How did DeParle change my perception of the ability of social policy’s ability to combat poverty?

After reading the first several chapters of The American Dream by Jason DeParle, I have a slightly different perception of the ability of social policy to combat poverty, mostly that it is more complicated that I once believed. Coming from an undergraduate program in Sociology, I began reading this book knowing that there are structural barriers to ending poverty and it cannot be fixed with just a simple policy change. I believe that poverty cannot be combatted unless some things change on a societal level. However, I was not aware of how complicated the “war on poverty” has been and the intricate history and key people involved. I definitely have even less faith in our current political system after reading DeParle in being able to make any major strides in combatting poverty. Knowing how power and money impacts the decisions of lawmakers and leaders, I feel that it is unlikely for policy to eradicate poverty. DeParle’s account of welfare during the early 90s is evidence there is a lot of push and pull, especially when the budget is an issue.  Just as with President Clinton’s “end welfare as we know it” campaign, there is always going to be criticism on both sides of the coin. Thinking about it in terms of our current system, I still believe that social policy can be changed for the better and that we can see some minor changes in the unemployment rate and the poverty rate. However, I don’t foresee any significant changes in the current poverty issue in the current political climate.

In the stories of the women who relied on welfare as depicted in DeParle’s The American Dream, it is apparent that welfare is not combatting poverty for them and the future does not look promising. Even with their monthly check, the women are struggling to make ends meet and are never able to live without worry of money. In this “real life” example, I think it is evidence for the inability of the past and current welfare system to actually combat poverty, but instead just keep people barely “above water”.

Does DeParle believe that there is a liberty-equality trade-off?

On one hand, I do not think that DeParle believes there is a trade-off between liberty and equality. I think that the overall message of The American Dream is that the “pull yourself up by your boot straps” mentality is not true for all Americans (or people in general for that matter). I don’t think that DeParle would agree with the negative liberty side of Stone’s description, which views liberty as something that must be compromised for people with financial resources in order for impoverished people to have equality. DeParle would argue that the opportunities available to people with wealth, access, and resources far outmeasures anything that these people would have to “give up” in order for there to be more equality for those without access to the same things. I get a sense from DeParle that he would believe that everyone benefits whenever equality is reached and that it does not necessarily lead to anyone’s liberties being compromised. Therefore, DeParle’s overall view of liberty would be on the positive side of the argument and he would say that there is not a trade-off.

However, I think that the stories of Angie, Opal, and Jewell give some argument that DeParle may believe that there is a trade-off in America for people who are in need of government aid. These women were forced to give up their liberty in order to have a shot at “equality” in a sense. They were not free to live life as they pleased. For instance, in order to maintain the same income from their welfare check, they had to hide their employment. If they had true liberty, they would be able to report their work without an issue. In order to receive more in welfare, these women also moved to a different city. Their lives were relocated to Milwaukee due to the knowledge of having a chance at more income.  Waiting for months to hear back about jobs and having to wait for hours in order to talk with someone are also examples of how their lives were driven by the welfare system. In summary, my argument is that the women whose stories are told in DeParle’s American Dream prove that any shot at equality by using the American welfare system forces people to give up liberties. Therefore, I would argue that this means that DeParle may support the notion that there is a liberty-welfare trade-off if one views it from the perspective of someone who is enrolled in the welfare system.