The War on Poverty: Trial and Error

[Originally written December 2008]

No nation in history has acquired as much abundance as the United States of America. In its beginning a small nation on the verge of collapse, America now stands as the world’s only superpower, capable of defending itself and others militarily and sustaining itself and others economically. America, however, is not without flaws, for it still faces humanity’s oldest enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease and crime. These enemies are formidable, but the true measure of a nation’s greatness is the tenacity with which it confronts these evils. For those who preferring dangerously simplistic approaches, the answers seem clear: a society is to either embrace socialism or callous indifference toward those in need. This, of course, is a false dilemma. Reasonable people see the dangers in both approaches. Today, the question is not whether the poor should be helped, but how they should be helped. Most reject the two extremes, seeking instead to chart a course toward a middle path that emphasizes empowerment rather than welfare; a hand up, not a handout. If a nation is to be just in the expenditure of its public resources and effective in combating poverty, then this approach must be taken. With some disappointing exceptions and diversions, this is the course that America has followed. It is this course, with some amendment, that America must continue to follow if poverty is to be further reduced and eradicated.

Not until the Great Depression did the view emerge that government has a moral responsibility to aid those in need. Up to that point, ever-expanding prosperity masked the true extent of poverty in America, with the responsibility for the plight of the impoverished left to private charity. With the emergence of an economic depression unrivaled in American history, private charity was unable effectively respond and the people turned to government, choosing Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” over Hoover’s “do-nothing” approach. Roosevelt’s election marked the beginning of modern progressivism, with a sweeping program that dramatically expanded the scope of government efforts to alleviate the depression. Social Security, a modest minimum wage law, unemployment insurance and farm price supports are among notable New Deal programs and policies that still exist. Debate on the New Deal’s effectiveness continues today. While it is clear that Roosevelt’s policies did not bring a full end to the Depression (World War II achieved this), there is overwhelming evidence that suggests it improved the lot of Americans, alleviating human suffering and bringing about a meaningful, though inadequate reduction in the unemployment rate, largely through expanded public works and employment programs. Between 1932 and 1940, the national unemployment rate declined from 24.9 percent to 14.6 percent (“Unemployment”). The New Deal would later serve as a basis for efforts to expand government programs to help the poor. The lasting legacy of Roosevelt’s New Deal is not the policies it advanced so much as the moral code it created; after the 1930s, most recognizes it to be society’s moral obligation to aid the poor. While debate continues as to the nature and extent of this responsibility, the recognition that it exists continues. The New Deal was less a policy success than a moral revolution, igniting a strong devotion to achieving freedom from want.

President John F. Kennedy’s “New Frontier” sought to expand the horizons of the New Deal in order to reduce America’s intolerably high poverty rate. The program, regarded by some as overly-ambitious, was not warmly accepted in the Congress and many of his recommendations were dead on arrival. Kennedy secured modest achievements; an increase in welfare benefits, an expanded job training program, an area redevelopment program to lift up impoverished communities, a higher minimum wage, and higher spending on social services. Kennedy believed, however, that the most effective cure for poverty was a thriving economy, and he focused much of his attention on “getting America moving again.” In January 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson reported to the Congress in the President’s Annual Economic Report that the economy had overcome the 1960 economic recession and was proceeding along toward sustained prosperity: gross national product had increased by 16 percent since 1961; industrial production had risen 23 percent; private-sector, non-farm employment had increased by 2 ¾ million jobs; personal income had risen 17 percent; corporate profits had risen 44 percent; after-tax income had risen 16 percent; and disposable income per-family had increased by an average of 8 percent (Johnson, “Annual, 1964”). Over this same period, the poverty rate had declined from 20.8 percent in 1960 to 17.4 percent in 1964 (“Historical”). The combination of progressive government programs and, perhaps to a greater extent, prudent economic policies had created an improved economic climate and produced a 16 percent reduction in the poverty rate in a matter of only three years.

Johnson, not satisfied with these gains, proposed a full-scale “war on poverty” in his March 16, 1964 message to the Congress. While it is rather common for government to characterize any major effort as a “war,” the enemy and the means proposed to defeat it warranted such a declaration in this instance. Poverty, according to Johnson, “means a daily struggle to secure the necessities for even a meager existence. It means that the abundance, the comforts, the opportunities [the people] see all around them are beyond their grasp. Worst of all, it means hopelessness for the young” (Johnson, “Special”). In this message and in subsequent messages, Johnson proposed the most sweeping measures in history to combat poverty. These measures encompassed the Economic Opportunity Act, enacted in August 1964. Following his sweeping landslide election in November 1964, Johnson proposed more ambitious programs to achieve a “Great Society,” a place resting upon “abundance and liberty for all,” demanding “an end to poverty and racial injustice” (Johnson, “Remarks”). At the height of his presidency, Johnson secured passage of over two hundred major pieces of anti-poverty legislation, exceeding the legislative record of Roosevelt’s historic “First 100 Days.” By 1969, the nation had experienced marked economic gains since November 1963: more than 8 ½ million new jobs; an unemployment rate of only 3.3 percent; a reduction of twelve million in the number of impoverished Americans; and a rise of 20 percent in average personal income (Johnson, “Annual, 1969”). In 1969, five years into the war on poverty, the national poverty rate had declined to a stunning 10.4 percent, a full 50 percent reduction from 1960 pre-Kennedy/Johnson levels.

In succeeding years, the economy suffered a seemingly uninterrupted malaise. From 1969 to 1977, a period marked by high inflation and economic instability, the poverty rate nevertheless held steady as key social programs remained intact. Beginning in 1981, the election of Ronald Reagan and the institution of so-called trickle-down economics, facilitated deep cutbacks in many social programs, leading to a substantial rise in the poverty rate. By 1993, which marked the official end of “Reaganomics”, the poverty rate stood at 13.6 percent, about nine percent higher than the rate the Reagan-Bush administration had inherited in 1981. Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat elected in 1992, instituted so-called “invest-and-grow economics,” emphasizing fiscal responsibility and “investment in [the nation’s] future” (Clinton). Clinton advanced substantial increases in funding for education, health and job training, expanded the Earned-Income-Tax Credit for the “working poor”, and presided over the longest peace-time expansion in American history. Clinton also signed the landmark 1996 welfare reform law that corrected many of the deficiencies of prior anti-poverty programs by emphasizing “work and responsibility” and creating a system purportedly designed to emphasize empowerment over dependency. The economic and anti-poverty policies of the Clinton administration closely embody the middle path America must take it if it to successfully eradicate poverty. By 2001, when Clinton left office, the poverty rate fell to 9.9 percent, the lowest rate in history and a 27 percent reduction from the rate he inherited in 1993 (Clinton, “Annual”).

The legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society is decidedly mixed. Conservative critics will cite certain failures as evidence that government effort to reduce poverty and expand opportunity is a futile endeavor. Leftist ideologues will blame Republicans and assert that the efforts would have had far more success if only they had received more money. Both of these views are erroneous, with the former demonstrating a shocking ignorance of the facts and the latter performing a disservice to the legacy of the Great Society by failing to emphasize its successes. When examining data on poverty, two clear realities emerge: first, efforts to reduce poverty are most successful during times of economic prosperity; second, economic prosperity without progressive effort to combat poverty is not enough. The 1960s were, up to that point, the most prosperous times in American history, and some critics of the so-called welfare state will assert that it is the economic prosperity of that period, not government efforts, that led to such a substantial reduction in the American poverty rate. However, the 1950s were tremendously prosperous, yet the poverty rate still hovered at around 20 percent. The 1980s were exceedingly prosperous, yet poverty increased during the entire run of “Reaganomics” (“Historical”). Missing in those two decades was strong, progressive leadership; an affirmative program to combat poverty in America. The Great Society had its failures, but those so quick to publicize these failures while ignoring the great successes fail to acknowledge that combating one of man’s oldest and most formidable enemies is not an effort that brings instant success. It is, as in any war, a trial-and-error process. Some efforts succeed and some efforts fail, but the measure of success must not be a selective analysis of certain battles but rather an objective analysis of the overall war. Such an examination of the government’s war on poverty necessitates an admission that constructive achievements have been made. Government is certainly at fault for failing to respond rapidly to evidence that certain approaches failed. This is where the common criticism of government emerges; government invests billions in ineffective programs. But too often this is used as a basis to justify a retreat in the war on poverty rather than a change in strategy. Setbacks in any great effort command fresh thinking and a new approach; not needless vituperation and all-out retreat.

For all the progress this nation has made and the abundance it has acquired, poverty persists in America, with thirty-five million Americans living lives of deprivation in a land of prosperity. The moral revolution of the New Deal and Great Society reflected the recognition that this cannot be tolerated in a just nation; no longer can this nation accept the condemnation of such a large segment of its population to lives of squalor, cruelly masked by a veil of abundance. As in every struggle waged against a great enemy, there will be failures and setbacks that compel some to advocate retreat. This, however, has never been the American way. A righteous America owes it to its conscience to fight this war; a strong, confident and prosperous America owes it to those living in poverty to win.

Bibliography

Clinton, William Jefferson. “Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on Administration Goals, February 17, 1993.” The Public Papers of the Presidents. 09 October 2007 <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=47232>.

Clinton, William Jefferson. “Economic Report of the President, January 2001.”
U.S. Government Printing Office. 10 September 2007. 09 October 2007
<http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy02/pdf/2001_erp.pdf>.

“Historical Tables: Poverty Over Time.” U.S. Census Bureau. 28 August 2007. 09 October 2007 <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html>.

Johnson, Lyndon Baines. “Annual Message to the Congress: The Economic Report of the President, January 20, 1964.” The Public Papers of the Presidents. 09 October 2007
< http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26004>.

Johnson, Lyndon Baines. “Annual Message to the Congress: The Economic Report of the President, January 16, 1969.” The Public Papers of the Presidents. 09 October 2007
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29342>.

Johnson, Lyndon Baines. “Remarks at the University of Michigan, May 22, 1964.” The Public Papers of the Presidents. 09 October 2007
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26262>.

Johnson, Lyndon Baines. “Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Nationwide War on the Sources of Poverty, March 16, 1964.” The Public Papers of the Presidents. 09 October 2007
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26109>.

“Unemployment Rate in the Civilian Labor Force, 1920–2006.” U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 03 October 2007. 09 October 2007
.