty was, linked to city neighborhoods or Rural Communities in which it occurred. And the strategy for attacking poverty thus dealt with particular places and particular groups of planners impact of social movements. I hope youre. Well, you may be seeing in the data is reading that rather differently from the phases of Welfare Policy Development weve looked at thus far in case of the Great Society, the war on poverty was uniquely influenced. Grassroots pressure. The war was launched amidst the tumult of the sixties. In fact, it contributed to heightening that tumult. Great society initiatives helped to amplify voices previously sidelined in american political discourse, importantly, those of africanamerican women and poor people themselves in the pressures of a volatile in the sixties, policymakers heard and to these voices. Ultimately the to me the war on poverty is is because its so directly. Tests american values. In the war on poverty we see a direct confrontation between these values of compassion and discipline that that ive been to you the war on poverty thus tested the potency of the American Dream. The American Dream being the idea of america as a place of opportunity for all the war on poverty. That by testing whether policy could extend that opportunity to all americans, the war on poverty was confronted with and grappled directly with the possibility that modern americas economy could not be restructured to provide for all. And that jury fixes like the dole would be necessary to lift the american poor from poverty. The dole, meaning we give up. Were not going to try to this in any kind of systematic way. We will just write checks. Thats the best we can do. A war on policy, one poverty policy makers retained the doubt that a dole or any kind of forced redistribution could achieve the end of poverty or that the would not fatally undermine other aspects of the poverty that americans deem essential specifically the hope of becoming a nation of independent and selfsufficient equals. So lets lay out the background of the Economic Opportunity act attempt and bear with me. Im going to go through some background pieces just to get those pieces laid out and then we will get to the act itself. Okay, so, so background, is that all about Great Society intervention into american poverty built on existing structures for provision of relief and operated within a preexisting framework of values relating to Compassion Community and work with regard to institutional structures again as saw in particular in the new deal materials and issue four of welfare provision at the National Level was were programs to be structured as insurance or structured as assistance Insurance Programs like Social Security were those in which benefits were based in part on contributions paid in by beneficiaries. And these programs were more respected than assistance programs, programs like aid to families, dependent children, afdc which operated as a public grant or dole to the needy. Second set of distinctions are national or state. These these two tend to track one another. Social security as a National Program administered, the federal government provided a more stable stream of benefits and one that was consistent across regions a more stable than state administered programs like, for example, Unemployment Compensation or aid to families with children. So the there a clear hierarchy here and the youre youre always safer if youre on the insurance side of the equation and if youre on the National Side of the equation insurance and national means, for example, what we know as Social Security those monthly checks to older people, afdc is both assistance weaker and state controlled weaker again, leaving people more vulnerable. So this this is the institutional set of structures that the war on poverty going to have to figure out how to how to build on again the war on poverty has to engage these values that been talking about and i guess what im arguing here is that the Johnson Program felt that maybe it had solved this problem, just maybe it had to come up with way to meld our commitment to compassion the american commitment compassion for those among us who are in need with the american commitment to, independence, selfsufficiency, go getter ism. And the way this was going to operate was creating a program thats that relied the health of the American Economy and had faith that that economy could provide for everybody, if only access could be opened up. The program as its task. The opening up, it recognized the economy was not open to all and took as its task the opening up of the economy. If that could work, then maybe american could both demonstrate compassion while sticking to their ribbed commitment to economic independence independence. So we want to i want to look with you at a couple of pieces, couple of back of background pieces that said. In two shaping the program. Think as we as weve gone through these programs weve been trying to establish in each phase of American Development what the Historical Context of Program Development has been, what kinds of values are kinds of and kinds of social. Each phase of the program on so lets lets try to do that here for the war on poverty. I want to raise some issues contemporary ideologies some of the contemporary experiments are going on in the realm of poverty policy prior the Economic Opportunity act. And then we need to mention a couple of things about Lyndon Johnson, who was without a doubt a factor in this in this development. So starting with ideology, i have three notable notable public intellectuals or criers in the wilderness. Take your pick to present you, starting with john kenneth galbraith, who in 1958 published the society. Galbraith was an economist. He was part the court of camelot with the Kennedy Administration. He remained, as an advisor to johnson, he is a was a tremendously urbane, witty, gracious, public intellectual. He published often and in the case of the affluent society, he was indicting americans. We are now in 1958. Were moving toward the end of the fifties. We mired in eisenhower stability. We are stealing our wealth as a society we are still sitting on top of the world diplomatically. We still view ourselves as the nation that one, the second world war. Were not we havent discussed that yet with the russians. And galbraith says around what is it that you are actually and he he makes this he levels this charge he says take typical American Family out for a week weekend outing. The family which takes its mauve and saris air conditioned power steering and power braked automobile out for tour passes through cities that are badly paved made hideous by litter blight of buildings, billboards and posts for wires that should long since have been put. They pass on into a countryside that has rendered largely invisible by commercial art. They picnic on exquisitely packaged foods from a portable icebox by a polluted stream and go on to spend the night at a park, which is a a menace to health and morals. Just before dozing off on an air mattress beneath a nylon tent. Amid the stench of decaying refuse, they may reflect vaguely on the curious unevenness of their blessings. Is this indeed the american genius . Galbraiths point was that throughout the in the postwar era, what americans had been doing is at an accelerated rate, feathering their private nests and feeling their private all well and good but he said, look around. We are starving. The public sector. And then what do you have left . What you have left is an expensive car in which you venture out in a in a society, into a society, in ruins. He called this private opulence and public squalor, and he challenged americans to think more systematically about how their wealth might better be used. Great uncle sam, youre rolling in dough. All you get out of it are aluminum fins on your cars, air conditioning in your homes. Isnt there something more than that you would like to achieve as a society . Second indictment. Harry coddle knight comes to the cumberland coddle was a hes a kentuckian. He an historian. He was a kentucky legislator. He was a folklorist he was an environmental activist. And he wrote night to to dam. And he effectively dammed the big coal operators who were despoiling both the land and the people of appalachia. His efforts. This book night comes to the cumberland did get Public Notice it promoted by a columnist in the New York Times homer bigot and lays claim to having spurred the kennedy effort, which johnn picked up and expanded for appalachian redevelopment. A third example night comes to the cumberland was published in 62. Michael harrington, the other american, also. 1962. Harrington was a. One of dorothy a days catholic workers. He was for many years the editor of, the publication the catholic worker. He was a catholic. He became socialist. He was a journalist. He was an activist. His book, the other america, as i say, published in 62, asserted that as many as a quarter of americans living in poverty. So an aspect of the affluent Society Problem that galbraith pointing out was not only degradation, the environment and city landscapes, but it was also degradation of the people. Harrington used the book show how American Society was structured in ways that affect livelihood. The poor from more affluent people. This book was reviewed in the new yorker by the public intellectual named a public intellectual named macdonald. It caught the attention of the Kennedy Administration and kennedy and just as night comes to the cumberland is a basis for the creation of appalachian redevelopment authority. This book, the other america was clearly a spur to creating the program that became the war on poverty. How about exploring. You have ideology. These these are three authors that are maybe theyre not creating the issue but its noteworthy that that each of these three books caught public. They were hitting on something that. American people apparently were worried and were receptive to. So the other thing we want to look at is contemporary experiments and i wanted to raise three of these with you. The question of juvenile dency, the question of urban development, and actually ttle bit more juvenile nquency in their so starting out with the problem of juvenile dency which inhe and sixties is what americans that was the term that americans used knew to use for a new developmen people were perceiving which was youth were getting out of hand. There was a lot of new music which was disturbing there was a lot of new running around town disrespect for elders, disrespect for the institutions of education, the like. And at out and out petty crime gang and gang delinquency. So this all goes under the juvenile delinquency and if youve ever seen west side story, you are familiar with one of the contemporary comments on that, courtesy of officer crockett. So this example has to do with mobilization for youth and efforts of two sociologists, lloyd olin and richard howard, who at this time i believe, were both at columbia university. And i think i think i have mentioned this to you before. Olin and cloward had helped found an organization on the Lower East Side, new york, called mobilization for youth. They wanted to work with these young people, young men who were being classified as juvenile delinquents. The charge, juvenile delinquency is that their petty criminals and all ends inside out. And this was published in delinquency and opportunity 1960, owns the insight was no these these these boys are not different any other american boy theyre doing exactly what we encourage all american boys to do to be ambitious is to look for a way up to enlarge your your scope. The difference is the boys on the Lower East Side dont have access to any kind of the opportunities that we as a side society approve of. Theyre not to go to a four year college. They dont have access to job training. So the solution is maybe not to try to fix kid. The kid is fine. The solution is opportune to do ladders. These boys are climbing opportunity ladders, but the wrong opportunity ladders, if we to change this, then what we have to do is provide different ladders. So said oakland, the boy who joins a gang is in a rut. He has aspirations but no place to go with them. This set of insights became a chunk of the theory around which the war on poverty was built. This is a this is kind of a core piece. The Community Action program. What we need to do here, we dont were not about fixing individual people. They dont need it. Were about creating opportunity ladders. A second example is what the the Ford Foundation was up to the Gray Areas Program this goes to this this question of comprehensiveness the insight that if you want to poverty you cant person by person or even Program Program you have to look at poverty something that occurs within a community and figure out how to various aspects of poverty within that community, its good to provide job training, but job training is not to get you there. If everyone is living in impossible housing, if people dont have decent schools that they can send their eight year olds to and the like like. The Gray Areas Program, targeted improvements to physical and social and to Service Delivery systems in impoverished urban neighborhoods. It was an approach to place based reform. These previously had typically been scattershot, separate efforts aimed one at education, one at employment, one at health. What the gray areas did under paul orgel sacker, the director who who managed this. The gray areas inside was have to combine those separate initiatives into a comprehensive area wide attempt. The gray areas also did something that was picked later by the Community Action program, which is that it involved residents in creating these programs instead of marching in and saying to people, we have a plan going to be good for you, they tried with some success to move in communities and and ask people what needs to be done here. How can we help . It was a new approach. A third effort, which i mentioned, because it involves us here in d. C. And because it was particularly close to the kennedy and Johnson Administration was the president s kennedy, president kennedys Commission Excuse me, committee on juvenile delinquency. This was headed by Robert Kennedy at that time the attorney general of the united states. And it involved, in effect, attempt to start a project similar to a Gray Areas Program here in d. C. In the cardozo what was then called the cardozo nehborhood today, we would call it Columbia Heights and mount pleasant. Robert kennedy spearheaded that manage that and this is important in particular because meant that kennedy troubled himself to get some firsthand views of both conditions in impoverished urban neighborhoods and in what it took to address conditions in those neighborhoods. So we have a set of new ideological insights, so to say, in causal and galbraith and harrington, we have these kind of expert mental feelers out. Well try gray areas. Well try ladders to opportunity for june four, so called juvenile delinquents. The other piece that i want to put on table here is johnson himself. Lyndon johnsons character was to say the least, complex encompass, seeing both ferocious ambition and, deep reservoirs of compassion, traits that at time worked in tandem and at times not his chief interest on the presidency was in domestic, and his concept of what reform required was shaped by his texas upbringing. So what was that . Johnson was born in hill country. This is farm farmland, just to the west of of austin. He tended to over dramatize the extent of his childhood poverty. He he he worked that angle pretty hard. But in truth, he did come up in a family. His father, sam here, was never able to establish himself professionally in any kind of secure way. The the family constantly rocked by financial his mother rebecca was the pillar in this i expect that she was at times annoying but she had higher aspirations for her husband, for her family, and especially for her oldest son, lyndon. Bottom line, johnson, an early age, knew about economic struggle, if not flat out, wolf, at the door. Poverty, then about what it meant to to be dismissed as. As an as as a failure. Dismissed as an economic failure. Look, look down upon. An important piece of the johnson background is his time at cotulla. Cotulla, this was one of johnsons first jobs. It was during a year that he took away from college and during wch he served as a schoolteacher in the tiny texas of cotla this a touchstone of his later career. His students were impoverished young mexicanamericans, and johnson did all that he could for them. And now im going to try to read this quote. Lets see if i can even get through it years later, standing in the will of the house, introducing the war on poverty plans to a joint session of congress, johnson referred to this experience of his this this was the address of march 15th, 1965, in which. Johnson laid out the program. You said my first job after cotulla,exas, a smallher in mexicanamerican school. Few of them could spea english, and they often came to class without breakfast hungry. Knew even in their youth, the pain of prejudice. They never seemed tonowhy people disli them, but they knew it was so. I saw it in their eyes. I often waedome wishing there was more that i could do. You never forget what poverty d hred can do when see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child. I never thought then in 1928 that i would be standing here. In 1965 that i might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and people like them all over the country. But now i do have that chance, and ill let you in on a secret. I mean, to use it. The biographers, evans and novak novak report that the next day johnson was in his office, and a friend complimented him on his speech and asked who wrote it and the report is that johnson pulled from his desk. This picture and said. They did. A third factor in the upbringing that is perhaps immediately relevant is johnsons as the head of the new Deal National Youth Administration branch. The the National Youth administration was charged this as a new deal program. The idea was to try to find employment for american young people, particularly with the object keeping them somew in school. Johnson was. From from the from the very first from from his election november of 1932. Johnson was a fan of fdr of this this picture here Young Johnson meeting fdr in an fdr Campaign Swing through texas is captures some of that its also notable because you can find other versions of this that johnson used in Campaign Literature in which the guy in the middle who i think is the governor of tes has been airbrushed out. Hes gone. But this is the original shot and the johnsons and why a experience was noteworthy years later. Robert weaver, who johnson, nominated to become the first secretary of the department of housing and urban development, which and weaver was a approved by the senate, making weaver the first African American member of the cabinet. This is in 1965. And during his confirmation hearings, weaver is before the senate and somebody asks him, well, so what . What draws you to work for this guy . Johnson . Hes a southerner we always understood that he was a pretty conservative southerner. And we were reported with regard to the National Youth administration, quote, i soon heard about this guy down in texas who was shocking some people up on the hill because he thought that the National Youth Administration Benefits ought to go to poor folks. To make matters worse, he was giving a hell of a lot of this money to. Mexicanamericans and. So like cotulla the experience, solidify johnsons belief in education as, an essential american opportunity. In addition, it brought to him a lifelong belief in the creative of democratic government. Johnson was from his rival in washington. This is congressional aide in the early 1930s and admirer of Franklin Roosevelt and a fully committed supporter of the new deal. He learned his experience that American Government could intervene effectively to improve american lives. Okay, so weve got ideology, weve got experimentation, and weve got the personality quite explosive and dynamic personality of the president. So try to figure out this development here. So political context context, the november 22nd, 1963, assassination of john kennedy martyred the new frontier hopes of a generation americans coming into office in the wake of the tragedy. Johnson the nations grief into political consensus necessary achieve key elements of his predecessor ussrs legislative agenda. Its a its a it was a powerful audience a performance gives the wrong impression. He johnson in that moment of Great National trauma, handled himself with great skill, it is hard to reproduce how traumatic the loss of kennedy those circumstances was for the nation. Kennedy had been the bright hope. Richard nixon, i think, captured it best, nixon said. Its so characteristic. Its its a good comment on and it reveals something i think deeply true about nixon. Nixon said of americans, look at kennedy and they see what they want to be. They look at me and they see what they are. Many hopes were to kennedy and. Johnson found a way to pick up the mantle. The Kennedy Administration had been planning an Antipoverty Program in the months prior to the president s death. Kennedy was determined to pass a major tax cut in order to sicily his Campaign Promise to, quote, get the economy moving again after the eisenhower doldrums. And he wanted to balance this gift, the nations affluent classes with something for the poor. Johnson immediately seized on the program for development in his first state of the union address, congress. Go. Johnson understood that he could ask the american public, think about what kennedy had meant to them, and then ask them to honor kennedy and the kennedy legacy by moving rapidly on the kennedy program, which up until that time, during the three years of the Kennedy Administration had been stalled in the congress. The the magic here is that, as we know, Johnson Robert caro calls him the master, the Senate Johnsons key skill set was in legislation. So this this is a person into office who is both determined based on his own background, to promote a policy of poverty, policy reform, and someone whos got a particular set of skills that might enable him to do that. So here is how in this this is the first state of the union address. Hes been in office seven weeks and he says to the congress, in laying out his Program Going forward on unfortunately, Many Americans live on the outskirts of hope, some because of their poverty and some because of their color and too many because of both our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity d. And here he goes. This Administration Today here and declares unconditional war, poverty in america. I urge this congress, all americans, to join with me in that effort. Our chief weapons in more pinpointed attack will be better schools and Better Health and better homes, better training and better Job Opportunities to help more americans, especially Young Americans escape from the squalor and misery and unemployment rolls where other citizens help to carry them. So a couple of things that, you warning lights, kind of go off. Is it wise to, declare unconditional war on Something Like poverty will you know when you have won . Have you set up a metric for that . Is it conceivable that you will have won . If not, are you maybe immediately over promising . And then of course you see this characterized stick and this is something that is folded into the Economic Opportunity act. This all points attack. Were not were not just going to worry about the children. Were going to worry about education and job training and housing and health and on and on goes. So the gantlet has been laid down and its been laid down at a propitious moment in january of 1964. Americans are willing to say, yes, yes, we can still do this. We can we can honor the memory of our lost leader in way it is right that we should do this charge. So several things had to happen first. Yep. The first order of business in the winter of 6364 was to create a federal budget that could the tax cut that lbj intended to make while staying below the 100 billion mark. Kennedy, remember, had the reason that the war on poverty thinking had got going was that kennedy had decided that to get the economy moving again, a tax cut was going to be necessary okay. So the the barons in congress, the mostly and conservative democrats who controlled all the committees in congress, said, well go along with you on this. Only. Only if you show some budget discipline and keep this under the magnificent sum of 100 billion. Johnson was able to pull that off, having achieved an acceptable budget, he was then able to pass the cut. And this actually this 11 billion tax cut, that this is the revenue act of 1964. In fact plays largely, although in the background of our story, it is arguably for the great spurt in Economic Growth and the feeling of prosperity that americans enjoyed during the balance of the sixties only cut short by the increasing pressure of the vietnam war. Having. Passed those two measures. Johnson then did send his Economic Opportunity act to congress. He described it, he said, of the of the act, we have never lost sight of our goal. And america, which every citizen shares all the opportunities of this society, in which every man has a chance to advance his welfare to the limit of his capacities. Notice whats being stressed. This is not relief. Its not a dole. It is opportunity. We we have faith in the American Economy. And our strategy is to restructure that economy, to let everybody in. Johnson in sending the bill to congress, challenged congress today. For the first time in our history, we have the power to strike away the barriers, full participation in our society, having the power we have, the duty. So again, the gantlet was laid down. The again, a reminder the Economic Opportunity act is of the larger Great Program the this important for the opportunity act becausyo want to rememr title to the Community Action program. What was the Community Action Program Going to do . The idea was thateoe on the ground were going to be able to look out into this vast arrayf new federal programs and from from their position on the groundknowing what their communities needed were going to be able to pick and choose fro among these programs to assemble a plan that would address their would be tailored to the particular needs of their communities. These this here should give you, i hope some idea of the this tidal wave of new policy of of reform minded policy and legislation that the johnson team was pushing through congress at this time. This was a particularly in 1964. This is riding in particularly on the kennedy legacy by the time you get to 1965, it is riding on the huge electro majorities, democratic majorities in both house and senate that johnson able to ring up. He has 2 to 1 majorities in both house and senate. The Community Action planners were going to address poverty by polling from among the opportunities that were offered by this. Ross ster of new legislation. So what happened. In thinking about the Economic Opportunity act. The useful thing is to think about will and in what ways is this . In what way, if any, is this an innovation different from the way americans have always done . Poverty policy . Does this contribute something new to our mix . Something that either we should discard rapidly or something that we should pick up and integrate moving forward . So starting with, well, what were the what were the innovations. The first was a comprehensive assault. Again, the nothing that roster of programs that we just looked at. Theres nothing here thats radically new in and of itself. Job training, improvements to housing, improvements to education. These, for the most part, had been tried before. What is new here is the idea that. If were going to make this work, we have to be serious about it. We do have to look at this as an effort not to solve this one off problem over here and that one off problem over there, but rather put together a package. The result of which will in fact be a restructuring of the Economic Conditions in which American Communities are surviving. So comprehensive is one. The second is this this business Citizen Engagement. This is a little dicey Citizen Engagement work. Do you really mean to tell me that youre going to call my neighbor, mrs. Williams up and invite her down to the Community Center and ask her to to help us plan a new new bus routes or new after School Programs . Is that really what mrs. Williams is best . Is that what what do we want . Mrs. Williams, what kind input do we really want from mrs. Williams . And this is, thats issue that is going to dogged this Program Throughout its throughout his tenure. Nonetheless yes. Arguably a step forward. Ha. Nothing have done has worked all that well. So far. Maybe it would be good to ask the people who are these conditions how they think things ought to be altered. And then a third, innovation. Is the the outside brokenness of the commitment to opportunity. This this commitment to opportunity reflected reflected a bedrock faith in the robustness of the American Economy, its ability to make room for all. This position also acknowledged the real barriers presented by lack of resources and for some of the american more racial discrimination. But it nonetheless drew the conclusion that all that was needed to end poverty was to connect people who were poor with real opportunity. This. This commitment to opportunity helped sell the program. Most americans weve come across this problem in earlier phases and effective welfare reform has got to be acceptable to the majority of americans, meaning its going to have to find a way of sitting into generally accepted values. This commitment to opportunity helps sell the program. Most americans resisted the idea of handouts, socalled the poor, the viewed Citizens Rights as involving fulfillment of citizens response abilities. In this case, the responsibility to be independent, to provide for ones own subsistence, to assert that, it might be impossible for some to achieve independence, except in a few specific categories of age or disability. Was cast doubt on the American Dream itself the dream that in america all persons could attain selfsufficiency and independence. So those are the innovations. What were the challenges for this program. Okay. Number one, federal system frictions. And this this was vivid at the time and is kind of fun. Imagine how if you if you know anything about mayor daley in chicago, imagine mayor daley felt when he got the news that the federal government was money that in past years probably would have come to the City Government of chicago. I into mayor daley himself and instead sending it to a some Grassroots Organization on the south out of mayor daleys. Depriving city coffers of this money in order to fund this, in his view radical, scrappy group on the south side that was only going make trouble for him across the country. The eo a created friction within the federal system because it did just that it went around state and local governments and provided funding directly to Grassroots Organizations. Worse, as the sixties heated up and levels of violence in the cities increased, the Community Action programs were often sometimes rightly, often wrongly with support for increased militancy and at times for support for violence. So this was. Is this a success or failure . The the purpose of the eoa was to shake up the existing system. It did that. But perhaps it was so effective on that score that it itself unsustainable. A second challenge coming from a little bit of a different direction was failure and expense. Oc president johnson, we have passed your policy. We passed the war on poverty. You declared unconditional war. Weve put money into this. Weve been working on this for 18 months. And we look around and we notice no there still poverty everywhere. Not only is there still poverty everywhere, but its getting more expensive to write checks to it in this period, the Johnson Administration is experiencing an enlargement of the afdc rolls. It is also through Social Security amendments, increase housing benefits to afdc recipients. So there is a rising price tag and gosh, it you havent accomplished what you told us. You were going to accomplish. Now, the logical question here is who thinks youre going to solve in 18 months . All right. But the sixties are a tense time and perhaps it was not illegitimate for people who had supported the act to be saying to the administration. Look, youve got to give us some concrete sign of progress or we cannot continue selling this to the folks back home. What youre seeing here is kind of the opening wedge that is going to undermine support for this approach in the congress. And then the third piece is social movement. Demand social movement impacts. As i said at the top, one of the unique of this face of, American Social policy development is the degree to which social movements were prominent. And i think its fair to say, influential in shaping poverty outcomes. So lets at those we want look at, were going to look in particular as the civil movement, the black Power Movement and welfare rights, womens rights contributions here, the. The Civil Rights Movement is evolving in this moment. But what is useful for us to to is that the Civil Rights Movement starts out where most americans are very much in advocacy of Opportunity Solutions to the problem of poverty, but ultimately militancy, particularly in the black power phase, is going to take the movement all the way to demands for a guaranteed income. So its kind of tracing the trajectory that the larger policy landscape is also going to through. So our contemporary picture of the Civil Rights Movement, 1955 to 1965 emphasizes its demands economic integration, but in its origins, the movement, a demand for africanamerican access to american opportunity. This demand envisioned a restructuring of American Society and economy to enable access. It was both a more ambitious and a more realistic goal than that of material equality obtained through Income Redistribution policies. You can start with the march on washington. The march on washington, in fact, was a march for job and freedom. That was what the demand was. The key organizers of the march, Bayard Rustin on the left here and philip randolph, the organizer. The storied labor organizer. They were pushing for full economic assimilation of the Africanamerican Community by way of a sector expansion of Economic Opportunity. At this time, they were working to randolph and rustin were working to develop a freedom budget. That would capture their ideas for, restructuring the American Economy. The freedom budget was first proposed by them in late 1965. And it was submitted to the Johnson Administration and to the public. October 1966. The aim, the budget, was to rework the the federal government. To create equity through participation. It envisioned a federal budget restructured to guarantee a job for everyone, ready and willing work at a living wage which lifted all workers out of poverty. So this is something of a starting position in the africanamerican and social movement that was putting pressure on policy deliberations in washington a corollary in this moment. Was the student nonviolent coordinating committee. Which was the youth the youth branch of the Civil Rights Movement. And it is within this branch of the civil rights that we can that this shift that im talking about away from the lobbying for opportunity toward the more militant claim for guaranteed income, its easier, see. Its easy to see within the changes within snick. This is the picture here. This is julian bond. An early snick chairman with the snick logo. Snick is founded in 1960. It is founded as an integrated movement, an integrated Youth Organization focused on tackling nationwide. The problem of discrimination, antiblack discretion. This. By 1966, this Movement Like rest of america is experiencing a transition. First of all, black leadership snick reached the conclusion that here on out the snick effort had to be led and largely implemented by african people. In effect asked white people the movement to leave the organization. Its counsel to those people was. If you are as we, you are committed to this movement the place that you can be of most is in working in White Communities that enforce racial discrimination. Go back to those communities where came from and make change there. We need to run this ourselves in this moment of new leadership is appointed that is elected at snick Stokely Carmichael is seen here with dr. King. Carmichael was a deeply invested supporter of martin king. But he as a as young man, a generous 15 years younger than king, was beginning to feel strongly that the of nonviolent king was willing to support were inadequate to the new challenges. This was underscored by failures of kings initiatives. For example, in 1966, the Chicago Freedom program. King and these southern christian Leadership Conference went to chicago determined to open up segregated housing in and was squashed flat by daley of king had no real understanding of what he was coming up against in challenging the northern urban machine. He also didnt understand depths of antiblack feeling in chicagos ethnic neighborhoods. He he was quoted as saying people in the south should come to chicago to learn how to hate in that environment. Stokely carmichael takes over at and also. In 1966, first puts forward the slogan black power. This is during march against fear in mississippi in june of 1966. King and carmichael are both at that march. King is struggling mightily to try to keep the march peaceful to continue on on a nonvr violent path. And carmichael is increasingly saying this we we have been taxed beyond limit. One evening, hes thrown in jail for. The 30th time he out of jail. That evening. And hes he he tries out on the crowd the marchers next day. What do we want . Black power. Hes not sure. And king isnt sure how the participants are going to respond. But the chant is echoed that why do we want power, black power, black power . This is carmichael, that on that trip. This is then underscored and peoples the anxiety americans inside and outside the black community is increased by this then series. Long hot summers, which is playing withhis. The long hot summer put on the increased militancy in the black community and in american these were were summers of uprising and, violence in the cities each of theears 1964 through 19 these startedith in new york city prior directly prior tohe 1964 convention that nominated johnson for his full term in the wa a killing Police Killing in new york city andded the august 196osion in the watts neighborhood, which occurred days after five da after the passage of the voting act of 1965, whicourse, left despairing. People felt that they ved mountains to get the voting act passed and was the payoff . The payoff was this further terrible destruction in los angeles and continued through uprisings in newark and detroit in july of 1967 to the violence and destruction cities across the nation. Following kings in april of 1968. Some americans and legislators respond to this increasing militancy and rising by challenging the legitimacy. Others responded to Movement Demands with increased urgency. In either case, this phase of the black freedom struggle succeeded and capturing the attention of political leaders, policymakers who listened when movement spokesmen began make the case for poor peoples or at least poor black peoples claim to a guaranteed income. Now i want to quickly look how this rising recognize of race as an issue was beginning to reshape the policy around poverty policy. So again, ive got a couple of particular speakers that i want to present to you. The first is oscar lewis. Oscar lewis was the he was a new yorker, was the son of a rabbi. He started out in in history, got bored, became an anthropologist. And made a significant set of statements with his work on latin american families, puerto rican families in this case in the united states, the lewiss. Was that poor people were trapped in, quote, a culture of poverty that was both an adaptation and a reaction to their marginal position in a class stratified highly individualistic, capitalist society. Its a culture of poverty. And lewis wrote a series of books in which he attempted to trace the impact of this culture of poverty on American People living in poverty. And of course, you can see where this is headed. It is it retains the idea that that poverty may be systemic, but it is now perhaps putting the problem of poverty beyond the reach of policy interventions. Its saying this is not a problem with opportunity structures. This a deeper issue and it goes to the inculturation of people in similar vein. And even more controversially was the moynihan report. Daniel patrick was in these years an assistant secretary in the department of labor. He prepared a report, an internal report the family the case for national action. It became public in autumn of 1965. And it raised a viewer. The report was challenged. The report challenged the then convinced wisdom that Economic Conditions were the prime elements shaping the lives of the poor, and argued instead kind of parallel to lewis that the conditions in black ghettos in important part a function of failed Family Structure, specifically the fatherless matriarchal family whose the causes of which that Family Structure traced back to slavery jim crow and ongoing race discrimination. As moynihan interpreted his data, they showed that, quote, the gap between the and most other groups in American Society is widening as evidence. For example, in the outofwedlock birth rate, which in 1965 was 25 in the African American community, and 3. 1 among white families. From this and other data, moynihan concluded that the cause of trouble and in africanAmerican Communities lay not so much in Economic Conditions as in family life, which in black ghetto communities constitute. And here is the the famous and, famously inflammatory and controversial statement of constituted, quote, a tangle of pathology capable of perpetuating itself without assistance the white world. At the heart at the heart of the of the fabric of is the deterioration of the family. It is the fundamental of the weakness of the community at the present time. This an outcry contemporary critics accused. Moynihan, of blaming the victim of failing to delve adequately into the sources of the dysfunction that he identified. This report influenced war on poverty planning. The report cast on the efficacy of existing welfare programs. Moynihan. Moynihan fact found that increasing increases in welfare spending tracked with increases in Africanamerican Community disintegration. Moynihan argued to johnson that without access to jobs and the means contribute meaningful support to a black men would become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers. But the report raised doubts to whether, given the embeddedness, the dysfunction that moynihan asserted efforts to create new access to opportunity would be sufficient. So its recognizing that we have a systemic problem here. Its with a ladders of opportunity, but its beginning to say we may be dealing with something bigger here than we had envisioned, and we may not have the tools that we need to deal with it. Lets look at the womens end of this. This was womens rights, the growing activism among women that would ultimately that we know is as. Second wave feminism is rising at this time and and became another stream of social activism feeding into the debate on poverty. Women were in fact stepchildren of the Great Society family legislators on the house floor. Gladly stepped up to vote in favor of provisions. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination on, the basis of race. But they guffawed out loud when they were asked to do the same discrimination on the basis of sex. The provision did pass. It was inserted by this guy, representative judge smith of virginia. Judge smith was a famous committed segregationist. Its unclear whether he inserted the clause about discrimination on the basis of sex because he, as a poison pill, hoping that he would take the entire ability. And so did it, or if he included it because he was in fact and had a record as a supporter of womens rights. In any case, though, the provision did pass, but only on the only by a hair. The this treatment of women. Womens concerns continued the equal opportunity employment commission, created by the 1964 act. That commission simply declined in its early years to pursue of discrimination based on sex. Just wouldnt presume. The theory was that these were less important than those based on race. This dereliction of duty led directly to the formation of the National Organization for women, which during the late sixties especially prominent in seeing it, that womens claims would be included in the public and policy. So that background a large Womens Movement is in the offing. But were particularly interested in the welfare rights movement, which also evolved at this time. Poverty policy battles centered on women, whether the problematic matriarchs, the monahan report, moynihan report, or as the recipients of afdc aid. Again, the costs were rising rapid during these years. The Welfare Rights Organization formed in 1967, drawing together grassroots groups that had proliferated in the cities around the nation to demand improvements to the american poor relief system represented of the system was johnny tillman. Tillman was an activist, organizer and a welfare mother, as she described herself. Im a woman. Im a black woman. Im a poor woman. Im a fat woman. Im a middle aged woman. And im elfare in this country. If are any one of those things poor black, fat, female, middle aged on welfare, you cant list as a humanei if you are all those things you dont count at all except as this, just as a atistic. I am a statistic. I am 45 years old. I raised six children. She described the dilemma. Women like her faced. Quote, nobody denies least of all poor, that there is dignity and satisfaction in being able to support your kids, to labor. We wish we could do it. The problem is that our countrys economic policies deny the dignity and satisfaction of selfsufficiency to millions of people. The millions who suffer every day in underpaid dirty jobs and still dont enough to survive. Tillman had a solution to the poverty problem to propose a which was this if i were president , i would solve this socalled welfare crisis in a minute and go a long way toward liberating every. Id just issue approximate version that womens work real work. In words id start paying women a wage for doing the work. We are already and in child raising and housekeeping and the welfare crisis would be over just like that. But recognizing the radicalism of that proposal in in effect, the overthrow of patriarchy, tillman had a more practicable proposal to offer. We, meaning the national Welfare Rights Organization, put together our own welfare plan called guaranteed adequate, which would eliminate sexism from welfare. There would be no categories men, women, children, single married kids, no kids. Just poor people who need aid. You get paid according to need and family size only a 65,060 500 payment for a family of four. Which is that department of labors estimate of what adequate. So here is this voice here. Here is this very strong of voices. Now coming, out of both the black community from the womens community, welfare rights community, saying to policymakers, heres what we we cant wait on opportunity ladders here. Heres what we want you to. And they had back up. This is Frances Fox Piven and, Richard Cloward who came with a strategy to make all this happen happen. Just as tillman and the end wral were coming forward with this guaranteed income proposal. Columbia, Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward were developing Action Strategy to force its implementation on the federal government. Presented their strategy in an essay in a may 1966 issue of the nation. The essay was called the weight of the poor, a strategy to end poverty. How can we use the weight of the poor to policy change. The stated of the strategy was, quote, to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income. How, how . How. At that time, cloward and piven observed many people eligible to receive afdc benefits were not registered for the program. The piven plan was organize to push registration toward 100 of those eligible. Doing so, they theorized would produce bureaucratic disruption. Quote, quote bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and, fiscal disruption in local and governments. A National Democrat administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class, race, conscious conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. Cloward and piven recognize, however, that such an aim would be, quote, questioned by some because the ideal of individual and economic mobility has such deep roots that even activists seem reluctant to call for National Programs to eliminate poverty by the outright distribution of income. So. There we have a framework created. The Administration Early in the sixties that looks toward creation of restructuring of the economy. As the decade forward, we have the of these ever more effective ever more militant social movements that are pushing a whos who just like legislators on the hill have become impatient with what the administration has is people to do and are pushing a far more radical solution in the form of guaranteed income. We do move toward entitlements, thinking. This ultimately undermines the program and in fact series of factors come together to undermine the program. The continuation of the johnson plan requires continuing support from congress for expenses that necessarily were going to get larger going forward. One thing to pilot a program like the Community Action program but as planning continued each of the Community Action plans were going to be calling on greater and greater federal resources. It was essential to keep the democratic together around support for this act. This began to fall apart. Number one, as i mentioned earlier, there was the problem of the weakness of initial results, welfare costs are not going down. Theyre getting higher we dont see an abatement to poverty in american cities. We see, in fact, increased militants, increased disruption, increased chaos. It doesnt seem to be working. Explain to us how we sell this to the folks back home. A second consideration and a strictly historically limiting factor was the fact of vietnam and this was problematic in more ways than one. There was budget pressure due to the war. It became clear by 1966 that although johnson had come out swearing that in his view anyway, the American Economy was robust enough that it could provide for both guns and butter and do it simultaneous. By 1966, its clear that thats the case, and it is clear that to prevent risk of, significant inflation. What johnson really ought to be doing is imposing a new a new set of taxes. Hes hes just had this big success passing the 1964 revenue act. He does not want to go back on that. And hes not sure that he has the support in congress to do that. So what does this mean . It means that hes got to chisel down support for Great Society programing. The effect of that is to leave legislators who had supported him, particularly those further to the left, particularly those who had them committed to the Great Society vision, feeling betrayed. We got this program started and now youre cutting us off at the knees. How am i supposed to talk to the people in my community about this. Social . The result was those legislators were looking for a different approach social movement, advocacy as just discussed, played a part here, said black power militants and welfare rights militants. Here is another possibility. How about this . The one that youre using is not working. Violence in the later sixties reaching what contemporary perceive as a crisis point. Legislators are anxious to take steps that will immediately quiet situation. Maybe guaranteed is not such a terrible idea. Maybe. In fact, guaranteed income. Given the complexity of the re now recognizing, maybe guaranteed income is the only thing that we do. This is exacerbated by pushback, particularly among the class working class people in particular. Expressed hostility to the idea of what they perceive to be handouts to people who were not pulling their own weight. And this to created political problems for people in congress. How do we balance this . A deciding factor is the role of race. And this is because the claims of internal ment were particularly telling in the case of the black freedom struggle as the demands of africanamerican leadership grew more strident legislators, found it harder to pursue a Program Opportunity which conditioned participation on demands that the participants fulfill work and family responsibilities. You, if you have a claim that we deemed valid against society, if you say i suffer the costs of discrimination, then can we really make a predicate of aiding you a set of work requirements or we just really obligated to write you a. Policymakers turned instead to evaluation of the claims of entitlement to a guaranteed income and included even Lyndon Johnson in his june 1965 Howard University commencement address. Johnson himself recognized the weight of africanamerican claims, recognizing the tremendous progress made during his administration toward defeat, jury segregation and national freedom. Johnson recognized, quote, freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars centuries by saying now you are free to go where you want to do as you desire and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him. Bring up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete all the others and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus, johnson told Howard University graduates the struggle would now enter a new phase in which the nation must seek, quote, not just equity but human ability, not just equality as a right, a theory, but equality as a fact, and equality as a result. In other words, we are moving away from opportunity toward entitlement, toward outcome. All right, so. Lets just take a glimpse and ask this moment of policy experience under the johnson meant for policy going forward. This this idea of guaranteed income actually going to have its real moment in the sun under the presidency of richard nixon. Nixon in 1969. Submitted to congress the family assistance plan. This, in fact, had been designed by. Patrick moynihan seen here. It would have provided a living wage to all american families. And it would done away with it would have replaced. And by replacing it would have done away with insidiously singling out welfare mothers and other of the unworthy poor. The assistance plan was in fact defeated. Finally, in 1972, by a democratic. This is something that ted. Ted kennedy, among others, rued ever after. But that the the idea of guaranteed income did fail. And well have more to say about that next week. The subsequent major policy developed this 1980s and the cuts during the Reagan Administration to all to a range of social provision policies followed in 1969 by the act that created the temporary assistance for needy or the tennessee program. This is under president clinton who promised to end welfare as we it. Both of these moves reagan under clinton attacked the idea moved to further away from the idea of the possibility of a legitimate guaranteed income. So at the end of the 20th century. Folding in johnson, nixon, reagan, clinton, there were a number of paths of reform and i think as weve been seeing throughout the our work in this material all of these remain live options. And the question for us is, what is the balance them . What are what are the new arguments that come forward to give better to some beyond. By the end of the 20th century, americans had considered even experimented with several paths toward poor release and improved quality of life for all americans. Work release. The idea that in a society that so valued work. I find it. That in a society that so valued a job should be available to who are willing to work and if need in the last resort, it should job should be provided by the national government. But as we have seen, roosevelts new deal program, Social Security, led with a plan for works and full employment. The idea was picked up by his successor, harry truman, who made an effort to pass a full employment bill in 1945. Roosevelts initiative was diverted by the war effort and trumans bill, which would have committed the federal government to providing work to all americans, was passed only in a watered down version in 1946. We have to with the idea of government operation to, provide work in a society dedicated to work again as the employer of last resort. Weve toyed with that. We havent followed through. Second possibility is the johnson possible that weve just explored of opportunity restructuring. This is an effort. This is a a commitment to. The American Economy, a faith in the robustness and, the capability of the American Economy, and the commitment to retooling it so that it works for all in that respect. This is a tremendously hopeful approach to poverty policy. A third possibility, one, not adequately explored, even the new deal, although explored more than elsewhere, is the idea of attacking poverty by providing a stronger baseline of public services. If housing is affordable and healthful. If schools Public Schools good, if there are access to things like libraries and, job training and god knows health, this changes what the needs of each private household are. Why not approach this . That way . We we also nibble on that. We nibble on that approach. The problem with that approach, of course, as you probably pick up, is that it begins to sound like socialism, which is a problem for americans. And then finally, well, in this, the idea of income guarantees about that the plus of this approach is that it recognizes the of the claim of all members of a society to share to some reasonable degree in its resources and benefits. By forestalling efforts to underlying economic and social to assist independent access to opportunity by citizens. This risks a degree of social stagnation and the creation of a permanent underclass of citizens, able bodied but pensioned off. So what this means all of these are policy approaches on the table and policymakers are going to continue shuffle among them juggle among them, argue with one another about them as we, the public will. And my bottom line, anyway, is that we as americans are stuck in this struggle. Its a for policy that can harmonize our selfidentity as a people both to work self sufficiency and independence and also political equality among citizens