RFK A New Democrat?

[MrHuman]

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

But I think RFK's ideas for welfare reform differed from what Clinton thought of and what he signed!

Well, of course. "Reform" is a ridiculously vague concept. I think it's clear (from Bedford-Stuyvesant) that RFK would have done a lot of gov't grants to private organizations to do good for the poor, and that he would have been serious about the "hand up instead of hand out" stuff. But he was very against entitlements, very for ways to establish requirements for receiving welfare.

[Plumber]

I always wondered how much of RFK's positions in the late '60s had to do with them being the opposite of what Johnson proposed.

[MrHuman]

Originally Posted by Plumber

I always wondered how much of RFK's positions in the late '60s had to do with them being the opposite of what Johnson proposed.

I think a decent amount. On the war, do you think?

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by MrHuman

I think a decent amount. On the war, do you think?

Yeah, though a lot of that was covering his ass from the Kennedy years, too. I meant domestically though. If LBJ had tried to abolish welfare in favor of a GMI, I can't see RFK playing ball.

[MrHuman]

Originally Posted by Plumber

Yeah, though a lot of that was covering his ass from the Kennedy years, too. I meant domestically though. If LBJ had tried to abolish welfare in favor of a GMI, I can't see RFK playing ball.

Really? I mean, Kennedy seems like someone who would support the abolition of welfare. I can only just see it happening because it's LBJ.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by MrHuman

Well, of course. "Reform" is a ridiculously vague concept. I think it's clear (from Bedford-Stuyvesant) that RFK would have done a lot of gov't grants to private organizations to do good for the poor, and that he would have been serious about the "hand up instead of hand out" stuff. But he was very against entitlements, very for ways to establish requirements for receiving welfare.

Bit more complicated than that, but yes, RFK's welfare reform would have looked very, very different from Clinton's. In terms of specifics:
- RFK actually came away from Bed-Stuy with a rather mixed feeling about getting the private sector involved; while he still thought that creating jobs and services and renovating the housing stock was critical to rebuilding the ghetto, he had come to the understanding that the private sector really couldn't get it done on its own, and outside a relatively small liberal group of CEOs, didn't want to without prodding.
- RFK would probably try to push through a version of some of the bills he worked on as Senator: the Urban Employment Opportunities Development Act involved heavy subsidies (basically guaranteed profitability) to businesses that agreed to invest in the ghetto and hire the unemployed; the Urban Housing Development Act did the same for building affordable rental housing while giving tenant coops access to federal financing and subsidies to buy housing; and a banking bill would have required banks holding Federal funds to give subsidized loans to businesses, builders, and ghetto residents with the Federal government acting as lender of last resort; finally an Emergency Employment Act in 1967 that would have created 300,000 public service jobs, covering 6% of the unemployed.
- Taking a look at his 1968 campaign speeches, you can find a call to expand public service employment to 2.4 million, replacing Community Action Programs with Community Development Corporations; the adoption of a GMI to replace welfare; and the merger and expansion of Medicaid and Medicare into universal health care.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

Please do, what can you give?

Well, I study the history of public policy, I know the 1960s and 1970s rather well and can certainly provide a list of good secondary sources, and I did write a paper a long time ago on RFK and may be able to dig up some primary sources that I used if I still have them somewhere.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by MrHuman

Well, of course. "Reform" is a ridiculously vague concept. I think it's clear (from Bedford-Stuyvesant) that RFK would have done a lot of gov't grants to private organizations to do good for the poor, and that he would have been serious about the "hand up instead of hand out" stuff. But he was very against entitlements, very for ways to establish requirements for receiving welfare.

Well, the key thing is what he wanted to replace it with.

His policy papers from his 1968 campaign are actually kind of schizophrenic; on the one hand, he's adopting a lot of the National Welfare Rights Organization's positions (family unity, abolishing the means test, guaranteed minimum income), on the other he wants to abolish the program and emphasize programs to support the working poor and to provide work for the poor.

[Beedok]

So we're trying to get him to move to Canada?

[MrHuman]

Originally Posted by StevenAttewell

Well, the key thing is what he wanted to replace it with.

His policy papers from his 1968 campaign are actually kind of schizophrenic; on the one hand, he's adopting a lot of the National Welfare Rights Organization's positions (family unity, abolishing the means test, guaranteed minimum income), on the other he wants to abolish the program and emphasize programs to support the working poor and to provide work for the poor.

Oh, alright. I do think that to an extent that confirms that essentially he was choosing positions to take based on the political landscape at the time. And my main issue is I'm not clear on how the provisions to provide work would work exactly. Would it just be the Bedford-Stuyvesant stuff? How much government involvement are we talking about if he takes this stuff national? Since you clearly actually know a lot about this, I'd really like to see what you think the answer to that is.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by MrHuman

Oh, alright. I do think that to an extent that confirms that essentially he was choosing positions to take based on the political landscape at the time. And my main issue is I'm not clear on how the provisions to provide work would work exactly. Would it just be the Bedford-Stuyvesant stuff? How much government involvement are we talking about if he takes this stuff national? Since you clearly actually know a lot about this, I'd really like to see what you think the answer to that is.

I think the idea would be to encourage private sector job creation as much as possible, but with the government acting as employer of last resort as a backstop.

[MrHuman]

Originally Posted by StevenAttewell

I think the idea would be to encourage private sector job creation as much as possible, but with the government acting as employer of last resort as a backstop.

Alright. But doesn't the gov't as employer of last resort almost necessitate full employment? I didn't really think of Kennedy as someone who would attempt that.

[THE OBSERVER]

Originally Posted by StevenAttewell

Well, I study the history of public policy, I know the 1960s and 1970s rather well and can certainly provide a list of good secondary sources, and I did write a paper a long time ago on RFK and may be able to dig up some primary sources that I used if I still have them somewhere.

Thanks man. Appreciate it!

[Stolengood]

Originally Posted by Æsir

I don't mean to say this in a negative way, but I think that Roguebeaver's analysis of RFK weighs on perceptions here.

Originally Posted by THE OBSERVER

Perhaps for future TL'S, an alternative analysis of RFK should be used instead of RogueBeaver's.

So... what was his analysis of RFK, then?

[Van555]

Originally Posted by Stolengood

So... what was his analysis of RFK, then?

Clinton before clinton?

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by MrHuman

Alright. But doesn't the gov't as employer of last resort almost necessitate full employment? I didn't really think of Kennedy as someone who would attempt that.

Of course he would. Full employment was a standard part of the Democratic party platform from Roosevelt up until Carter; hell, JFK's main domestic campaign issue in 1960 had been the argument that Eisenhower's obsession with balanced budgets and controlling inflation had undercharged economic growth and prevented full employment from happening.

[Magniac]

There's an AH.com consensus about RFK being a New Democrat? That passed me by.

Originally Posted by StevenAttewell

Well, I study the history of public policy, I know the 1960s and 1970s rather well and can certainly provide a list of good secondary sources, and I did write a paper a long time ago on RFK and may be able to dig up some primary sources that I used if I still have them somewhere.

I don't want to sound snarky, but I'm a bit surprised you haven't used the term 'corporatist' here about RFK's contrary positions on welfare and urban development (though I guess you're merely skimming the surface).

Anyway, I think this attention to detail is refreshing. I understand why other members are frustrated with AH.com's fictional scenarios about RFK.

That said, I'd try to stay away from serious PoD- and TL-thinking when trying to do a thread centred on realworld analysis. The site really needs more discussion about what happened, not what we exatrapolate might have been.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by Magniac

I don't want to sound snarky, but I'm a bit surprised you haven't used the term 'corporatist' here about RFK's contrary positions on welfare and urban development (though I guess you're merely skimming the surface).

I'm simplifying, obviously, but I think corporatist doesn't quite capture it either. I think the larger thing is that RFK wasn't happy with the kind of welfare state and urban development that had emerged in American cities by the 1960s, and wanted a change. He tried a corporatist model with Bed-Stuy, but his conclusion was mixed at best - I think it's fair to say that RFK thought that business on its own had neither the resources nor the willpower to deal with poverty, but he still wanted a format that emphasized work and economic development, and one that empowered the poor.

So I see it as a mix between the community empowerment attitudes found within a spectrum of the War on Poverty/Great Society liberals, the New Left, and the Black Power movement, combined with some corporatist or dirigiste elements, combined with a traditional liberal emphasis on state-provided universal health care, minimum income, and direct job creation.

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by StevenAttewell

So I see it as a mix between the community empowerment attitudes found within a spectrum of the War on Poverty/Great Society liberals, the New Left, and the Black Power movement, combined with some corporatist or dirigiste elements, combined with a traditional liberal emphasis on state-provided universal health care, minimum income, and direct job creation.

Surely you've made the connection between this line of thinking and a certain presidential quote: "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." (And it isn't Bill Clinton saying that. It's Mr All Good Centrist Democrats Should Roll Back His Legacy himself.)

Anyway, whatever RFK's economic doctrine was, I doubt he can be classified as a neoliberal, which seems to be what some people here are dedicated towards.

[StevenAttewell]

Originally Posted by Magniac

Surely you've made the connection between this line of thinking and a certain presidential quote: "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." (And it isn't Bill Clinton saying that. It's Mr All Good Centrist Democrats Should Roll Back His Legacy himself.)

Anyway, whatever RFK's economic doctrine was, I doubt he can be classified as a neoliberal, which seems to be what some people here are dedicated towards.

Well, yes, of course (although I'd note that Clinton, like Reagan, loved to quote FDR as an argument for why FDR's legacy should be rolled back). FDR was also very eclectic in his thinking, and also moved from (relatively) right to left in his political career without ever settling on one particular school of thought.

But yes, RFK is not a neoliberal. I don't think you can really call many American politicians in the 1960s neoliberals; I would say I'd put 1974-1976 as the earliest I'd call any American politician a proto-neoliberal.