Lest there be any doubt, as everybody piles on Nathan, I'd like to say that for whatever it's worth in my book he's on the side of the angels. I'd be surprised to learn that state spending on TANF/AFDC had decreased. It may have slowed down in growth. I don't know for certain. The bigger problems will come later, as I said in another post. Of course it makes a difference who's in charge, though sometimes we do get the perverse phenomenon of the leader indulging his ability to screw his own followers, as Reagan did for eight years on social issues, as Bush did with his spending increases, and as Bill has done to welfare recipients, among others. (as in other matters, Bill takes self-indulgence to new heights.) It's also true, as Louis pointed out via K. Pollitt, that the liberal movement folded up on this one. It proposed no clear alternative. Why is not so easy to answer confidently. My own pet theory is that by accepting the broad premises of deficit reduction and government shrinkage, liberals were unable to propose any substitute for AFDC or TANF that would actually help welfare recipients, since such plans would cost too much. The most logical sources of opposition would have been NOW and CDF, but they were too little and too late. The civil rights groups are struggling with reorganization and resource limitations. Maybe the bourgeois feminists were too bourgeois. Maybe CDF wanted to protect its relationship with the White House. "Stand for children" was a modern equivalent of what we used to call a "peace crawl," though I think the crawls had more effect than 'Stand.' Another point is that the GOP had many proposals at the time in many areas, so there were many fires to put out. Shit happened. MBS
