Description
There are many ways individuals and groups choose to influence their communities. One way is through working with government to shape and manage public policy. In this lesson, students will study how public policy was used to fight poverty in the 1960s.
In 1964, 30 million Americans lived in poverty. As part of his Great Society program, President Lyndon Johnson launched a War on Poverty and asked Sargent Shriver to direct this effort. Speaking about the challenge facing Shriver, Scott Stossel, author of Sarge: A Biography of Sargent Shriver, remarked:
If a general was asked, you know, I want you to launch a war on Grenada, could you invade it and take it over, well you know that’s something you can get your mind around. But, a war on poverty? That’s like saying could you . . . for all intents and purposes, . . . wage war on gravity?1
Undeterred by the daunting task of launching a War on Poverty, when asked if poverty could be wiped out, Shriver answered unequivocally, “Yes I do. Very bad health care, very bad schools. That kind of poverty doesn’t need to exist today. It can be wiped out,” he argued.2 In the beginning of this lesson, students will see a short clip from the film when Shriver is asked to direct the War on Poverty and then they will have the opportunity “to offer him” advice.
Like any war general, Shriver’s decisions were guided by a coherent and explicit strategy. He firmly believed that the way to help people rise out of poverty was to help them help themselves. Professor James T. Fisher explains, “Shriver hated the idea of handouts, which he equated with what he called cheap grace—a kind of charity [that] does not empower people.”3 Describing his strategy for the War on Poverty, Shriver states, “This is no handout program. There are no giveaways in the War on Poverty. We’re investing in human dignity, not in doles.”4 While Shriver expressed a belief that individuals are capable of getting themselves out of poverty, he also argued that it is the government’s responsibility to provide services that help people in the effort to improve their lives. “Our idea was to discover ways in which people could be helped to help themselves,” he explained, thus outlining his strategy for leading the War on Poverty.5
One of the purposes of this lesson is to help students learn about different approaches to fighting poverty, and conducting public policy in general. The general population does not agree about the “proper” role for government and the individual when it comes to alleviating poverty. Most likely, your students’ views will not share the same beliefs either. Thus, a conversation about approaches to fighting poverty must be grounded in rules about respectful discourse. For some students, a discussion about poverty may be abstract and intellectual, while for others it might be concrete and visceral. An open, respectful classroom climate provides the safest space for students to share their experiences, opinions, and questions about this important and sensitive topic.
Another goal of this lesson is to help students identify the tactics (or tools) Shriver used to support his strategy in the War on Poverty. For example, Shriver developed a variety of programs designed to help people use political institutions, education, and the justice system to reduce poverty in their own lives and in their communities. In the film American Idealist, we see how Shriver was able to secure federal funding and community support for his programs by listening to community members’ needs, conducting thorough research about problems and solutions, and negotiating with legislators. By studying Shriver’s tactics as director of the War on Poverty, students can discover tools they can apply to solving other problems.
American Idealist also documents some of the obstacles Shriver faced as director of the War on Poverty. Politicians, including mayors and senators, questioned the concept of giving funding directly to people in the community to run their own programs. They also were skeptical of the idea that legal action against government offices should be supported with federal dollars. Yet the most significant challenge to the War on Poverty came in the form of another war: the Vietnam War. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided that the Vietnam War was the nation’s highest priority, and Congress allowed funding for the Office of Economic Opportunity to lapse. As a result, Shriver was forced to cancel several anti-poverty programs. Even though Shriver was ultimately able to convince Congress to restore much of the funding for his programs, he became increasingly aware that he would never be able to garner the investment needed to truly end poverty. With this realization in mind, Shriver retired as director of the War on Poverty in 1968.
In his four years as the leader of the War on Poverty, Shriver achieved many successes. According to American Idealist, “From 1964 to 1968, nearly one out of every three poor Americans left the poverty rolls. It was the largest four-year drop ever recorded.”6 The film provides the following evidence documenting how the War on Poverty had begun to alleviate America’s poverty problem:
- Head Start led to a revolution in early childhood education. Twenty-three million children have benefited from the program and thousands of women have used Head Start teaching as a pathway to enter the workforce.
- Community Action provided political training and pathways into public office and other positions of power for tens of thousands of blacks and Latinos.
- Legal Services invented the practice of poverty law. Its lawyers won hundreds of cases before the Supreme Court, thus advancing opportunities for the poor nationwide in education, employment, and housing.
Many of the programs Shriver started in the 1960s still help Americans today. Yet, how does one begin to evaluate success in a war on poverty? There are more poor people in the United States today than in 1964 when Shriver began his War on Poverty. In 2006, 36.5 million people, over 12 percent of the population of the United States, were classified as poor by the federal government.7 What is being done today to fight poverty? What are effective ways to reduce poverty? Who is ultimately responsible for participating in the War on Poverty? Studying the work of Sargent Shriver is one way to begin answering these important questions.