An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Mercedes White — Why the U.S. lost the war on poverty [Stephanie Kelton quoted]
Stephanie Kelton quoted. Good to see Stephanie becoming a go-to person for reporters.
Well, if Gar Alperovitz is right, and he almost certainly is, the "War on Poverty" was never really waged. According to Alperovitz virtually all the legislation that constituted the alleged war on poverty was enacted during a brief window of opportunity after Johnson's election in 1964 and before he got bogged down in Vietnam. After that it was never really taken up again, other than to be used as a political football. Few people seem to understand how paltry the programs actually are, but everyone has an opinion, a "moral" position on them.
There was a student joke at the Buffalo student paper years ago.
"It's now possible to operate on an extremely obese woman.
But it's still better to use an operating table."
[before she sings?]
Maybe Gar never saw such semantics used ON gullible voters?
ps: many nominally "moral" positions involve sitting on them in reality; similar to a filibuster The Tyranny of Words really works on the gullible, who've never heard of semantics or sophism, just Budweiser.
Bill, in a way that's true. Given that the Democratic party wasn't really interested in aggressively pursuing an anti-poverty agenda by 1980, it was easy for Reagan to stigmatize the "Great Society" programs by producing "welfare queen" ads, etc. He did do a lot to change the public discourse from "war on poverty" to "war on the poor," which is pretty much where it's been since.
Read the history. Lee Atwater realized the wisdom of Nixon's Southern strategy for the GOP but saw that it could no longer be packaged as overt racism.
So "poor" became a code word for people of color, and "welfare queen" was one of the ways it was sold.
It's still being used as a wedge issue in this way.
Read the history. Lee Atwater realized the wisdom of Nixon's Southern strategy for the GOP but saw that it could no longer be packaged as overt racism.
I'm aware of that history, and the details of how the conservative backlash to "the sixties" was orchestrated have gotten plenty of play. I think Alperovitz made a deeper historical point in the interviews you linked to in that "progressive moments" have been few and far between in American history. Usually the slugs in power don't take advantage of them and they go by as missed opportunities. Johnson actually used his which made him unusual. The conservative backlash was inevitable and ongoing. Of course, nowadays, "conservative backlashes" are orchestrated and rehearsed before progressive windows of opportunity ever have a chance of opening, even if it means inventing absurd socialist strawmen out of thin air to justify the same tired tactics.
Usually the slugs in power don't take advantage of them and they go by as missed opportunities. Johnson actually used his which made him unusual. An excellent illustration of this is Johnson as Senate majority leader, as related by Caro. He noted at one point that conservative opponents had momentarily left the Senate chamber - and immediately pushed through a 33% raise in the minimum wage to $1. Unfortunately, Minsky, who had some serious political backing, couldn't get Kennedy or Johnson behind his JG later.
Well, if Gar Alperovitz is right, and he almost certainly is, the "War on Poverty" was never really waged. According to Alperovitz virtually all the legislation that constituted the alleged war on poverty was enacted during a brief window of opportunity after Johnson's election in 1964 and before he got bogged down in Vietnam. After that it was never really taken up again, other than to be used as a political football. Few people seem to understand how paltry the programs actually are, but everyone has an opinion, a "moral" position on them.
ReplyDeleteOver? Not 'til the Obese Lady sings ... in WalMart.
ReplyDeleteOk, maybe it is over.
But not at the same pace everywhere.
War on Poverty wasn't waged?
ReplyDeleteDefine "on"
There was a student joke at the Buffalo student paper years ago.
"It's now possible to operate on an extremely obese woman.
But it's still better to use an operating table."
[before she sings?]
Maybe Gar never saw such semantics used ON gullible voters?
ps: many nominally "moral" positions involve sitting on them in reality; similar to a filibuster
The Tyranny of Words really works on the gullible, who've never heard of semantics or sophism, just Budweiser.
Didn't Reagan end the War on Poverty?
ReplyDeleteBill, in a way that's true. Given that the Democratic party wasn't really interested in aggressively pursuing an anti-poverty agenda by 1980, it was easy for Reagan to stigmatize the "Great Society" programs by producing "welfare queen" ads, etc. He did do a lot to change the public discourse from "war on poverty" to "war on the poor," which is pretty much where it's been since.
ReplyDeleteRead the history. Lee Atwater realized the wisdom of Nixon's Southern strategy for the GOP but saw that it could no longer be packaged as overt racism.
ReplyDeleteSo "poor" became a code word for people of color, and "welfare queen" was one of the ways it was sold.
It's still being used as a wedge issue in this way.
Yes Reagan ended the war on poverty.
ReplyDeleteHe said that the bible says that the poor will always be with you so it is not your responsibility.
Read the history. Lee Atwater realized the wisdom of Nixon's Southern strategy for the GOP but saw that it could no longer be packaged as overt racism.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of that history, and the details of how the conservative backlash to "the sixties" was orchestrated have gotten plenty of play. I think Alperovitz made a deeper historical point in the interviews you linked to in that "progressive moments" have been few and far between in American history. Usually the slugs in power don't take advantage of them and they go by as missed opportunities. Johnson actually used his which made him unusual. The conservative backlash was inevitable and ongoing. Of course, nowadays, "conservative backlashes" are orchestrated and rehearsed before progressive windows of opportunity ever have a chance of opening, even if it means inventing absurd socialist strawmen out of thin air to justify the same tired tactics.
Usually the slugs in power don't take advantage of them and they go by as missed opportunities. Johnson actually used his which made him unusual. An excellent illustration of this is Johnson as Senate majority leader, as related by Caro. He noted at one point that conservative opponents had momentarily left the Senate chamber - and immediately pushed through a 33% raise in the minimum wage to $1. Unfortunately, Minsky, who had some serious political backing, couldn't get Kennedy or Johnson behind his JG later.
ReplyDelete