The Road From Poverty to Freedom Conference
April 4-5, 2005
Grove City College
Lyndon Johnson, Poverty, and the Great Society*
By
L. John Van Til, PhD
Professor Without Portfolio
Grove City College
*
This paper serves as an introduction to Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society vision. It
places this reform impulse in the context of others, summarizes the rise of Johnson from
poverty in West Texas to the Presidency, traces the emergence of his social reform vision,
and characterizes briefly his basic reform programs—in the areas of health, education, and
economic programs aimed at poverty. It concludes with some consideration of ways to
define poverty.
[All rights reserved, jvt]
3
Lyndon Johnson, Poverty, and the Great Society*
Introduction
The most significant legislative and social program ever devised in American history was
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Its significance can be best appreciated by a look at it in the
larger sweep of American experience and then in a more focused examination of its origins,
purpose, and programs. As for the larger picture, I find it useful to view the Great Society as a
late chapter in the history of reform in America. Indeed, I have argued in several papers and in
the class room from time to time that it is very useful to view all of the American experience as a
series of reform impulses. Reform always means the “improvement of what is wrong, corrupt, or
unsatisfactory” or “to change to a better state.”
Think about that for a moment. Were not the first settlers in New England there to begin
a new form of religious practice? It was, in their view, an improvement over the practices in Old
England. Was not the American Revolution an attempt to improve political practices over those
used by the Crown? Historians speak of the 1840s and 1850s as “The Age of Reform” because
there were so many reforms in such great variety. Emerson, living at the time, referred to this
reform impulse as “demon reform” because, as he noted, every institution was examined to see if
*
L. John Van Til, PhD, Professor Without Portfolio, Grove City College
4
it needed to be improved. Is it possible that the Civil War itself was a reform impulse? It was
begun to preserve the Union, Lincoln observed, and it ended with the abolition of slavery. And
then there were the moralistic Mugwumps of the 1870s which lead to the civil service system.
The Progressive Movement of the 1890s and on into the Woodrow Wilson era was one of the
truly comprehensive reform impulses, its wake including the Federal Reserve System, shorter
work-weeks, antitrust legislation, and much more. Desperate and disparate though it was, the
New Deal (1930s) is viewed by most historians as a reform impulse, too, despite the fact that its
myriad programs did not end the great scourge of the decade—unemployment. And that brings
us to the granddaddy of all reform impulses—Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society of the 1960s. To
Johnson and his Great Society Program we now turn our attention.
Lyndon Johnson: Who Was He?
The Great Society with its “war on poverty” would not have occurred in the 1960s, or
likely not at any other time, without the political genius of Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). If this
is a correct observation, we need to look into his background and see who he was and what made
him so effective as a political leader. He was very bright, exceedingly ambitious, a visionary, highly
energetic, persuasive to a fault, ruthless, and yet compassionate. And, significantly, in politics,
Lyndon Johnson was a huge man physically for that generation—over 6'
3" tall and more than
230 pounds. To these we must add two more characteristics. Politically correct people would call
him “morally challenged” while others who knew him well, when pressed, would call him “a
crook.” And, then there is that other very important factor—his personal poverty as a child.
That he was bright, a visionary, and all of those other things noted above have been
chronicled in the standard biographies of him, such as Robert Caro’s four volume The Years of
Lyndon Johnson (three volumes published, 1990-present), Robert Dallek’s Flawed Giant:
Lyndon Johnson and his Times, 1961-1973 (1998), and Doris Kerns Goodwin’s Lyndon Johnson
and the American Dream (1976). Moreover, that he was “morally challenged” is evident in
accounts of his elections, especially the 1948 senatorial primary election which he won by 87
5
votes. The same moral laxness can also be found in recent reconstructions of his rise from rags to
riches. As for the latter, he had nothing when he ran for Congress in 1937, and then had an
estimated wealth of $20 million at the time he became President, which adjusted for inflation to
the present, would be at least $100 million. This would make him the wealthiest President of the
United States ever. Implied, of course, is that he made this fortune by abuse of his power while
in government. Lesser moral lapses are evident throughout accounts of his routine work.
Substantial, even crucial, insight into what drove LBJ may be gathered from a brief
account of his own childhood poverty and his escape from it. Born in Stonewall, Texas in 1908,
the family moved to Johnson City in 1913, the town named for Johnson’s forebears. The
Johnsons like most back country people were poor, very poor. His leading biographer, Robert
Caro, noted that he was “from one of the most impoverished regions of the United States, the
Texas Hill Country.” Yes, they had enough to eat, but it was very difficult to eke out a living
from the soil. Moreover, they had no electricity, running water, indoor plumbing, or telephone.
The gravity of the poverty of Johnson’s neighbors became personal when, after college, Johnson
worked in Washington as a secretary for Congressman Kleberg. That is, he saw the contrast
between the poverty of his Texas neighbors in the hills and the opulence of the nation’s capitol.
In 1937 the Congressional seat for the neighboring 10th District became vacant on the
death of its incumbent. Johnson ran and won against ten opponents and entered Congress at the
age of 29. Immediately he began a campaign to improve the living conditions of his region,
bringing power, running water, and telephones to it—with government help. This was the start of
Johnson’s building of a political power base, a process that continued once he was elected to the
Senate in 1948. Whatever criticisms of Johnson have merit, there can be no doubt that he had a
genuine compassion for the plight of the poor. Perhaps it was an instinct, but it was fed by the
plight of his neighbors and his own experience as a child.
Another critical step in Johnson’s rise to power, another factor crucial to understanding
who he was, emerged in his Senate career. Elected in 1948, at 40 he was one of the youngest
Senators. But it was not merely his youth that set him apart from others in the Senate. Soon the
6
Senate was involved in a titanic struggle over desegregation and civil rights. Resistance to these
matters was very strong among a large block of Southern Senators, known as Dixiecrats. Most of
them were old and intransigent, also open to leadership by a young warrior. Johnson saw the
opportunity and moved in. It was not difficult for him; after all, he held the same views as they
did. In a word, he too was a segregationist. Two years into his Senate career he was elected
Majority Whip. In two more years, in 1953 at the age of 44, he was elected Senate Majority
Leader in the United States Senate.
To sum up on the question “Who Was He?”: in 1953, at the age of 44, Lyndon Johnson
was the most powerful political leader in America, with the exception of President Eisenhower,
who surpassed all in the hearts of his countrymen. In my lectures about him over the years, I
have argued that, unlike Eisenhower, he was essentially a totalitarian personality, that is, one
who demanded total control over every event he was involved in. Not withstanding all of these
qualities, Johnson was, indeed, a very compassionate man with a heart for the poor. From
another angle, he was in the mid-1950s perfectly positioned for a leadership role in the social
revolution that would emerge in the next decade.
Lyndon Johnson and the Emergence of the Great Society
It would be a mistake to conclude from what has just been said that Johnson singlehandedly created the social revolution of the 1960s—which he came to call “The Great Society.”
Had it not been for the assassination of President Kennedy, Johnson would likely not have
emerged as the central figure in the 1960'
s social revolution. But, that point is getting ahead of
the story.
Historians have debated since the days of the English writer Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)
whether events in history call forth great leaders or whether great leaders create great events. I
stated in the beginning of this essay that “the Great Society with its ‘war on poverty’ would not
have occurred without the political genius of LBJ.” That is to say, he certainly was one of those
great leaders Carlyle spoke about. It is also true, however, that circumstances beyond Johnson’s
7
control emerged which allowed him to seize the opportunity to proclaim his vision of a great
society. A few of these circumstances are worth noting.
First, the Supreme Court’s Brown case (in 1954) gave a push to the emerging civil rights
movement. It allowed, for example, Martin Luther King, Jr. to claim a legal basis for his moral
crusade against segregation and its myriad Jim Crow laws. Second, John Kenneth Galbraith,
Canadian-born Harvard economist, published his best-selling The Affluent Society in 1958. In it
he argued that America had become so prosperous that its only concern now must be with the
manner of distribution of her opulent wealth. In his view, the government, rather than the market
system, was best equipped to do this. Implicit was the assumption that the government takes
wealth from the rich and well-off and gives it to the poor. Galbraith’s book became the “bible” of
intellectuals and government policy makers. Indeed, few books have had the practical effect this
one did on the everyday lives of Americans. Third, sensitized by his old Harvard professor, John
Kennedy “discovered” poverty as he campaigned for the presidency in 1960, making it an issue.
One can be cynical, or not, about Kennedy’s poverty experience depending on the depth of
understanding one has about Kennedy’s political practices. Fourth, Michael Harrington
published his The Other America in 1962 and it was immediately fashionable to read, since it
pictured in stark detail the lives of the poor. President Kennedy also stated that he was moved by
Harrington’s account. This tract, Galbraith’s work, and Kennedy’s poverty consciousness fed the
anti-poverty movement in the government and in society in the early 1960s. Other factors,
middle class guilt based upon economic success, for example, were also at work before Johnson
came to power late in 1963. Indeed, all of these factors laid the ground work for the fortuitous
emergence of Johnson as the progenitor of the Great Society with its war on poverty.
One other factor helps us understand Johnson and the emergence of his Great Society:
Kennedy politics. Both Johnson and Kennedy saw themselves as presidential candidates in 1956.
By late 1958, after Kennedy’s reelection to the Senate, Kennedy was clearly the Democrat frontrunner in the 1960 presidential sweepstakes. A close observer might say that Kennedy had the
image while Johnson had the political power. The Kennedys, John and his political alter ego,
8
brother Robert, were very concerned about a challenge by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon
Baines Johnson. What could they do? The contest came to a head in the Democrat convention.
Each faction had a substantial number of delegates. In the end, Kennedy obtained the
nomination. But, the question still remained, what to do with Johnson. If they left him alone and
won the election, Johnson as Senate Majority Leader would control any legislative hopes the
Kennedys might have. The alternative was to place him on the ticket as the Vice Presidential
candidate. This had a two-fold appeal. It would take him out of his position of power in the
Senate. On the other hand, he was a very good campaigner in rural areas—especially in the
South. Johnson, of course, accepted the Vice Presidential spot on the ticket.
Following the election, Johnson was in what he would later call “a 1,000 days of exile
from power.” That is to say, here was a man who on one day as Senate Majority Leader was the
most powerful political figure in America and on the next day as Vice President was virtually
powerless, reduced to ceremonial roles assigned to him by the President.
Then, in a moment, with the assassination of President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson
possessed more power than he likely ever imagined before being sworn in as President of the
United States. Now that he held this office, an office he had coveted so fervently for so long,
what would he do with it?
Shrewdly, Lyndon Johnson in public played the role of healer and unifier in the weeks
following the assassination of President Kennedy. He gave the impression in his public
utterances that he would follow the programs of “the late beloved President.” In his words, “Let
us continue.” In this he correctly judged the mood of the American people as they mourned the
death of their President [November 22, 1963], his remarks, no doubt, providing a sense of
continuity in the public mind. Privately, however, Johnson immediately began to plan his
legislative agenda. As 1964 dawned, a little more than six weeks after Kennedy’s assassination,
on January 8th, President Johnson went before a joint session of Congress and delivered his first
State of the Union Address. For the record, this event is referred to as President Lyndon B.
Johnson’s Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union, January 8 1964.We will
9
refer to it when cited as “SOU, 1/8/64.” This document is attached to this essay so that students
may study it in depth at their leisure. [Appendix “A”]
Presidents of earlier eras actually presented evidence about the state of the Union in their
State of the Union Address. Calvin Coolidge, for example, in fact, reviewed conditions in
government agencies and evaluated foreign affairs. Johnson, like all modern Presidents, said
little about the past and then spent 95% of his time laying out programs he wished the Congress
to pass. So it was that Johnson presented his legislative agenda for the Great Society in his first
State of the Union Address. Thus, we may say that on January 8, 1964, Lyndon Johnson laid out
his plans for social reform in America, the “war on poverty” being its centerpiece. It’s true that
the name for his massive social program—the Great Society—is associated with his address at
the University of Michigan on May 22, 1964. On the other hand, the January 8, 1964 State of the
Union Address sets out all of the categories of reform that he wished to work on in the months
ahead. A look at the purpose and range of these programs will deepen our understanding of
President Johnson’s vision for America.
The Purpose and Range of President Johnson’s Reforms
Probably only political scientists would find an examination of legislative agendas
exciting. Yet, we need to survey the purpose and range of programs Johnson offered in the State
of the Union Address and in subsequent speeches if we are to understand his vision fully.
As for purpose, Johnson spoke of it often and in many ways. “This budget, and this
year’s legislative program, are designed to help each and every America citizen fulfill his basic
hopes–his hopes for a fair chance to make good; his hopes for a decent home for his family in a
decent community; his hopes for fair play from the law. . .” and the list goes on (SOU 1/8/64,
p.3). Johnson’s language here calls to mind the title of Doris Kerns Goodwin’s study, noted
above, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. He had a dream about America, just as Martin
Luther King, Jr. had a dream. But, Johnson had dreams and high hopes about reforming America
that had that ethereal and unrealistic quality that probably should be called fantasy. Dreams and
10
hopes about a better, even utopian, America were not new with Johnson. But there was
something new and different about Johnson’s purpose and reform impulse, different than
anything that had been proposed before by a major political figure in American history.
An historical footnote is in order here because some one might say, drawing on standard
textbook accounts of the New Deal, “What about FDR’s New Deal? Surely that was a
comprehensive reform impulse like Johnson’s.” Not true. FDR was the first to admit that he had
no plan, no comprehensive program to solve the dilemma of the depression, other than to not fear
fear. When asked about his political philosophy he replied, “I am a Christian and a democrat.”
The New Deal was, in fact, a series of disjointed experimental economic measures suggested to
FDR by a great variety of reformers. Many were tried in desperation and most failed. It is true
that after years of these experiments FDR’s government produced some successful regulatory
measures, such as the National Labor Relations Act, and a modest social security act. Without
belaboring the subject, it is clear in the record that these acts were all seen at the time as full
employment measures, that is, economic measures—even the Social Security Act was viewed
that way. This stood in contrast to Johnson’s program which was first of all a social reform
program, stimulating obvious economic side effects. The difference between these two reform
impulses may be summed up in a few words: FDR used state power reluctantly in targeted
economic areas whereas LBJ used state power aggressively to implement his very
comprehensive social reform program.
Returning focus to Johnson’s program, evident in it was his “belief that every American
should be insured against the possibility of total defeat.” This is cradle to grave social and
economic security. It echoes an idea often stated in my classroom lectures. That is, that the
Founding Fathers in the American Revolution wished to guarantee citizens an opportunity to
pursue happiness while the progenitors of the French Revolution wished to guarantee happiness.
From a slightly different angle, the Founders wanted to guarantee equal opportunity in the race
of life while the French Revolution wished to guarantee equal results. The Founder’s view
assumed individual initiative and effort in an atmosphere of equality of opportunity. The French
11
model sought equality of results insured by the state. Lyndon Johnson’s purpose was far
removed from the purpose and philosophy of the Founders and much closer to the views
proposed in the French Revolution. In a few words, his purpose was to have “the state solve all
of our problems.”
Turning from a discussion of Johnson’s purpose in his Great Society programs, we look
briefly at the range of those programs. As noted above, Johnson presented his legislative agenda
in his first State of the Union Address, January 8, 1964. Even a brief glance at this address
immediately shows the range of programs he hoped to put before the Congress that year. He
listed a number of them in the third paragraph when he said:
Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights
than the last hundred sessions combined; as the session which enacted the most
far-reaching tax cut of our time; as the session which declared all-out war on human
poverty and unemployment in these United States; as the session which finally
recognized the health needs of all our older citizens; as the session which reformed
our tangled transportation and transit policies; as the session which achieved the
most effective, efficient foreign aid program ever; and as the session which helped
to build more homes, more schools, more libraries, and more hospitals than any single
session of Congress in the history of our Republic.
He expanded on these topics in the rest of the address.
His famous declaration of war on poverty appeared on the third page of the text. There he
said, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in
America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort.” The breadth of
his vision about how this war should proceed appeared in the next sections. A few lines show his
direction. Immediately following the famous lines just quoted he said, “It will not be a short or
easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice. . . .” That the program had a social
emphasis soon appeared. Said Johnson, “Our chief weapons in a more pinpointed attack will be
better schools, and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better job
opportunities to help more Americans . . . escape from squalor and misery.” For him poverty was
not caused by “a lack of jobs or money,”–obvious economic factors. “The cause may lie,” he
12
said, “deeper in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own
capacities, in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of
decent communities in which to live and bring up their children.” In other words, the cause in his
view could be found in social conditions.
Interestingly, he seemed not to be sure of a basic cause of poverty since he began the next
section of the address with these words “But whatever the cause . . . .” And then he said that this
effort must pursue poverty wherever it exists. That he intended to bring the good life, the great
society, to everyone was evident in his next phrases: “In the city slums and small towns, in
sharecropper shacks or in migrant worker camps, on Indian Reservations, among whites as well
as Negroes, among the young as well as the aged, in boom towns and in the depressed areas.” In
making a transition from these introductory remarks to a five page discussion of all the kinds of
programs that would be necessary to move toward the Great Society, Johnson said, “Our aim is
not to relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” And then the
telling phrase, “No single piece of legislation, however, is going to suffice.” In due course over
100 pieces of legislation were passed. Surely this is evidence of a comprehensive social reform
program. Like the Age of Reform in the 1840s and 1860s, it seemed that in Johnson’s Great
Society vision nothing escaped the reform impulse.
Three Especially Important Programs. Here then in his first State of the Union
Address, just weeks after the assassination of President Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson laid out his
vision for social reform, a program he would (in May) name in his famous University of
Michigan commencement address “The Great Society.” A careful reading of the attached copy of
the 1964 State of the Union Address clearly shows the breath-taking scope of his vision. His
remarkable political and legislative skills pushed through the Congress dozens of bills which
forged the foundation of this vision. Among the dozens of items passed into law a few stand out
as the most far-reaching in impact. Space here obviously does not permit an examination of the
scores of Great Society enactments. That would require a book. We may, however, single out
several for brief comment. Health care, education and specific economic anti-poverty programs
13
make up the bulk of the whole Great Society vision.
1. Medicare. Programs to improve health were covered by two major pieces of
legislation, measures that by themselves are landmarks in Congressional history. They are, of
course, Medicare (1965) and Medicaid (1966). Medicare appeared as an amendment to existing
social security legislation. Perhaps its profound significance will be taken up by other papers in
this conference. In a sentence, however, it provided health care assistance to everyone age 65 and
older, as well as to a large number of younger people who were poor. Johnson, at the signing of
the legislation at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, on July 30, 1965, called it a
“health insurance” program. It was not insurance in the traditional, legal sense of the word. It
was, rather, a tax, which is not voluntary, on workers. Membership in Medicare was not
voluntary either. Moreover, millions of poor were paid billions in benefits even though they
never contributed to it, millions more drawing out benefits far in excess of that which they
contributed–just like in the Social Security program itself. Medicaid extended benefits to a whole
class of people, the poor. Nothing could be more obviously poverty programs than these
measures. That was, indeed, Johnson’s intention.
Amendments to Medicare since 1965, as well as dramatic increases in life expectancy
and in health care costs, have made it a colossal expense for the public treasury, threatening to
drag the whole economy down to stagnation levels. Indeed, it is a chronic and “hot” political
issue. There does not appear to be any easy way to reduce its costs, especially since much of the
public has come to see it as a right.
2. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. A second major Johnson antipoverty program focused on education. Johnson himself had been a teacher briefly following
college and came to be a champion of education as the way to lift people from poverty. He was
positively eloquent in stating his belief that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, which placed the Federal Government in the nation’s classrooms for the first time, would
lift millions from poverty to plenty! But, how effective was it, especially as an anti-poverty
measure?
14
Its purpose was to help improve the schools, “improve” being that ever-present mantra of
social reformers. Most would now agree, however, that it and subsequent Federal efforts to
improve schools have been a failure. Along with Federal money, which is still only about 5% of
the total money spent on public school education, came volumes of regulations. Most of these
have only muddied and muddled educational reform attempts. Moreover, most “problems” in the
schools are the result of failures in the home, causing most teachers to spend more time as social
workers and psychologists than as educators. Few thoughtful people would conclude that the
Federal Government can do much about that. Wisdom still suggests that education of children
begins at home, moves to the neighborhood or private school, and then on to an area high school.
And, it is fact that these progressions are all colored by the cultural and economic distinctives of
each community, a factor that most school reformers have been unwilling to acknowledge as a
fact of life—one that cannot be easily changed. Experience, too, shows that uniform education
regulations from far off Washington seldom help and often hinder education in the
neighborhood.
3. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Numerous participants in this conference
will comment at length on the third major piece of anti-poverty legislation, the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964 [EOA]. We will, therefore, only point out its major themes and purpose
here. It was proposed and summarized by Johnson in an address in March, 1964. The EOA, as it
was styled, was passed by Congress in August of that year. Political scientists would call it an
“enabling act,” meaning that it provided for the passage of a broad range of additional measures,
each of which carries out the purpose and intent of the basic act. The Act is attached to this essay
[Appendix “B”]. Its second paragraph sums up the measure’s purpose:
FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE SEC. 2. Although the economic well-being
and prosperity of the United States have progressed to a level surpassing any achieved in world
history, and although these benefits are widely shared throughout the Nation, poverty continues to
be the lot of a substantial number of our people. The United States can achieve its full economic
and social potential as a nation only if every individual has the opportunity to contribute to the
full extent of his capabilities and to participate in the workings of our society. It is, therefore, the
policy of the United States to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty in this
Nation by opening to everyone the opportunity for education and training, the opportunity to
15
work, and the opportunity to live in decency and dignity. It is the purpose of this Act to
strengthen, supplement, and coordinate efforts in furtherance of that policy.
Dozens of enactments flowed from this legislation. The document itself, however, lists only a
few of the topics that generated additional legislation.
Sargent Shriver, a 49 year old lawyer, onetime journalist (Newsweek), Kennedy brotherin-law, and Director of the Peace Corps, was appointed by President Johnson to head the Office
of Economic Opportunity. He turned out to be a very aggressive director of this burgeoning
government agency with its dozens of programs and billions in its budget. He soon became one
of the most powerful people in Washington. A few of OEO’s programs include Community
Health Centers, Head Start, Job Corps, Foster Grandparents, Upward Bound, Green Thumb,
Indian Opportunities, Migrant Opportunities, VISTA Volunteers, Legal Services, and more.
As stated before, three major pieces of legislation made up the core of the Great Society
and its war on poverty—Medicare-Medicaid (1965-1966) amendments to the Social Security
Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Economic Opportunity Act
of 1964. In addition to these three major pieces of legislation, major in the sense that they had
very far-reaching effects, scores of other enactments passed Congress aimed at the broader vision
of the Great Society. It will be useful to list some of them in passing for visual effect:
Wilderness Preservation Act (1964)
Civil Rights Act (1964)
Omnibus Housing Act (1965, rent supplements)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (1965)
National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities (1965)
Water Quality Act (1965)
Air Quality Act (1965)
Higher Education Act (1965, Pell Grants)
Solid Waste Disposal Act (1965)
Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act (1965)
Affirmative Action Program (1965)
Voting Rights Act (1965)
16
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1966)
Minimum Wage Act (1966)
Department of Transportation (1966)
Model Cities Act (1966)
Food Stamps (1966)
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968)
It will be enlightening to conclude this section with a few observations on the paragraph
quoted above from the EOA. Notice that it states that the United States is the most prosperous
nation in the history of the world and that this prosperity is “widely shared throughout the
nation.” It then goes on to state that such economic success is not good enough, that the nation
can be considered really successful “only if every individual has the opportunity to contribute . . .
and to participate in the workings of our society.” The next lines call for an elimination of
poverty and for making provision for everyone to have an opportunity to be trained, have a job,
and live “in decency and dignity.”
Ponder this for a moment. Does this not sound a bit perfectionistic or even utopian? Is it
possible to achieve all the idealistic goals in an imperfect world? Moreover, this measure’s tone
reflects the general attitude of Johnson’s vision of a great society, that is, that the state can solve
all of our problems. Finally, do not such high expectations actually set the stage for despair
among the poor because they are so high, so unrealistic? Might more modest goals be more
prudent? In a sentence, can we not say that the purpose and range of Johnson’s vision of a Great
Society had embedded in it seeds of failure because it was too comprehensive, too unrealistic,
and too hastily conceived?
A Summing Up and Evaluation of The Great Society and Poverty
1. A Brief Summary. To sum up, it is important to remember that Johnson’s Great
Society was the granddaddy of all reform impulses in American history, meaning that it was the
most comprehensive and most expensive. Further, its success, in the sense that it dramatically
17
changed American society forever, was due in large part to Johnson himself, that is, due to his
exceedingly forceful personality and political skills. And then it appeared in its gigantic form
fortuitously, Johnson becoming President suddenly with the assassination of President Kennedy.
In addition, Johnson deserves recognition for his great personal compassion, due to his own
experience among the poor of the Texas Hill Country. It is also true that this huge program did
build on several other developments in the years just before its appearance, the Civil Rights
Movement being one example. Finally, once the Great Society, with its emphasis on anti-poverty
measures, was laid out in Johnson speeches, there seemed to be no limit to its expansion into
every corner of American society.
2. What Historians and Apologists Say. Having summed up its origins and
development briefly, what, it may be asked, do historians and apologists say about the Great
Society? What do they make of it with its benchmark programs on poverty? As might be
expected, Johnson himself saw the whole effort as a success, a few days before he left office, in
his final State of the Union Address on January 14, 1969. There he presented a selfcongratulatory litany of his legislative achievements. Curiously, he said little about the Vietnam
War, the event which brought down his Presidency.
History text writers generally do not echo Johnson’s view of his Great Society. Most of
them, definitely liberal in their social views, conclude that the Great Society and it focus on
poverty was only a qualified success. Alan Brinkley et al’s prize winning American History: A
Survey (8th ed., 1991, pp.888-894), for example, recounts what the authors see as achievements
of the Great Society and then discuss its legacies. In their judgment, “The vast costs of the
programs of the Great Society . . . contributed to a growing disillusionment in later years with the
idea of liberal efforts to solve social problems.” They add, “By the 1980s, many Americans had
become convinced that the Great Society social programs had not worked; that the Federal
Government lacked the expertise or the administrative capacity to make them work. . . ,”
observing further that many Americans thought that economic expansion had done more good to
lessen poverty than many government programs. They note, too, that others thought that parts of
18
the Great Society program were effective.
And, what do apologists, usually people who worked for Johnson, have to say about his
vision ? A classic expression of the apologist’s view is found in Joseph A. Califano, Jr.’s essay
“What Was Really Great About The Great Society.” He proudly noted that there were more than
100 legislative measures passed. And, he was very enthusiastic about the whole experiment, as
his essay makes clear. I have attached it to this piece for two reasons [Appendix “C”]. First, it
contains a wealth of data about the Great Society which will further aid students in their study of
it. Second, as noted, it is a classic defense by an insider and apologist. Noteworthy in passing is
Califano’s rather defensive observation, on the first page, that the Great Society was not “a failed
social experiment,” a view he attributes to many conservatives. Inferred, of course, was his belief
that it was the opposite, a successful social experiment!
3. Another View. Others in this conference will have much to say about Johnson’s vision
of a great society that is poverty free. Here, in concluding observations, I will make a few
suggestions about how to view poverty, especially about factors to consider in defining it.
Defining it, after all, will be very important.
First, it is crucial to note that some people just do not like to work very much! And, they
are content to live with less. In earlier times, others recognized their neighbors who had this
attitude toward work and left them alone. Frequently, these people gravitated towards each other
and lived in what, to others, would be inferior conditions. By the time of the Great Society,
elements of the middle class and many political elite thought “they knew what was best for this
class of workers”: those who were content to work less. Since they lived in what middle-class
people would consider “sub-standard” conditions, the middle-class reformers set out to change
their living conditions. That is, reformers set out to rescue them from poverty. It may not be
politically correct to say, and I am not a victim of that psychological fad, but discussions of
poverty should take this matter into account.
Let there be no doubt about what has just been stated. Some who are counted in the class
called “poverty-stricken” appear to be poor because they chose to work less and live on less.
19
Indeed, it has been well documented that they did not consider themselves to be poor, say in the
1960s, until they were told over and over again by social workers and the political elite that they
were poor. Contrast these people with others who are poor, in fact, because even with their best
efforts to care for themselves they end up with “insufficient food, clothing, and shelter—the
basic necessities of life.”
That last phrase is a good beginning definition of poverty. If poverty may be defined that
way, it is also true that there are levels of poverty within that definition. I have found it useful,
based upon empirical evidence, to see three levels of poverty. Consider the following. 1) “Poor”
refers to those who just get by, just manage to make ends meet with nothing to spare. 2) People
who do not manage to reach that level, who have less than what is necessary to get along, who
therefore also tend to have deteriorating health, may be referred to as “in want” or as “paupers.”
3) “Destitute” refers to yet another level of poverty, one that is grave or extreme, one that leads
to starvation. The actual terms are not what is important here, rather, it is the obvious descending
levels of material necessities.
Others in these lectures will, no doubt, refer to another class of people as in a “culture of
poverty.” These are likely people who are poor, often one generation following another, who
give up any attempt to better themselves through work or other opportunities—such as
education. There is much debate about this as will be evident in several papers presented here.
We may also inquire about the success of The War on Poverty. Surely there were large
numbers of poor in the 1960s as Johnson and others pointed out. We know that huge sums of
money were spent on poverty programs during Johnson’s years and we know that much more
has been spent since. Though no one knows for sure, estimates that several trillions of dollars
have been spent in 40 years rings true.
What do we make of this? What conclusions should we draw from these facts? Perhaps
the war on poverty has been won! On the other hand, we are told today by the Ted Kennedys and
John Kerrys of Washington that we still have 35 to 40 million poor among us. It appears that in
their view the war has not been won. Would it be fair to conclude that the war on poverty was
20
lost?
Perhaps we should inquire about how all that money was spent over the past 35 to 40
years. Who got the money? The poor? As a matter of fact, much of the poverty money did not go
to the poor, that is, it did not end up in the pockets of the poor. Studies show that large quantities
of the money went to the Middle Class. That is to say, much of the money went to an army of
social workers, battalions of land developers, platoons of subsidized housing landlords,
regiments of bankers, union construction workers, and several million government workers at all
levels. In all of this we may be sure that one more factor was at work—simple waste, always
present in inefficient government programs.
The lectures and papers in this series will have much more to say about all of this. They
will have other views about the success and failure of the Great Society’s War on Poverty. When
they are done, you surely will have a better understanding of poverty and the Great Society’s
effort to cure it.
March 11, 2005
Grove City, PA