Historians have disagreed with their assessments of the Great
Society. What is your view about whether Lyndon Johnson’s Great
Society failed?
When Lyndon B. Johnson initiated the Great Society in the 1960s, he
aimed for an “end to poverty and racial injustice”. 1
It was one of the most
ambitious domestic reform initiatives in American history and led to the
introduction of a series of domestic programs and legislation. It was
implemented around a wider context of both optimism and crisis. The
significant economic boom from the post war years and Johnson’s
landslide victory in the 1964 election seemed like the perfect opportunity
to introduce the Great Society. However, this ambitious program also sits
in the context of racial unrest, the Vietnam War draining finances, leading
to protests across America and growing Cold War pressures from abroad.
Historians have disagreed on whether Johnson’s Great Society ultimately
failed or if it was successful. Amity Shlaes presents a strongly negative
view of the Great Society and argues that it was a failure. She argues that
the expansion of federal programmes led to dependency and weakened
the economy and as a result the Great Society failed. In contrast, Randall
Wood offers a more balanced interpretation, recognising both the
achievements of the legislation implemented such as Medicare and the
Civil Rights Act, whilst also acknowledging the failures of the Great Society
arguing that it led to increased urban unrest and high economic costs.
Levitan and Taggart similarly agree that the Great Society was successful
due to the impact of the legislation implemented, leading to significant
reductions in poverty and long-term improvements in education and
healthcare. Additionally, they argue as a result that it lay the groundworks
for future social progress in America. In this essay I argue that ultimately
1
1“Remarks at the University of Michigan,” May 22, 1964. Online by Gerhard Peters and
John T. Woolley, The American Presidency
Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/239689
1
,the Great Society did not fail due to successes in civil rights and the long-
lasting improvements in healthcare and education. However, I will
acknowledge that it did not meet its overall aim to end poverty and racial
injustice and led to increased debt and higher inflation, so was not an
outright success. To measure the extent to which it was a success I will
use the criteria of the widespread, long lasting and profound impacts the
Great Society had.
A significant success of the Great Society according to Levitan and
Taggart was that, “The Great Society’s economic policies, which combined
tight labour markets with structural measures such as minimum wages
and manpower programs helped the employable poor.”2 They claim that
the programs implemented significantly helped in reducing the number of
Americans living in poverty. More specifically they state in their report
that, “in 1971, 43% of the otherwise poor were lifted out of poverty by
income transfers”.3 This highlights that whilst the Great Society did not
eradicate poverty it made a significant impact in reducing the number of
people living in poverty. This statistic is supported by the National Library
of Medicine which states that, “our national poverty rate fell 42% during
the war on poverty”.4 The reductions in poverty due to the Great Society
is further supported by Joshua Zeitz who states that Great Society
programmes had a “central role” and “continues to play- in reducing
poverty, alleviating the suffering of those who live in it”.5 Therefore, the
credibility of Levitan and Taggarts argument is reinforced as Zeitz’s
interpretation of the success of the Great Society is similarly focused on
poverty and claims that the programmes implemented lead to widespread
and long term successes in the reduction of poverty. However, Edward
Berkowitz and Kim Mcquiad state that whilst reductions in poverty did
occur it is largely due to the economic prosperity of the 1960s than to the
2
Sar A. Levitan and R. Taggart; ‘The Great Society Did Succeed’, Political Science
Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 4,Oxford University Press ,Winter 1976-77, p 611
3
Ibid.
4
National Library of Medicine; National Library of Medicine (NLM) Website, Bethesda, MD,
U.S. National Institutes of Health, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/
5
J, Zeitz ; Building the Great Society: Inside Lyndon Johnson’s White House,
Penguin,2018, p 314
2
, Great Society’s “ piecemeal interventions” from the federal government.6
Therefore, this raises the question if Levitan and Taggart are justified in
arguing that the Great Society’s schemes and the aid from the federal
government significantly led to a widespread reduction of poverty, or if it
was instead largely due to the economic prosperity of the 1960s.
Nonetheless, Levitan and Taggart’s arguments remain strong as federal
improvements, such as food stamp expansion and community action
projects, aided in the reduction of poverty that countrywide economic
growth would not have been able to achieve. More specifically, food
stamp expansion and community action projects directly raised living
standards in poor urban areas and rural areas. For example, the food
stamp expansion programme in 1965 was half a million and in 1969 it was
3 million and after Johnson’s presidency it continued to increase.7
Therefore, Levitan and Taggart’s arguments that the Great Society led to
significant reductions in poverty is justified as due to the Great Society’s
programmes poverty was reduced. However, it must be acknowledged
that it was also aided by the economic prosperity in the 1960s and not
solely due to the Great Society’s federal programmes, which undermines
Levitan and Taggart’s overall argument that due to the Great Society’s
programmes poverty was reduced, as they fail to acknowledge how
economic factors played a role in the reduced poverty rate.
Levitan and Taggart also claim the Great Society was a success due to its
successes in the field of civil rights, highlighting the transformative
impacts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act (1965).
They argue that “as a result of Great Society civil rights and other
initiatives, blacks made very substantial gains on a number of fronts
during the 1960s” and “the Great Society’s efforts were instrumental in
generating advancement”.8 There is no doubt that the status of blacks
improved in America as black voter registration in Mississippi increased
6
E.Berkowitz and McQuaid; Creating the Welfare State: The Political Economy of
Twentieth-Century Reform, New York, 1980,p 211.
7
Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; A Short History of SNAP,
Washington, DC, USDA, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/history
8
Sar A. Levitan and R. Taggart; ‘The Great Society Did Succeed’, Political Science
Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 4,Oxford University Press (Winter 1976-77),p 610
3
Society. What is your view about whether Lyndon Johnson’s Great
Society failed?
When Lyndon B. Johnson initiated the Great Society in the 1960s, he
aimed for an “end to poverty and racial injustice”. 1
It was one of the most
ambitious domestic reform initiatives in American history and led to the
introduction of a series of domestic programs and legislation. It was
implemented around a wider context of both optimism and crisis. The
significant economic boom from the post war years and Johnson’s
landslide victory in the 1964 election seemed like the perfect opportunity
to introduce the Great Society. However, this ambitious program also sits
in the context of racial unrest, the Vietnam War draining finances, leading
to protests across America and growing Cold War pressures from abroad.
Historians have disagreed on whether Johnson’s Great Society ultimately
failed or if it was successful. Amity Shlaes presents a strongly negative
view of the Great Society and argues that it was a failure. She argues that
the expansion of federal programmes led to dependency and weakened
the economy and as a result the Great Society failed. In contrast, Randall
Wood offers a more balanced interpretation, recognising both the
achievements of the legislation implemented such as Medicare and the
Civil Rights Act, whilst also acknowledging the failures of the Great Society
arguing that it led to increased urban unrest and high economic costs.
Levitan and Taggart similarly agree that the Great Society was successful
due to the impact of the legislation implemented, leading to significant
reductions in poverty and long-term improvements in education and
healthcare. Additionally, they argue as a result that it lay the groundworks
for future social progress in America. In this essay I argue that ultimately
1
1“Remarks at the University of Michigan,” May 22, 1964. Online by Gerhard Peters and
John T. Woolley, The American Presidency
Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/239689
1
,the Great Society did not fail due to successes in civil rights and the long-
lasting improvements in healthcare and education. However, I will
acknowledge that it did not meet its overall aim to end poverty and racial
injustice and led to increased debt and higher inflation, so was not an
outright success. To measure the extent to which it was a success I will
use the criteria of the widespread, long lasting and profound impacts the
Great Society had.
A significant success of the Great Society according to Levitan and
Taggart was that, “The Great Society’s economic policies, which combined
tight labour markets with structural measures such as minimum wages
and manpower programs helped the employable poor.”2 They claim that
the programs implemented significantly helped in reducing the number of
Americans living in poverty. More specifically they state in their report
that, “in 1971, 43% of the otherwise poor were lifted out of poverty by
income transfers”.3 This highlights that whilst the Great Society did not
eradicate poverty it made a significant impact in reducing the number of
people living in poverty. This statistic is supported by the National Library
of Medicine which states that, “our national poverty rate fell 42% during
the war on poverty”.4 The reductions in poverty due to the Great Society
is further supported by Joshua Zeitz who states that Great Society
programmes had a “central role” and “continues to play- in reducing
poverty, alleviating the suffering of those who live in it”.5 Therefore, the
credibility of Levitan and Taggarts argument is reinforced as Zeitz’s
interpretation of the success of the Great Society is similarly focused on
poverty and claims that the programmes implemented lead to widespread
and long term successes in the reduction of poverty. However, Edward
Berkowitz and Kim Mcquiad state that whilst reductions in poverty did
occur it is largely due to the economic prosperity of the 1960s than to the
2
Sar A. Levitan and R. Taggart; ‘The Great Society Did Succeed’, Political Science
Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 4,Oxford University Press ,Winter 1976-77, p 611
3
Ibid.
4
National Library of Medicine; National Library of Medicine (NLM) Website, Bethesda, MD,
U.S. National Institutes of Health, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/
5
J, Zeitz ; Building the Great Society: Inside Lyndon Johnson’s White House,
Penguin,2018, p 314
2
, Great Society’s “ piecemeal interventions” from the federal government.6
Therefore, this raises the question if Levitan and Taggart are justified in
arguing that the Great Society’s schemes and the aid from the federal
government significantly led to a widespread reduction of poverty, or if it
was instead largely due to the economic prosperity of the 1960s.
Nonetheless, Levitan and Taggart’s arguments remain strong as federal
improvements, such as food stamp expansion and community action
projects, aided in the reduction of poverty that countrywide economic
growth would not have been able to achieve. More specifically, food
stamp expansion and community action projects directly raised living
standards in poor urban areas and rural areas. For example, the food
stamp expansion programme in 1965 was half a million and in 1969 it was
3 million and after Johnson’s presidency it continued to increase.7
Therefore, Levitan and Taggart’s arguments that the Great Society led to
significant reductions in poverty is justified as due to the Great Society’s
programmes poverty was reduced. However, it must be acknowledged
that it was also aided by the economic prosperity in the 1960s and not
solely due to the Great Society’s federal programmes, which undermines
Levitan and Taggart’s overall argument that due to the Great Society’s
programmes poverty was reduced, as they fail to acknowledge how
economic factors played a role in the reduced poverty rate.
Levitan and Taggart also claim the Great Society was a success due to its
successes in the field of civil rights, highlighting the transformative
impacts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act (1965).
They argue that “as a result of Great Society civil rights and other
initiatives, blacks made very substantial gains on a number of fronts
during the 1960s” and “the Great Society’s efforts were instrumental in
generating advancement”.8 There is no doubt that the status of blacks
improved in America as black voter registration in Mississippi increased
6
E.Berkowitz and McQuaid; Creating the Welfare State: The Political Economy of
Twentieth-Century Reform, New York, 1980,p 211.
7
Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; A Short History of SNAP,
Washington, DC, USDA, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/history
8
Sar A. Levitan and R. Taggart; ‘The Great Society Did Succeed’, Political Science
Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 4,Oxford University Press (Winter 1976-77),p 610
3
