2 “The System Is to Blame”
The Triumph of the Economy
The reforms of 1964–67 were driven by a strong belief that the economy could support them, due to significant wealth and economic growth. The U.S. economy had expanded dramatically since World War II, with real GNP nearly tripling. The leaders at the time, such as Lyndon Johnson, felt confident that they could maintain steady growth without major economic downturns, thanks to new Keynesian economic strategies. There was consistent GNP growth and low inflation, fostering an optimistic outlook. This belief in economic strength influenced social policy decisions, despite challenges like poverty, with the prevailing view being that the economy would continue to grow.
The Discovery of Structural Poverty
Poverty re-emerged as a significant issue in American society around the early 1960s, despite being largely absent from political discussions and public awareness for over a decade. Before 1964, references to poverty were rare, and when it was covered, there was often shock and disbelief regarding its existence, as seen in media reports like Edward R. Murrow's "Harvest of Shame," which highlighted the poor conditions of migrant workers. The prevailing view among intellectuals was that while some poverty existed, the overall prosperity of the American system was unquestionable.
However, by the early 1960s, the concept of "structural poverty" gained attention. This idea suggested that poverty was embedded in the economic and social systems and could not be solved merely by economic growth. To address this kind of poverty required significant societal changes. Michael Harrington's book, "The Other America," played a critical role in bringing structural poverty into the spotlight, revealing that millions lived in poverty while being largely ignored by society. His work demonstrated that the American narrative of a single, prosperous class was misleading.
As the understanding of poverty shifted from individual failings to systemic issues, it became clear that simplistic solutions would not suffice. Many scholars began to see that poverty was a result of broader social structures rather than personal shortcomings. This led to a new consensus on the necessity for substantial changes to address poverty effectively within American society. The recognition that poverty was a systemic issue influenced political strategies and programs aimed at fighting poverty in the following years.
The Civil Rights Movement Moves North
The Civil Rights Movement faced new challenges when it expanded to Northern cities. Unlike the South, where clear laws and practices prevented black people from having rights, Northern racism was often more hidden. For example, black students in New York were lagging significantly in education, but it was difficult to find specific individuals responsible for this systemic issue. Although legal barriers to equality were lifted with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, significant social and economic disparities remained. Blacks in the North lived in poorer housing, received a lower quality education, and faced worse living conditions compared to whites.
The Civil Rights Movement, which had largely been about legal changes, was suddenly met with riots in cities like Harlem, Rochester, and Watts after the passage of key legislation. Many viewed the riots as a sign of frustration from the black community, tying back to long-standing injustices. Leaders within the movement, including Martin Luther King, Jr., expressed that factors contributing to the riots were deeply rooted in systemic failures rather than blaming the rioters themselves.
Amid the unrest, white supporters of civil rights found themselves in a moral dilemma. They struggled to reconcile their support for peaceful protests with their disapproval of riots. The media reflected this conflict, with differing opinions on how to react to the violence. While some recognized the riots as understandable responses to historical injustices, others emphasized law and order.
The riots prompted a significant shift in how racial issues were talked about and addressed, leading to calls for more direct interventions and reforms. The establishment began to agree that white society bore responsibility for the conditions facing black Americans. This shift in perspective changed the focus from simply providing equal opportunities to ensuring equal outcomes, recognizing that mere legal equality would not resolve the deeply rooted social disparities.
In this context, the dialogue became more centered on why these problems existed and what role society must play in fixing them, often overlooking the agency of black communities themselves. Eventually, this led to a growing consensus that the root causes of racial issues lay within American society, not just individual failings. This focus began to redefine policies and social programs aimed at addressing poverty and equality, moving beyond just legal frameworks.
Hard Noses and Soft Data
The events of the 1960s, particularly the riots and black militancy, significantly influenced the view of poverty and the effectiveness of antipoverty programs initiated by the Johnson administration. By the fall of 1964, after the first antipoverty bill was passed, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was formed, aimed at tackling poverty through various programs. The people working within these early initiatives were mostly pragmatic idealists, eager to make a difference without getting caught in lengthy discussions about theories.
These early program designers were enthusiastic about their work, convinced that their efforts would lead to visible improvements in poverty rates. They felt that the root cause of poverty was a lack of determination to eliminate it rather than inherent issues within the poor populations themselves. Their optimism stemmed from a belief that well-structured antipoverty programs could unlock potential among the poor. They believed that with a bit of support, individuals could improve their situations significantly, leading to economic growth and reduced poverty.
The initial programs aimed to provide practical support and opportunities. For instance, training programs such as the Job Corps were founded on the idea that individuals could acquire skills and land jobs if given the chance. With many job opportunities available in the booming economy of the 1960s, supporters were confident that the training programs would succeed in reducing unemployment among welfare recipients.
To evaluate these programs' effectiveness, a move towards scientific evaluation was made. Social scientists proposed comprehensive studies to measure the actual outcomes of the antipoverty efforts. During this period, budgets for research and evaluation ballooned, reflecting a national commitment to empirically assess the impact of these initiatives.
However, the evaluations soon revealed disappointing results. Community action programs, intended to foster local development, struggled significantly. Many projects lacked sustainability, failing to create lasting change even with federal funding. Reports showed that while some projects had initial success, they often floundered due to bureaucratic challenges and ineffective local leadership, ultimately leading to disillusionment.
Case studies, including one on an ambitious economic development program in Oakland, illustrated this failure trend. Although initially celebrated in the media, many projects had not even progressed beyond planning stages, resulting in minimal job creation. The reality of these outcomes led to growing skepticism among those involved in the poverty programs.
The training programs, initially viewed as straightforward and promising, also yielded less than hopeful outcomes. While they helped some participants increase their earnings, the overall impact on reducing poverty was negligible. Many participants failed to stay engaged in programs or retain jobs after training, leading to frustratingly low rates of success.
As results continued to fall short, program sponsors turned to justifying their efforts through anecdotes of individual success stories instead of substantial statistics. Despite evidence that significant numbers of participants remained poor or returned to welfare, these narratives persisted as a means to gain public support and funding for continued programs.
Over time, it became increasingly clear that the antipoverty programs would not significantly decrease welfare dependency or poverty rates. The recognition of the structural factors contributing to poverty shifted perspectives, leading to a consensus that some individuals would require ongoing assistance, regardless of the efforts made to uplift them through education and job training.
The combination of a lack of substantial success in poverty programs, societal changes, and evolving views on poverty led to a more complex understanding of what effective assistance looks like. Ultimately, the recognition was made that creating a decent standard of living for everyone, rather than just pushing for self-sufficiency, was essential for real progress in addressing poverty.
The Triumph of the Economy
The reforms of 1964–67 were driven by a strong belief that the economy could support them, due to significant wealth and economic growth. The U.S. economy had expanded dramatically since World War II, with real GNP nearly tripling. The leaders at the time, such as Lyndon Johnson, felt confident that they could maintain steady growth without major economic downturns, thanks to new Keynesian economic strategies. There was consistent GNP growth and low inflation, fostering an optimistic outlook. This belief in economic strength influenced social policy decisions, despite challenges like poverty, with the prevailing view being that the economy would continue to grow.
The Discovery of Structural Poverty
Poverty re-emerged as a significant issue in American society around the early 1960s, despite being largely absent from political discussions and public awareness for over a decade. Before 1964, references to poverty were rare, and when it was covered, there was often shock and disbelief regarding its existence, as seen in media reports like Edward R. Murrow's "Harvest of Shame," which highlighted the poor conditions of migrant workers. The prevailing view among intellectuals was that while some poverty existed, the overall prosperity of the American system was unquestionable.
However, by the early 1960s, the concept of "structural poverty" gained attention. This idea suggested that poverty was embedded in the economic and social systems and could not be solved merely by economic growth. To address this kind of poverty required significant societal changes. Michael Harrington's book, "The Other America," played a critical role in bringing structural poverty into the spotlight, revealing that millions lived in poverty while being largely ignored by society. His work demonstrated that the American narrative of a single, prosperous class was misleading.
As the understanding of poverty shifted from individual failings to systemic issues, it became clear that simplistic solutions would not suffice. Many scholars began to see that poverty was a result of broader social structures rather than personal shortcomings. This led to a new consensus on the necessity for substantial changes to address poverty effectively within American society. The recognition that poverty was a systemic issue influenced political strategies and programs aimed at fighting poverty in the following years.
The Civil Rights Movement Moves North
The Civil Rights Movement faced new challenges when it expanded to Northern cities. Unlike the South, where clear laws and practices prevented black people from having rights, Northern racism was often more hidden. For example, black students in New York were lagging significantly in education, but it was difficult to find specific individuals responsible for this systemic issue. Although legal barriers to equality were lifted with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, significant social and economic disparities remained. Blacks in the North lived in poorer housing, received a lower quality education, and faced worse living conditions compared to whites.
The Civil Rights Movement, which had largely been about legal changes, was suddenly met with riots in cities like Harlem, Rochester, and Watts after the passage of key legislation. Many viewed the riots as a sign of frustration from the black community, tying back to long-standing injustices. Leaders within the movement, including Martin Luther King, Jr., expressed that factors contributing to the riots were deeply rooted in systemic failures rather than blaming the rioters themselves.
Amid the unrest, white supporters of civil rights found themselves in a moral dilemma. They struggled to reconcile their support for peaceful protests with their disapproval of riots. The media reflected this conflict, with differing opinions on how to react to the violence. While some recognized the riots as understandable responses to historical injustices, others emphasized law and order.
The riots prompted a significant shift in how racial issues were talked about and addressed, leading to calls for more direct interventions and reforms. The establishment began to agree that white society bore responsibility for the conditions facing black Americans. This shift in perspective changed the focus from simply providing equal opportunities to ensuring equal outcomes, recognizing that mere legal equality would not resolve the deeply rooted social disparities.
In this context, the dialogue became more centered on why these problems existed and what role society must play in fixing them, often overlooking the agency of black communities themselves. Eventually, this led to a growing consensus that the root causes of racial issues lay within American society, not just individual failings. This focus began to redefine policies and social programs aimed at addressing poverty and equality, moving beyond just legal frameworks.
Hard Noses and Soft Data
The events of the 1960s, particularly the riots and black militancy, significantly influenced the view of poverty and the effectiveness of antipoverty programs initiated by the Johnson administration. By the fall of 1964, after the first antipoverty bill was passed, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was formed, aimed at tackling poverty through various programs. The people working within these early initiatives were mostly pragmatic idealists, eager to make a difference without getting caught in lengthy discussions about theories.
These early program designers were enthusiastic about their work, convinced that their efforts would lead to visible improvements in poverty rates. They felt that the root cause of poverty was a lack of determination to eliminate it rather than inherent issues within the poor populations themselves. Their optimism stemmed from a belief that well-structured antipoverty programs could unlock potential among the poor. They believed that with a bit of support, individuals could improve their situations significantly, leading to economic growth and reduced poverty.
The initial programs aimed to provide practical support and opportunities. For instance, training programs such as the Job Corps were founded on the idea that individuals could acquire skills and land jobs if given the chance. With many job opportunities available in the booming economy of the 1960s, supporters were confident that the training programs would succeed in reducing unemployment among welfare recipients.
To evaluate these programs' effectiveness, a move towards scientific evaluation was made. Social scientists proposed comprehensive studies to measure the actual outcomes of the antipoverty efforts. During this period, budgets for research and evaluation ballooned, reflecting a national commitment to empirically assess the impact of these initiatives.
However, the evaluations soon revealed disappointing results. Community action programs, intended to foster local development, struggled significantly. Many projects lacked sustainability, failing to create lasting change even with federal funding. Reports showed that while some projects had initial success, they often floundered due to bureaucratic challenges and ineffective local leadership, ultimately leading to disillusionment.
Case studies, including one on an ambitious economic development program in Oakland, illustrated this failure trend. Although initially celebrated in the media, many projects had not even progressed beyond planning stages, resulting in minimal job creation. The reality of these outcomes led to growing skepticism among those involved in the poverty programs.
The training programs, initially viewed as straightforward and promising, also yielded less than hopeful outcomes. While they helped some participants increase their earnings, the overall impact on reducing poverty was negligible. Many participants failed to stay engaged in programs or retain jobs after training, leading to frustratingly low rates of success.
As results continued to fall short, program sponsors turned to justifying their efforts through anecdotes of individual success stories instead of substantial statistics. Despite evidence that significant numbers of participants remained poor or returned to welfare, these narratives persisted as a means to gain public support and funding for continued programs.
Over time, it became increasingly clear that the antipoverty programs would not significantly decrease welfare dependency or poverty rates. The recognition of the structural factors contributing to poverty shifted perspectives, leading to a consensus that some individuals would require ongoing assistance, regardless of the efforts made to uplift them through education and job training.
The combination of a lack of substantial success in poverty programs, societal changes, and evolving views on poverty led to a more complex understanding of what effective assistance looks like. Ultimately, the recognition was made that creating a decent standard of living for everyone, rather than just pushing for self-sufficiency, was essential for real progress in addressing poverty.