1 The Kennedy Transition
1950–57: Last Years of the Traditional Consensus
In the 1950s, there was a strong agreement about welfare's purpose, rooted in historical beliefs dating back to the Poor Laws of Elizabethan England. The main idea was that a civilized society should prevent its people from starving. However, there were qualifications, as many believed welfare encouraged laziness and vice. Society distinguished between deserving poor, like the involuntarily unemployed, and undeserving poor, who took advantage of support. This led to concerns about welfare's potential to undermine people's moral character and work ethic.
Despite various arguments against welfare, no solutions were effectively implemented to balance compassion and morality. Almshouses were seen as a better care model, intending to teach recipients the virtues of hard work. By the early twentieth century, direct financial aid to individuals became more common. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal established changes like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, focusing on helping those unable to work or who faced tough circumstances, rather than providing aid solely based on poverty. By the 1950s, most welfare support went to those without jobs, and there wasn't a strong emphasis on helping recipients escape dependency.
1958–60: Strains in the Consensus
In the late 1950s, many people became unhappy with the welfare system, especially the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Conservatives and some blue-collar Democrats believed that while it was okay to help the elderly and disabled, it was not right for society to support healthy adults for a long time. AFDC was originally meant to help widows with small children but started to be seen as a program that supported many women who were not actually widows. This led to frustration and resentment.
A common stereotype developed around black families receiving AFDC benefits, with reports focusing on large black families on welfare while ignoring that most recipients were white. Critics depicted these families as lacking moral values, which sparked calls for welfare reform. Some states tried to limit benefits for unwed mothers and children born out of wedlock.
At the same time, the civil rights movement began to grow. Leaders of the movement pointed out the injustice and economic problems faced by minorities. While many white people focused on the issues of welfare, civil rights activists emphasized that the real problem was the lack of opportunities for the poor. Despite some white communities opposing change, the civil rights movement challenged the existing social norms and drew attention to issues like segregation and economic inequality, changing the national conversation during this time.
Modern Republicans and Lower-Case Liberals
In the late 1950s, American views on welfare and the New Deal changed. Republicans started to accept the New Deal as a valid approach, moving away from earlier opposition. At that time, both major political parties seemed to agree on many issues, making it hard to see major differences between them. Politicians from both sides wanted to be seen as "liberal" without being labeled as strict liberals. Leaders like Eisenhower and Nixon expressed that liberalism meant having a practical mindset focused on solving problems. Instead of just giving aid to welfare recipients, the goal was to help them become self-sufficient, leading to a general agreement that influenced future political campaigns.
“A Hand, Not a Handout”
The main idea is about changing welfare policy from giving out money to helping people become self-sufficient. The slogan "Give a hand, not a handout" captures this new focus. In 1962, Kennedy proposed a small program that included job training and rehabilitation instead of just handing out welfare checks. Although the program was limited in size, it marked a big change in how the government would help people. After Kennedy, Johnson quickly introduced new anti-poverty laws that included job training and community projects without direct cash assistance. This approach aimed to encourage individuals to find jobs and support themselves instead of relying on government aid.
1950–57: Last Years of the Traditional Consensus
In the 1950s, there was a strong agreement about welfare's purpose, rooted in historical beliefs dating back to the Poor Laws of Elizabethan England. The main idea was that a civilized society should prevent its people from starving. However, there were qualifications, as many believed welfare encouraged laziness and vice. Society distinguished between deserving poor, like the involuntarily unemployed, and undeserving poor, who took advantage of support. This led to concerns about welfare's potential to undermine people's moral character and work ethic.
Despite various arguments against welfare, no solutions were effectively implemented to balance compassion and morality. Almshouses were seen as a better care model, intending to teach recipients the virtues of hard work. By the early twentieth century, direct financial aid to individuals became more common. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal established changes like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, focusing on helping those unable to work or who faced tough circumstances, rather than providing aid solely based on poverty. By the 1950s, most welfare support went to those without jobs, and there wasn't a strong emphasis on helping recipients escape dependency.
1958–60: Strains in the Consensus
In the late 1950s, many people became unhappy with the welfare system, especially the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Conservatives and some blue-collar Democrats believed that while it was okay to help the elderly and disabled, it was not right for society to support healthy adults for a long time. AFDC was originally meant to help widows with small children but started to be seen as a program that supported many women who were not actually widows. This led to frustration and resentment.
A common stereotype developed around black families receiving AFDC benefits, with reports focusing on large black families on welfare while ignoring that most recipients were white. Critics depicted these families as lacking moral values, which sparked calls for welfare reform. Some states tried to limit benefits for unwed mothers and children born out of wedlock.
At the same time, the civil rights movement began to grow. Leaders of the movement pointed out the injustice and economic problems faced by minorities. While many white people focused on the issues of welfare, civil rights activists emphasized that the real problem was the lack of opportunities for the poor. Despite some white communities opposing change, the civil rights movement challenged the existing social norms and drew attention to issues like segregation and economic inequality, changing the national conversation during this time.
Modern Republicans and Lower-Case Liberals
In the late 1950s, American views on welfare and the New Deal changed. Republicans started to accept the New Deal as a valid approach, moving away from earlier opposition. At that time, both major political parties seemed to agree on many issues, making it hard to see major differences between them. Politicians from both sides wanted to be seen as "liberal" without being labeled as strict liberals. Leaders like Eisenhower and Nixon expressed that liberalism meant having a practical mindset focused on solving problems. Instead of just giving aid to welfare recipients, the goal was to help them become self-sufficient, leading to a general agreement that influenced future political campaigns.
“A Hand, Not a Handout”
The main idea is about changing welfare policy from giving out money to helping people become self-sufficient. The slogan "Give a hand, not a handout" captures this new focus. In 1962, Kennedy proposed a small program that included job training and rehabilitation instead of just handing out welfare checks. Although the program was limited in size, it marked a big change in how the government would help people. After Kennedy, Johnson quickly introduced new anti-poverty laws that included job training and community projects without direct cash assistance. This approach aimed to encourage individuals to find jobs and support themselves instead of relying on government aid.