Previous | Next
408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490 of 763
Yes. Last week.
As I recall, he said that we really had to-- didn't just move
to the center in a philosophical sense, if I read his remarks
right, but he said we have to take a look at those Great Society
programs that we've had and see which ones were not effective and
get rid of those. Or at least reorient them.
We have to be more realistic, that's the diagram.
More realistic, yes.
And part of the realism, which he didn't mention, was
which ones of them were permitted to work. It's fashionable to
say they didn't work, but it's unfashionable to say why. Maybe
one of the reasons they didn't work was because they were seen
largely as a black-- the blacks. Even poor whites disassociated
themselves for the most part from anti-poverty programs, and the
anti-poverty programs did come in conflict with traditional
political power controlling forces. But nobody says that. It's
fashionable to say they didn't work. So therefore let's get rid
of them. It's equally unfashionable to say, all right, get rid
of them, so what will you put in its place that will work? Well!
Do nothing! Abandon them. There are expendable people in our
society and that's becoming the more and more fashionable thing
to accept. And among the expendables-- among the visible
© 2006 Columbia University
Libraries | Oral History
Research Office | Rights and
Permissions | Help