Sargent Shriver, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Sixty years ago, August 20, 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the flagship law of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” came into effect. Although the New Deal had worked to alleviate poverty during the Great Depression, it had not constituted a consistent federal commitment to alleviating the roots of poverty. The focus on poverty was renewed with a best-selling book by Democratic Socialists of America founder Michael Harrington, The Other America (1962), in which he argued that the American poverty rate was much higher than was widely believed at the time. President Kennedy became aware of this book and rest assured, had he lived, he too would have pursued anti-poverty legislation. This legislation came in the form of the Economic Opportunity Act, sponsored by Senator Pat McNamara (D-Mich.), an ultra-liberal who was a champion of Walter Reuther and his United Auto Workers. In the House, the sponsor was a bit of a different figure in Representative Phil Landrum (D-Ga.), who had a conservative reputation and indeed had ticked off organized labor for his sponsorship of the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959, that as part of anti-corruption reforms curbed the ability of labor unions in certain areas. This measure established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), through which anti-poverty programs were to be administered. These programs included among others the Job Corps for job training and basic education for young people, the Neighborhood Youth Corps for young people from poor families, and Volunteers in Service to America to recruit and train volunteers to coordinate with organizations to combat poverty. Most controversially, this measure bypassed states to authorize funds for localities through the OEO director. President Lyndon B. Johnson said of the measure in his State of the Union Address, “This administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join me in that effort […] Poverty is a national problem, requiring improved national organization and support. But this attack, to be effective, must also be organized at the State and local level. For the war against poverty will not be won here in Washington. It must be won in the field, in every private home, in every public office, from the courthouse to the White House. Very often, a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom. Our aim is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty but to cure it–and above all, to prevent it. No single piece of legislation, however, is going to suffice” (Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum).  

The vote on the Economic Opportunity Act was achieved after a compromise in which governors were granted a veto over such programs which could be overridden by the Office of Economic Opportunity director. In practice, almost all vetoes issued by governors were overridden by OEO director Sargent Shriver (Merced Community Action Agency). The Senate vote came out 61-34 (D 51-12, R 10-22) on July 23, 1964, with the high margins being helped by the fact that Senate Republicans got slaughtered in the 1958 midterms, all with far more liberal Democratic replacements. The Senate Republicans are also on average more liberal than the House Republicans, thus they oppose by over 2-1 (as opposed to the House), Northern Democrats are almost unified (only Frank Lausche of Ohio votes nay) and Southern Democrats are split. The House vote came out to 226-185 (D 204-40, R 22-145) on August 8, 1964, and was a show of unity from Northern Democrats, who are overwhelmingly liberal, of overwhelming opposition from Republicans, and again, a split among Southern Democrats. This vote demonstrates a more ideologically diverse GOP and Southern Democrats not as monolithically conservative as they frequently are portrayed. Landrum’s sponsorship probably helped move the votes of some Southern Democrats to be in favor. This is also a highly ideologically salient vote, with the most conservative individual supporting the bill being Republican Eugene Siler of Kentucky, who paired for and scores a 0.25 by DW-Nominate. The most liberal individual opposing per DW-Nominate is Democrat Kenneth A. Roberts of Alabama with a -0.282, who was a part of the liberal wing of the Alabama Democratic Party, a faction that retained significance until after the 1964 election. Contrast this with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, whose highest scoring supporter was Republican Senator John J. Williams of Delaware, with a 0.603 and whose lowest scoring opponent was Democratic Congressman Dante Fascell of Florida with a -0.4. Region was a more important deciding factor on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than ideology, although ideology did play a role in how the vote breakdown occurred in the North. Another notable feature of this vote is the pairing of Massachusetts’ Joe Martin for. Martin was at one time known as a leader of the Conservative Coalition, but by this time his star had fallen since the 1958 midterms, and Massachusetts had changed much since he had started his service in 1925, when it was the state of Calvin Coolidge. However, Martin appears to have been a bit of a reluctant backer, as his votes on the anti-poverty program in the next Congress would be antagonistic. Some of the Southern Democrats who vote for this now would be more antagonistic to anti-poverty programs in the future, and some Republicans who vote against this now would be a bit friendlier. However, in the latter case, Republicans managed to secure significant concessions to these programs after the 1966 midterms. The impacts of this law long-term are disputed, as is the fall in poverty rates that occurred in the decade following.

Below is a document with the House and Senate vote breakdowns along with a modified 1964 Americans for Constitutional Action score for each of the voting legislators:

References

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0880182

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Merced Community Action Agency.

Retrieved from

https://www.mercedcaa.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Economic_Opportunity_Act_of_1964.pdf

H.R. 7152. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Adoption of a Resolution (H. Res. 789) Providing for House Approval of the Bill as Amended by the Senate. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0880182

H.R. 7152. Passage. Voteview.

Retrieved from

https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0880409

S. 2642. Passage. Voteview.

Retrieved from

Voteview | Plot Vote: 88th Congress > Senate > 452

S. 2642. Passage of the Anti-Poverty Bill Which Incorporated the Text of H.R. 11377. Voteview.

Retrieved from

Voteview | Plot Vote: 88th Congress > House > 201

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union. (1964, January 8). Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum.

Retrieved from

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union January 8, 1964 (archive.org)