Why America Lost the War on Poverty--And How to Win It

EIGHT: Cutting Poverty or Cutting Welfare: Conservatives Attack Liberalism

chapter eight cutting poverty or cutting welfare Conservatives Attack Liberalism Starting in the 1970s, there was a resurgence of conservatism in many of the rich nations of Western Europe and North America. High energy prices, slow economic growth, and tougher global competition fueled the conservative counterrevolution, but so also did conservatives, who worked hard to shape public debate. Nowhere was this more true than in the United States.∞ In the next chapter we will describe the political impact of conservative e√orts to undo the New Deal–1960s welfare state. In this chapter, we focus on the world of ideas and attitudes. In the United States, the Right seemed to be winning the battle of ideas on poverty and welfare. In 1984, Owen Harries, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, asserted that conservatives determined ‘‘the spirit of the age, the prevailing notions concerning what is possible, inevitable, desirable, permissible, and unspeakable.’’≤ By the mid-80s, when Americans and their columnists considered poverty, they were as likely to think about drugs and welfare fraud as about unemployment. Public opinion was not carved in stone; even in the mid-80s, after years of conservative speeches from the White House, the public supported more ‘‘assistance to the poor.’’≥ But while public opinion had not moved far to the right, conservatives increasingly set the agenda for public discussion. The reasons for conservative success are many. The first three have to do with background factors that made people more receptive to conservative stories. The first background factor was rapid social change and its e√ect on old beliefs. The 60s counterculture threatened the work ethic. The Vietnam War was profoundly unsettling to assumptions about national goodness and power. 158 / the 70s and 80s More wives went to work, and some demanded equality. At sea amid many conflicting currents, some people were receptive to conservative e√orts to scapegoat liberalism, feminism, and the welfare state.∂ A second factor involved reaction to government e√orts to expand opportunity for minorities and the poor. Conservative writers and Republican politicians attacked antipoverty programs and a≈rmative action, and their ideas moved white workers from the more labor-oriented Democrats to the more business-friendly Republicans.∑ A third and surprising boost to conservatism was the economic crisis of the 1970s: the highest unemployment rates since the 30s, along with soaring inflation . Imports rose, and hundreds of factories shut down. Conservatives worked hard to turn voter resentments away from business’s failure to modernize and toward government and taxation. These historical processes provided opportunities for action, but very important was the response of liberals, business, and conservatives. Liberal Democrats were ba∆ed because it seemed that economic growth could not provide benefits to both capital and labor. Confusions about how to fix the economy inclined liberals to relax their support for the welfare state and regulation of business. There was still plenty of left-wing activity at a local level and with respect to national issues like pollution, but liberalism as a national force was in disarray. Worried about low profit rates and smarting from losses to consumer activists , business groups reorganized their political and lobbying activities in the 70s and became diligent about funding right-wing attacks on social programs, progressive taxes, and regulation of business. At the workplace, capitalists increasingly took the low road: challenging unions’ very right to exist, laying o√ workers, and exporting jobs.∏ That brings us to the third camp. Conservatives organized and debated with increasing confidence and sophistication. The spread of conservative ideas in the 70s and 80s goes beyond questions of truth and falsity and involves fundraising , aggressive outreach, and a focus on a few big ideas. Conservatives urged business leaders to stop funding liberal professors and to start subsidizing explicitly pro-capitalist research.π They reformed old propaganda organizations (the American Enterprise Institute) and built new ones (the Heritage Foundation ). Heritage vice president Burton Pines admitted that he was not in the business of discussing all sides of an issue. ‘‘Our role is to provide conservative public-policy makers with arguments to bolster our side.’’ Liberal and union lobbyists were still active on Capitol Hill, but Heritage representatives wooed young congressional aides with free lunches and usable information. They sent ready-to-print opinion pieces to hundreds of papers around the nation.∫ cutting poverty or cutting welfare / 159 Perhaps because they began on the outside looking...