America and the 'Great Society'

Model answer

The percentage of Americans living in poverty fell from about 19 percent in 1964 to about 11 percent in 1973, so it almost halved. One reason was Johnson's War on Poverty and Great Society, which gave poor people help such as food stamps, job training and free health care through Medicaid.

Model answer

Interpretation A argues that Johnson was deeply committed to the Great Society. It says he 'truly cared about poor children' because he had once taught Mexican-American children in a poor Texas town, and that in 1965 the Great Society 'was working'. A blames Vietnam, not Johnson, for the cuts, saying the war 'killed Johnson's dream'. Interpretation B argues that Johnson was not really committed. It says that 'the Great Society was a promise, and Johnson has broken it', and that he 'cares more about winning his war than about the poor at home'. B also says the poor were suffering twice, because poor young men who could not get into college were the ones being drafted. So, although both agree that the war took money from the Great Society, A sees Johnson as a sincere reformer whose dream was destroyed by the war, while B sees him as a president who chose war over the poor.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing because its main claims are supported by evidence. The share of Americans living in poverty did fall from about 19 percent in 1964 to about 11 percent in 1973, almost exactly from one in five to one in nine. Medicare, introduced in 1965, enrolled about 19 million elderly people in 1966, and poverty among the elderly fell sharply; Medicaid gave poor families access to doctors; and Head Start reached over half a million children in its first summer alone. A is also right that the Vietnam War took money that might have gone to the Great Society, since the war cost far more each year than the War on Poverty. However, A gives the Great Society all the credit, when strong economic growth and low unemployment in the 1960s also reduced poverty, and the author worked for the OEO, so she may be defending her own work.

Interpretation B has some truth in it. The number of families on welfare rose sharply in the late 1960s, and the Community Action Programs, which were supposed to involve the poor themselves, led to bitter quarrels with city mayors. The riots in Watts in 1965 and in Detroit in 1967 showed that poverty and anger remained in the ghettos. But B is a campaign speech from 1980, when Republicans like Ronald Reagan were attacking 'big government', so it is deliberately one-sided. It ignores the fall in poverty and the success of Medicare, which was so popular that no later government dared to abolish it.

Overall, A is more convincing. B is right that some programmes were wasteful and that the Great Society did not end poverty in the cities, but the fall in poverty and the lasting achievements of Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start show that the Great Society did make many Americans better off.

Model answer

Johnson's political skills were an important reason why he passed more reforms than Kennedy. He had served in Congress since the 1930s and had been Senate Majority Leader from 1955 to 1961, so he understood exactly how Congress worked and how to win votes. He was famous for the 'Johnson treatment', a mixture of persuasion, flattery, threats and favours. As a Texan he could deal with the Southern Democrats who had blocked Kennedy's plans, and he worked closely with Republican leaders such as Everett Dirksen. He was also personally committed to reform: he had run the New Deal's National Youth Administration in Texas in the 1930s and had taught poor Mexican-American children. Kennedy, by contrast, had been a less influential senator and often had poor relations with Congress.

The effects of Kennedy's assassination and the 1964 election were also very important. Kennedy had won the 1960 election by a tiny margin, so he had no strong mandate. After his assassination on 22 November 1963, the nation was in shock, and Johnson told Congress that the best way to honour Kennedy's memory was to pass his proposals; the tax cut and the Civil Rights Act were passed in 1964. Then, in November 1964, Johnson won a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, with about 61 percent of the vote, and the Democrats won huge majorities in Congress: 68 of the 100 seats in the Senate and about 295 in the House. This Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and many other reforms in 1965.

Overall, the effects of the assassination and the 1964 election were the more important reason. Johnson's skill mattered, but it was the same Johnson who found reform much harder after the Democrats lost 47 House seats in 1966. The national mood after Kennedy's death and the huge majorities of 1965-66 gave him an opportunity that Kennedy never had, and his skill allowed him to make the most of it.