Miles to Go: A Personal History of Social Policy

We could sure use a statesman like Daniel Patrick Moynihan today. A thoughtful book from a thoughtful, highly experienced American. It remains relevant even today.

In a series of loosely-connected chapters roughly organized around topics such as illegitimacy, welfare, and the rise of drug "epidemics," Moynihan reviews his life, work and positions in social policy. Written in the aftermath of the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, Moynihan essentially seems to be arguing that liberalism needs to refocus its paradigm. He claims that much of our social policy is rooted in a 19th-century understanding of problems inherent to an industrial economy, and that by and large, these problems have been solved (for example, the problem of stabilizing the economy; he also has some interesting and novel insights on the "health-care crisis," pointing out that in comparison to the 1800s and early 1900s, the health care system has improved immeasurably, not least because we've finally managed to get the medical profession to the point where it actually *doesn't hurt* its patients--now if we could only pull off the same with psychology!) He argues that the problems we are now facing, such as the persistence of poverty in the inner cities, are problems germane to a new kind of *post-industrial* society, and are less amenable to the kinds of social policy solutions that helped deal with the earlier problems. He sees many modern problems as being significantly influenced by what he calls "character" effects. Putting this in less loaded terms, he's essentially arguing that urban poverty is concomitant with various negative social factors--such as fatherlessness, early single motherhood, drug lifestyle, etc.--which at the very least make it more difficult to escape conditions of urban poverty. (There is something to this idea: this is somewhat similar to the thesis put forward by Paul Willis in LEARNING TO LABOR, his study of British working-class youths.) These problems require new manners of approaches in order to deal with them. These approaches, however, have been lacking; partly, Moynihan argues, because liberals have been reluctant to discuss these negative social factors because it goes against political correctness and because it can sound like "blaming the victim." His stance against welfare reform comes across a little too much as "Think of the children! Won't somebody *please* THINK of the CHILDREN!" hysteria, and his apocalyptic predictions about mass homelessness, etc. were not borne out (see DeParle's book THE AMERICAN DREAM for a thorough exploration of this topic, but essentially it turned out that welfare recipients were a lot less dependent on welfare and a lot more able to find jobs than many on the left had thought--which isn't to say, by the way, that welfare reform worked). His rhetoric on crime also comes across as exaggerated and unreliable. For example, at one point he attempts to buttress an argument by comparing supposed lists of biggest problems faced by schools in the 1940s (chewing gum, running in halls, etc.) vs the 1990s (teen pregnancy, suicide, drugs.) This is an urban legend whi

First, let's realize what this book isn't. It is not a collection of previous essays, although it excerpts heavily from a number of essays, both from the 60s and the 90s. It is also not a memoir.It's an argument for a different role for the social sciences in policy making. First, it's an argument by repeated example of the predictive power of the social sciences. And, second, it's a call for social scientists and the government to start doing work seriously on the issues of the day. So, first. He's telling us that we can do social science that tells us things about the world that we live in. Like what? One, government supervision of the economy from WWII to the present day. Two, his observation in the 70s that the Soviet Union was already in the early stages of collapse. Three, his argument that the illegitimacy rates where (1) going to skyrocket and (2) that it would be a problem. He tells us that these were not mysterious phenomena and that had the data not been ignored, public policy could have addressed them appropriately. This is important, partly to remind us of it, but also to challenge some writers on the right, such as Thomas Sowell, who argues, essentially, the opposite.Second, this book argues that both the social scientists and the politicians need to take social science seriously. And, furthermore, part of the problem is the liberal professionalization of "Do Gooders". Why wasn't illegitimacy attacked in the 60s and 70s? Because some of the people on the left really are as morally squishy as the people on the right say they are! They were afraid to push a family structure, especially a "traditional" one.. Furthermore, he argues, that this phenomenon had been described by Durkheim in the Rules of Sociological Method.This book is, in the end, a call for a scientifically-informed moderate social policy. A social policy that is not afraid to speak of "values" and, indeed, "family values", but is also understands the sociology behind the modern/urban/liberal context. Furthermore, it's proof-by-example that it is achievable.

I must first note that this book is extremely poorly edited. It oscillates from current commentary to previously published essays and articles without significant distinction. This along with an introduction that occupies a third of the book makes for a frustrating read. Moreover, Moynihan doesn't always state what he is trying to say so the reader must be alert for not-so-obvious implications.Having said all this, this book is a true resevoir of wisdom. In tackling issues from moral decline to welfare reform to the drug war to "Reaganism," Moynihan both parts ways with contemporary liberalism while offering sharp critiques of past and current policies. Ever the social scientist, Moynihan is quick to demonstrate how "conventional wisdom" can be utterly wrong while at the same time dismissing those who would sieze on simplistice generalizations of scientific research in furtherance of radical agendas.A difficult read but well worth it.