A High-Wire Crusade: Republicans and the War on Poverty, 1966

During 1966, the Republican Party launched a largely successful challenge to Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” Republican candidates pursued an anti–War on Poverty midterm strategy, which made antipoverty programs the symbol of Great Society liberalism, rather than its more popular programs, such as Medicare or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Moreover, in Congress and on the campaign trail, Republicans offered well-crafted alternatives—such as their “Opportunity Crusade”—to offset charges of negativism and elitism that had dogged the Grand Old Party (GOP) since the creation of the New Deal in the 1930s. Significantly, while the War on Poverty survived the year, the Republican minority was unexpectedly successful in making important changes to the Economic Opportunity Act during the antipoverty legislation’s renewal. Overall, the Republican challenge to the War on Poverty in 1966, boded ill for the program’s longevity when the GOP finally secured the levers of power.

409 George Street

This chapter discusses the founding of Craven Operation Progress (COP) and the broad and enthusiastic support it received from the North Carolina Fund, its first funding agency. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act in August 1964 critical antipoverty plans and programs for Craven County and nearby counties had been under way for more than half a year. These included a strawberry marketing program, a rural environmental sanitation program, adult basic education classes, and manpower training. From the very beginning, plans and incentives to combat the causes of poverty in Eastern North Carolina did not await direction or guidance from the federal government but grew instead out of local needs and circumstances.

How Johnson Fought the War on Poverty: The Economics and Politics of Funding at the Office of Economic Opportunity

This article presents a quantitative analysis of the geographic distribution of spending through the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act (EOA). Using newly assembled state- and county-level data, the results show that the Johnson administration directed funding in ways consistent with the War on Poverty's rhetoric of fighting poverty and racial discrimination: poorer areas and those with a greater share of nonwhite residents received systematically more funding. In contrast to New Deal spending, political variables explain very little of the variation in EOA funding. The smaller role of politics may help explain the strong backlash against the War on Poverty's programs.

The Voluntary Sector's War on Poverty

In 1970, Elizabeth Wickenden, a longtime activist on behalf of public social provision and a broker between voluntary social welfare agencies and the federal government, despaired of a quiet revolution occurring in social service provision. “Virtually unchallenged and undebated,” she observed, “the principle established with the first large-scale federal welfare program, the Federal Emergency Welfare Administration [sic], that public funds should only be expended by public agencies, was quietly repudiated.” Through a series of domestic initiatives, including the Economic Opportunity Act of 1965 and amendments to the Social Security Act in 1967, the federal government had begun to channel a significant amount of money through nongovernmental organizations. To older activists like Wickenden, who had fought hard to build the public infrastructure of the welfare state, such a trend was troubling, as it seemed to indicate a dwindling commitment to public social provision that had informed New Deal social policy.

The Mainline Churches and Head Start in Mississippi: Religious Activism in the Sixties

One of the most innovative provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act, passed by Congress in August 1964 as the heart of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, was funding for a preschool program for the youngest of America's poor, known as Head Start. Many children were qualified for Head Start in Mississippi, the poorest state in the nation. This was especially so in the northwest quadrant of that state. The area, known locally as “the Delta,” was dominated by the floodplain of the lower Mississippi River, a largely rural, cotton-based economy, and tens of thousands of desperately poor, largely black, farm workers.

War on Dependency: Liberal Individualism and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson, professing himself alarmed by the seemingly “endless growth of relief rolls,” declared “war” on poverty. Walter Heller, his chief economic adviser, had recently remarked that it would be quite possible to eliminate the symptoms of poverty by simply redistributing two percent of the national income. Johnson, however, preferred to attack thesourcesof deprivation, claiming that the range of rehabilitative services provided by his Economic Opportunity Act would allow the poor to engineer their own paths to affluence.

Head Start for the Handicapped: Congressional Mandate Audit

The 1972 Amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act mandated that not less than 10% of the Head Start enrollment nationwide be made available to handicapped children. This article reports research evaluating the effect of the mandate during the first year of its implementation. The findings indicate reasonable progress in meeting the needs of the handicapped; however, labeling appears to have increased and serious problems remain in accommodating youngsters with severe disabilities. Recommendations for the enhancement of Head Start efforts on behalf of the handicapped are including a suggestion for reducing society's inclination to segregate or exclude children with major differences in development.

Thoughts on poverty and its elimination

Efforts to eliminate poverty as a major domestic problem in the United States have a long history. The attack was significantly heightened in 1964 with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act, the statute designed as the foundation of the so-called war on poverty. In the succeeding years which have encompassed two national Administrations, one Democratic and the other Republican, a variety of means have been brought to bear on the problem. Public-assistance expenditures have spiralled upward and substantial amounts of money and manpower have been funnelled into preexisting and new programmes to increase total employment, improve housing, provide more and better health care, equalize opportunities and outcomes across ethnic and racial groupings, and bring legal justice, safety and security to those who have heretofore lacked the financial means for full enjoyment of these values. Still other anti-poverty programmes are under active consideration, most notably President Nixon's proposal to put an income floor under every American household.